Negligence

A. Basis Concept

Three Kinds of Tort or Quasi-Delict

1. Negligence
2. Intentional tort
3. Strict liability

Negligence

The omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of persons, of the time and of the place.

Test to determine existence of negligence:

Whether the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that diligence that a person of ordinary diligence
would have used in the same situation.

Is the law that determines or considers what is negligent/reckless and its corresponding liability.

Diligence of a good father

In case the law or contract does not state what degree of due diligence is to be observed, that is, the diligence of
a good father (Art.1173).

This concept connotes reasonable care consistent with that which a prudent person would have observed when
confronted with a similar situation.

Negligence with bad faith (Art. 1171 and 2201)

Any agreement to waive any kind of action for future negligence is VOID and in case negligence is attended by
bad faith, the obligor shall be responsible for all kinds of damages.

There is bad faith in negligence, if there exist a gross negligence which is equivalent to bad faith.

Gross negligence

The want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It examines a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

Notorious negligence

Pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result to injury or utter disregard of
consequences.

Thus, if the negligence of a person is characterized as gross or notorious, which amounts to bad faith, then that
person can be held responsible for all kinds of damages.
B. Proximate Cause, Remote Cause, Concurrent Cause

Proximate cause

That cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would have not occurred. (definition)

The damage or injury must be the natural and probable result of the act or omission. A link must be established
between the two.

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 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, even
though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion (Abrogar vs Cosmos).

Concurrent cause

Several causes combine to produce injuries and each act of fault or negligence is an efficient cause to produce
such injuries. Such injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all
of the responsible persons, and each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result as if their acts were the sole
cause of the injury. Since it is impossible to determine the proportion of their contribution to the injury of a third
person, they become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the resulting damages (Art. 2194).

C. NEGLIGENCE PER SE (NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW)

The negligence of a person is presumed to be the proximate cause of the injury by the mere fact of a violation of a
law.

Negligence per se:

1) A violation of a statutory law is a negligence per se (Cipriano vs CA).
4) Failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations (F.F Cruz vs CA).

However, principle of negligence per se is not applicable to company policies issued by an employer for its
employee. There must be a causal connection between the injury received and violation of law and that the
violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. And the
injury sustained was the one intended to be prevented by the statute.

Negligence per se, seeks to impute liability arising from failure of the actor to perform up to a standard established
by legal fiat, it is more of a cause of action than a matter of defense.

D. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE

There are laws that provide that negligence can be presumed upon the occurrence of certain facts. For example:

1. Article 2184 and 2185 of the Civil Code

2. Mere violation of traffic regulations, or the fact that the driver is guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months before the time of the
occurrence of the injury
3. Traffic laws and laws providing for road safety
4. Land Transportation and Traffic Code
5. Seat Belt Use Act of 1999
6. R.A. 10054 Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 10) Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013
7. Anti-Distracted Driving Act of 2016
 8. Children’s Safety on Motorcycles Act of 2015

E. RES IPSA LOQUITOR (the thing or transaction speaks for itself)

It is a rule on necessity, in that it proceeds on the theory that under peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is
applicable, it is within the power of the defendant to show that there was no negligence on their part, and direct
proof of defendant’s negligence is beyond plaintiff’s power.

It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima
facile case. This doctrine rest on the inference (and not on the presumption), which is grounded upon the fact that
the chief evidence of the trues case whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but
inaccessible to the injured person.

Theoretical Basis: Necessity

Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury complained of was under the control or
management of the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course
of things would not happen if those who had its control or management used proper care, there is sufficient
evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation by the defendant, that
the injury arose from or was caused by the defendant’s want of care.

The pre-requisites for its application:

1. It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the
accident; or
2. That the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge; or
3. Opportunity for explanation of the accident.

This doctrine as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence, which recognizes that prima facile
negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. It
not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.

This doctrine can be invoked, when and only when, under the circumstances involved direct evidence is absent
and not readily available.

Presumption of inference arising from this doctrine is overcome (1) when the plaintiff has knowledge and testifies
or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of, or (2)
where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances
attendant on the occurrence clearly appear.

Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitor:

1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person
charged with negligence; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured.

Additional requirement:

1. It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge so as to the cause of the
accident, or
2. That the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the
accident.
Res ipsa loquitor generally finds relevance whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the plaintiff
and the defendant, for the inference of negligence arises from the circumstances and nature of the occurrence
and not from the natur of the relation of the parties.

If there is a contractual relationship between the parties and the cause of action is culpa contractual, obviously the
principle of res ipsa loquitor cannot be appreciated since negligence is presumes upon breach thereof.

However, even if there is a contractual relationship between the parties and the cause of action of the plaintiff is
not based on culpa contractual but based on culpa aquiliana— i.e “the act that breaches a contract is also a tort”
applies, then the principle of res ipsa loquitor can be appreciated.

F. OTHER PROVISIONS DEALING WITH NEGLIGENCE

1. Presumption of Negligence for Possession of Weapons or Substances (Article 2188)

GR: Death or other injury that may have been suffered from the possession of dangerous weapons or
substances will instantly raise a disputable presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.

XPN: When the possession or use thereof is indispensable in their occupation or business e.g. Armed
forces, police force, security agency or private investigation (where possession of weapons is
indispensable and allowed through license and permits issued by the PNP).

2. Liability of Proprietors of Buildings or Other Infrastructures (Article 2191and 2192)

The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be be due to the lack of necessary repairs.

With respect to damage or injury caused by the explosion of the machinery or the inflammation of
explosive substances, they are made liable when such machinery has not been taken care of with due
diligence or not kept in a safe and adequate repair.

While, the proprietor of the a structure that emits excessive smoke is always deemed negligent and held
liable. The same can be said of the harmful effects of emanations from tubes, canals or sewers when the
same are built or constructed without proper precautions.

Injury caused by a falling tree will also make its owner liable due to negligence of not properly taking care
of it.

Such liability will not attached if the damage or injury is the result of the defect in the construction of
buildings or structures mentioned. If it is due to defect in the construction, the one that should be held
liable is its engineer, architect or contractor (Article 2192).

Article 1723

The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if
within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect
in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of defects in the
construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms
of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with
the contractor.

Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by
reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
 The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.

DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY –

Regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its own
negligence or failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should conform as corporation EG: For
bad facilities. The bed collapsed. Hospital is liable - A patient cannot be detained in a hospital for non payment of
hospital bills

DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY –

Under the rule, the principal is bound by the acts of his agent with the apparent authority which he knowingly
permits the agent to assume, or which he holds to the agent out to the public as possessing. The question in
every case is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent with business usages and the nature
of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular act in
question.