C. Rule under the New Civil Code
ADEQUACY—that the fault of the
Art. 2022 In crimes and quasi-delicts, the
defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that
such damages have been foreseen or
could have reasonably been foreseen by
the defendant.
Art. 2021. In contracts and quasi-
contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable
shall be those that are natural and
probable consequences of the breach of
the obligation, and which the parties
have foreseen or could have reasonably
foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or
wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may
be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation.
Note:
A person may be held liable for
quasi delict although the damage to the
plaintiff is unforeseen.
Thus, the “directness” approach as
well as the substantial factor test may be
applied in this jurisdiction as a policy test.
The rule in contracts is different
from the rule in quasi-delict if the person
sought to be held liable ex contractu acted
in good faith.
D. Meaning of “Natural and Probable”
under Article 2202
Involves two things:
1. CASUALITY—that the damage
would not have resulted without
fault or negligence of the
defendant.
2.
defendant would normally result
in the damage suffered by the
obligee.
2.5 CAUSE AND CONDITION
The active “cause” of the harm
and the existing “conditions”
upon which that cause operated.
If the defendant has created only
a passive static condition, which
made the damage possible, the
defendant is said not to be liable.
a. Types of Dangerous
Conditions
There is no question, therefore,
that even if the defendant had
only created a condition, he
may be held liable for damages
if such condition resulted in
harm to either person or
property.
1. Those that are inherently
dangerous – includes things
that are inherently
dangerous because they
retain their potential
energy in full, even if they
are stored or handled with
utmost care.
The smallest application of
force, or small change in
the conditions can release
or otherwise set in motion
large forces that can cause
harm in the narrow sense
of that term.
The potential for danger
remains great even if its
probability is low.
i.e one creates a dangerous
condition if he buries
radioactive waste or
 hazardous chemicals in his
backyards. A small change
in temperature or humidity
results in injuries to other
people.
2. Those where a person places a
thing which is not dangerous
in itself, in a dangerous
position – includes cases
where objects are placed in
such a way that other
people's right of way is not
recognized.
Also includes cases where
objects are placed in an
unstable position where the
application of small force
will permit the release of
some greater force.
i.e a dangerous condition
was created because a truck
was parked askew in such
a way that it partly blocks
ongoing traffic.
If a person leaves a rock in
an unstable position on top
of a steep hill, there is a
great possibility that
somebody will be injured
because it is bound to be
pulled on the ground by
the force of gravity.
3. Those involving products and
other things which are
dangerous because they are
defective—include defective
construction of a building.
The thing itself is not
supposed to be dangerous
but it was negligently or
erroneously produced or
constructed.
The tortfeasor who
constructed the building
defectively created the
dangerous condition; “one
who negligently creates a
dangerous condition
cannot escape liability for
the natural and probable
consequences thereof.”
2.6 EGG-SKULL OR THIN-SKULL
RULE
A tortfeasor whose act,
superimposed upon a prior latent
condition, results in an injury may
be made liable for damages.
Egg-Skull or Thin-Skull rule under
which the tortfeasor is required to
take the victim as he finds him.
The tortfeasor-defendant is liable
even though the negligent act
caused an injury that is greater
than what is usually experienced
by a normal person because of a
prior condition of the plaintiff.
III. EFFICIENT INTERVENING
CAUSE
1. Definition and Concept.
Is one that destroys the causal
connection between the
negligent act and injury and
the thereby negatives liability.
An intervening cause will be
regarded as the proximate
cause and the first cause as
too remote, where the chain of
events is so broken that they
become independent and the
result cannot be said to be the
consequence of the primary
cause.
There is NO efficient
intervening cause if the force
created by the negligent act or
omission have either:
1. Remained active itself; or
2. Created another force
which remained active
 until it directly caused the
result; or
3. Created a new active risk
of being acted upon by the
active force that caused
the result.
1.1 TEST OF SUFFICIENCY
OF INTERVENING
CAUSE
The test of the sufficiency
of an intervening cause to
defeat recovery for
negligence is not to be
found in the mere fact of
its existence, but rather in
the nature and manner in
which it affects the
continuity of operation of
the primary cause or the
connection between it and
the injury.
Such intervening cause
must be new and
independent, not under
the control of the original
wrong doer, or one which
by the exercise of
reasonable foresight and
diligence, he should have
anticipated and guarded
against it.
It must break the
continuity of causal
connection between the
original negligent act or
omission and the injury so
that the former cannot be
said to have been the
efficient cause of the latter.
1.2 WHEN CAUSE NOT
INTERVENING CAUSE.
A cause is not an
intervening cause if it is
already in operation at the
time the negligent act is
committed.
1.3 NEGLIGENCE OF THHE
DEFENDAN
The efficient intervening
cause may be the
negligence of the
defendant. The plaintiff
may be negligent but the
defendant’s negligence
pre-empted the effect of
such negligence.
See. McKee vs. IAC
2. FORESEEABLE INTERVENING
CAUSE
The rule in this jurisdiction is to
the effect that foreseeable intervening
cause cannot be considered sufficient
intervening causes.
If the intervening cause is one which in
ordinary human experience is reasonably
to be anticipated, or one which in
ordinary human experience is reasonably
to be anticipated, or one which the
defendant has reason to anticipate under
the particular circumstances, the
defendant may be negligent, among other
reasons, because of failure to guard
against it; or the defendant may be
negligent only for that reason.
Note: If the intervening cause is a
recurrent feature of the environment, they
cannot be considered efficient because
they are foreseeable.
3.MEDICAL TREATMENT AS
INTERVENING CAUSE.
Under this same principle, 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. The same is considered a
normal and foreseeable risk.
The rule is based on the reasoning that the
additional harm is either:
1. A part of the original injury;
 2. The natural and probable 3. CASES WHEN THE DOCTRINE
consequences of the tortfeasor’s WAS HELD INAPPLICABLE
original negligence; or a. Misuse of the concept of
3. The normal incidence of medical Last Clear Chance
care necessitated by the
tortfeasor’s original negligence.
Versions
If at all, there will only be an efficient
intervening cause where the original
tortfeasor is not liable or a circumstance
that mitigates liability depending on the
circumstances if the injured failed to
exercise reasonable care in securing the
services of a competent physician or
surgeon.

See. Pp vs. Acuram, GR No. 117954, April

27, 2000

4.UNFORESEEN AND UNEXPECTED

ACT OR CAUSE

See cases

IV CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Is defined as conduct on the part of the

injured, 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.

1. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS
THE CAUSE
2. COMPOUND CAUSES
3. PART OF THE SAME CAUSAL
SET
4. DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE IS
THE ONLY CAUSE

V. DOCTRINE OF THE LAST CLEAR

CHANCE

1. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS ON LAST

CLEAR CHANCE
a. Prevailing View
b. Minority View
c. Third View

2. CASES WHEN THE DOCTRINE

WAS APPLIED