Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 92087. May 8, 1992.
_____________
* FIRST DIVISION.
715
the omission and the damage. He must prove under Article 2179
of the New Civil Code that the defendant’s negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury. 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
(Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186). Proof of
such relation of cause and effect is not an arduous one if the
claimant did not in any way contribute to the negligence of the
defendant. However, where the resulting injury was the product
of the negligence of both parties, there exists a difficulty to
discern which acts shall be considered the proximate cause of the
accident.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Appeals.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
716
717
718
719
720
721
“ATTY. ALBAY:
“Q Mr. Witness, you mentioned the several aspects of the
approval of the building permit which include the plans
of an architect, senitary engineer and electrical plans.
All of these still pass your approval as building official,
is that correct?
“DEMETRIO ALINDADA:
“A Yes.
“Q So there is the sanitary plan submitted to and will not
be approved by you unless the same is in conformance
with the provisions of the building code or sanitary
requirements?
723
“x x x. Could the victims have died if they did not open the septic
tank which they were not in the first place authorized to open?
Who between the passive object (septic tank) and the active
subject (the victims herein) who, having no authority therefore,
arrogated unto themselves, the task of opening the septic tank
which caused their own deaths should be responsible for such
deaths. How could the septic tank which has been in existence
since the 1950’s be the proximate cause of an accident that
occurred only on November 22, 1975? The stubborn fact remains
that since 1956 up to occurrence of the accident in 1975 no injury
nor death was caused by the septic tank. The only reasonable
conclusion that could be drawn from the above is that the victims’
death was caused by their own negligence in opening the septic
tank. x x x.” (Rollo, p. 23)
726
Decision affirmed.
——o0o——