NEGLIGENCE

 Negligence is statutorily defined to be the

omission of that degree of diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of persons,
time and place (Article 1173, New Civil Code).
 It also refers to the conduct which creates undue
risk of harm to another, the failure to observe the
degree of care, precaution and vigilance that
the circumstance justly demands, whereby that
other person suffers injury (Smith Bell Dodwell
Shipping Agency Corporation vs Borja, G.R. No.
143008, June 10, 2002).

NEGLIGENCE
 Negligence was defined as the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing
of something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. It is the failure to observe for
the protection of the interests of another person,
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury
(Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 249
Phil. 363 (1988).

NEGLIGENCE
 The test by which to determine the existence of
negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant, in doing the alleged
negligent act, use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinary prudent person would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
GUILTY of negligence.
 The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that (Picart vs Smith, 37 Phil. 809)

TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE

OF NEGLIGENCE
 SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE – is the failure to exercise
great or extraordinary care.
 ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE – is the want of ordinary
care and diligence, that is, such care and
diligence as an ordinarily prudent person would
exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
 GROSS NEGLIGENCE – is materially greater than
ordinary negligence, and consists of an entire
absence of care or an absence of even slight
care or diligence; it implies a thoughtless
disregard for consequences or an indifference to
the rights or welfare of others.

DEGRESS OF NEGLIGENCE
 The concept is relative and comparative. The
degree of care to be exercised depends uopn
the person, place and time.
 “Negligence is want of care required by the
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative not
an absolute term, and its application depends
upon the situation of the parties, and the degree
of care and vigilance which the circumstances
reasonably impose.” US v Janillo, GR No. 7255

NATURE OF THE CONCEPT

  Inconsidering negligence, among the many
factors to be taken into consideration are:
 Time;

 Place;

 Persons exposed to the risk;

CIRCUMSTANCES
 Emergency Rule;TO CONSIDER
IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
  In People vs Ramirez, the accused shot his companion
while they were hunting at night and alleged that he
seemed to have seen with his lantern something like
the eyes of a deer, about 50 meters from him then he
shot it. Unfortunately, he did not expect to find one of
his companions on the spot for he had warned them
not to leave the place where he left them.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that
a person who was carrying a firearm to hunt at
nighttime with the aid of lantern knowing that he had
two companions should have exercised all the
CIRCUMSTANCES: TIME
necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable
accident.
 A man who should have occasion to discharge a
gun on an open and extensive marsh, or in a
forest would be required to use less
circumspection and care, than if he were to do
the same thing in an inhabited town, village, or
city. (People vs Cusi)

CIRCUMSTANCES: PLACE
  The fact that the plaintiff who was injured is a
disabled person, or a pregnant woman, or a
senior citizen and the defendant was aware of
such condition of the person exposed to the risk,
may, in certain cases, be taken into consideration
in determining if the defendant was negligent.
CIRCUMSTANCES: PERSONS
EXPOSED TO THE RISK
  An individual who suddenly finds himself in a
situation of danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means that may
be adopted to avoid the impending danger is
NOT guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake
what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to be a better solution, unless the
CIRCUMSTANCES: EMERGENCY
emergency was brought by his own negligence.
(Gan vs Court of Appeals)
RULE
 Proximate cause has been defined as “…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. (G.R.
No. 184905, August 28, 2009)
 Proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate
cause; it’s not necessarily the nearest time, distance or
space (People v. Elizalde, 59 Off. Gaz. 1241).
 To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the
negligence need not be the event closest in time to the
injury; a cause is still proximate, although farther in time
in relation to the injury, if the happening of it set other
foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately in the
damage.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
 Negligence Civil Liability Act/Omission Damage
Direct Causal Connection

Reasonable
Foreseeability

CONCEPT OF PROXIMATE
CAUSE
 The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in
actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach
of contract.
 The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a
person where there is no relation between him and
another party. In such a case, the obligation is created
by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, it is the
parties themselves who create the obligation, and the
function of the law is merely to regulate the relation
thus created (Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039. May
31, 2000).

APPLICATION OF PROXIMATE
CAUSE
 TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE
CAUSE
1. ‘BUT-FOR’ TEST or SINE QUA NON RULE –
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause without
which the injury would not have occurred or is the
efficient cause which set in motion the chain of
circumstances leading to the injury. (Bataclan v.
Medina)
2. TESTS IN DETERMINING
SUFFICIENT LINK PROXIMATE
CAUSE
The Supreme Court has adopted a relaxation of the
“but for” test in Dy Teban v. Jose Ching [G.R. No.
161803 (2008). 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.
3. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR – If the actor’s conduct is
TESTS
another,INthe DETERMINING PROXIMATE
a substantial factor in bringing about harm to
fact that the actor neither foresees nor
CAUSE
should have foreseen the harm or the manner in
which it occurred, does not prevent him from being
liable. [Philippine Rabbit v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66102-
04 (1990)]
4. MIXED CONSIDERATIONS – There is no exact
formula to determine probable cause. It is based
upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense,
policy and precedent (Dy Teban v. Jose Ching)
 cause and condition has already been almost
TESTS
entirely IN DETERMINING
discredited. So far as it has PROXIMATE
any validity at

