Avestruz, Gerrykho Tristan

Second Argument: Negligence of Tyke Philip is the proximate cause Ed Christian’s fall

Discussion:

We submit our second argument as it is related to the first. It is already settled that the plaintiff did not
exercise due diligence in handling the victim infant, Ed Christian, when he was entrusted to carry the
infant during the photo session which then lead to his untimely fall. We further aver that the negligence
of Tyke Philip Lomibao is the proximate cause Ed Christian’s fall.

Proximate cause 1 is 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.

It further added that it must exhibit a cause-effect relationship, being the act/cause of the accused party
and the resulting injuries incurred by the victim. As stated in the case of Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v.
Medina, that “'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.' And
more comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is 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 ordinarily 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."

In the current case, it is clear that there exist a significant cause-effect relationship between the
negligent act of the accused Tyke Philip Lomibao and the untimely fall of the victim Ed Christian Latonio.
The accused should have not agreed to hold the child being aware that he is in a costume that limits the
movements of his proximities including his arms that would tightly grasp and prevent the child from
falling. However, despite this fact, he did not refuse nor call out the mother’s attention when he noticed
that the child was already in his ward. This gruesome negligence on his part caused the untimely fall of
the child when it could have been prevented if he only refused to carry the child in his arms knowing
that he is in a costume or have called Mary Ann Lomibao’s attention to get her child.

Assuming arguendo that it is the mother’s negligence, in putting her child in the accused’s care while
taking a photo session, that harmed the child, it cannot be considered as the proximate cause. There
was an intervening cause in the sequence of events.

1
Bataclan vs Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186
An intervening cause 2, to be considered efficient, must be "one not produced by a wrongful act or
omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results. Any cause intervening
between the first wrongful cause and the final injury which might reasonably have been foreseen or
anticipated by the original wrongdoer is not such an efficient intervening cause as will relieve the original
wrong of its character as the proximate cause of the final injury." (Abrogar vs Cosmos Bottling Company
Gr No. 164749)

The injury incurred by the victim arising from the untimely fall on the route was an event known to and
foreseeable by the accused, Tyke Philip Lomibao, which could then have been avoided if only he had
acted with due diligence by refusing to carry the child, and if only he called the mother’s attention out to
get the child from his care since his costume is preventing him from properly holding the child and had
enforced and adopted more efficient care in handling the situation.

In fine, it was the duty of the accused, Tyke Philip Lomibao to guard the safety of the victim Ed Christian
Latonio against the foreseen risk, but it failed to do so. Therefore, we move for his conviction.

2
Abrogar vs Cosmos Bottling Company Gr No. 164749