Franco Cruz Vs CA: Proximate Legal Cause

Lawyers
Franco Cruz vs CA
GEN RULE: negligence of the counsel binds the client
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where recless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;
2. When its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property;
3. Where the interests of justice require.
Jacot vs Dal
Banks
Phil Bank of Commerce vs CA
Degree of care required : more than that of a good father of a family. Considering, the fiduciary nature of their
relationship with their depositiors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with THE HIGHEST
DEGREE OF CARE.
Metropolitan Bank Trust & Co vs Tobias
Metrobanks, as a commercial bank in real property had the duty to observe due diligence to ascertain the existence
and condition of the realty as well as the validity of the documents bearing on the realty. Its duty include the
responsibility of dispatching its competent and experience representative. METROBANK DID NOT
DILIGENTLY perform a thorough check on Tobias and the circumstances surrounding the realty he ahd
offered as collateral.
Causation
CONCEPT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
In order that civil liability for negligence may arise, there must be a direct causal connection between
the damage suffered by the plaintiff and the act or omission of the defendant. In other words, the act or
omission of the defendant must be the proximate cause of the loss or damage of the plaintiff.
Proximate cause cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause,
produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.
PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE:
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
Remote cause some independent force, merely took advantage of, to accomplish something not the natural effect
thereof.
Nearest cause proximate defined as being in immediate relation with somethingelse, next or near (Proximate
cause is NOT necessarily the nearest cause)
EFFECT OF CONCURRENT CAUSES
Concurrent cause - Several causes producing the injury, and each is an efficient cause without which
the injury would not have happened. The injury is attributed to any or all the causes, and recovery may be
had against any or all of those responsible.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA: Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or
more persons, although acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a
single injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the
injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted in
injury or damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the resulting
damage.
Plaintiffs negligence as concurrent proximate cause - plaintiff cannot recover if the negligence of
both the plaintiff and the defendant can be consideredthe concurrent proximate causes of the injury.
NOTE: There must be proff of the causal connection before the alleged tortfeasor may be made liable.
Quais-delictual actions reqs:
1. Negligence
2. Damage
3. Causal connection between the damage and the negligent act or omission
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
(1) Cause-in-fact and Policy Tests
First, determine if defendants negligence was the cause-in-fact.
- If it was not, the inquiry stops.
- If it WAS: inquiry shifts to the determination of extent of liability
Second, determine the extent of liability THRU INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF POLICY.
Sine qua non test/ But-for-test defendants conduct is the cause in fact of the injury in this test if the
damage would not have resulted had there been no negligence on the part of the defendant.
Substantial factor test In order to be susbatntial factor in causing harm, the causes set in motion by the
defendant must continue until the moment of damage or at least down the setting in motion of the final active
injurious force which immediately produced or preceded the damage. Hence, if the accident would not have
occurred had there been no negligence of the part bof the defendant, the defendants conduct is a substantial factor
in bringing abpout the damage or injury.
NESS TEST (Necessary element of Sufficient Se

Franco Cruz Vs CA: Proximate Legal Cause

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franco Cruz Vs CA: Proximate Legal Cause

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franco Cruz Vs CA: Proximate Legal Cause

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawyers

PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE:

You might also like