CAUSE
all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces
set in operation by the defendant have come to rest
in a position of apparent safety, and some new force
intervense. But even in such cases, it is not the
distinction between “cause” and “condition” which is
important, but the nature of the risk and the
character of the intervening cause (Phoenix
Construction v. IAC).
 antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not
TESTS
precludeIN
himDETERMINING PROXIMATE
from recovering damages caused by
the supervening negligence of the defendant, who
CAUSE
had the last fair chance to prevent the impending
harm by the exercise of due diligence [PNR v.
Brunty].
If both parties are found to be negligent; but, their
negligence are not contemporaneous, 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].
TYPES OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
 Once the negligence is established, the next
inquiry will be: WAS THAT NEGLIGENCE THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OR LEGAL CAUSE OF THE
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY?

 To be considered the proximate cause of the

injury, the negligence need not be the event
closest in time to the injury; a cause is still
proximate, although farther in time in relation to
the injury, if the happening of it set other
foreseeable events into motion resulting
ultimately in the damage.

NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE
CAUSE
Where the concurrent or successive negligent
acts or omissions of two or more persons,
although acting independently, are in
combination with the direct and proximate
cause of a single injury to a third person, and it
is impossible to determine what proportion
each contributed to the injury, either of them is
responsible for the whole injury, even though
his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-
21512, August 31, 1966).

PRINCIPLE OF CONCURRENT
CAUSES
 As a rule, negligence is not presumed
since the issue of negligence is factual.
Mere suspicion, surmise or speculation
cannot be the basis of an award for
damages.

BURDEN OF PROOF
 WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ESTABLISH
NEGLIGENCE?

 If negligence is not established, there

can be no damages, thus the need for its
establishment. Where it appears that an
injury was received in an accident,
without the intervention of negligence of
any kind, no damages can be recovered
by reason of such injury (Brown vs Manila
Electric Railroad and Light Company,
G.R. No. 6666)

BURDEN OF PROOF
  Theburden of proof of proving negligence that is
the proximate cause of the quasi-delict is on the
WHO BEARS
person THEthe
alleging BURDEN?
same. (Cea v. Villanueva, GR
No. L-5446)
 The facts constitutive of negligence must be
affirmatively established by competent evidence.
Whoever relies on negligence for his cause of
action has the burden in the first instance of proving
the existence of the same if contested, otherwise
his action must fail. (PLDT. V. CA)

HOW IS IT PROVEN?
 “Where it appears that an injury was
received in an accident, without the
intervention of negligence of any kind, no
damages can be recovered by reason of
such injury.” (Brown v. Manila Electric
Railroad and Light Company)

WHAT HAPPENS IF NEGLIGENCE

IS NOT ESTABLISHED?
 An occurrence by chance, not as expected.
 An act of God has been defined as an accident,
due directly and exclusively to natural causes
without human intervention, which by no amount of
foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been
expected, could have been prevented. (Napkin &
Sons v. CA)

ACCIDENT DEFINED
 As a rule, negligence is not presumed
since the issue of negligence is factual.
Mere suspicion, surmise or speculation
cannot be the basis of an award for
damages.

PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE
 The Civil Code provides for the following cases when the
existence of negligence is presumed.

 Art. 2184- It is disputably presumed that a driver was

negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving
or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.

 Art. 2185- Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is

presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic violation.
WHEN IS IT PRESUMED?
 Art. 2188- There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or
injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except
The presumption under Article 2185
applies only to the person driving a motor
vehicle at the time of the mishap. It DOES
NOT apply to non motorized vehicles like
bicycles.

APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 2185

The party invoking a presumption must still
establish certain factual preconditions
before the presumption can operate. Thus,
Article 2185 requires proof that there was a
violation of a traffic regulation while Article
2188 requires proof of possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such
as firearms and poison.

FACTS THAT MUST BE

ESTABLISHED
 In the absence of specific traffic rules, Courts
take cognizance of the “ Law of the Road “.
 The “ Law of the Road “ is the custom or practice
that has become crystallized in to an accepted
system of rules regulating travel on highways.
 It was rules that the very fact of speeding is
indicative of imprudent behavior. It is also part of
the law of the road that a driver must slow down
before negotiating a curve.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE

ROAD
 Presumption of negligence may also arise
because of certain contractual relationship
between the parties. Thus, the Civil Code
provides for a presumption of negligence in case
a passenger was injured in an accident involving
carrier.
 In case of death of or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently unless they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 (Article
1756, New Civil Code)

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP