STANDARD vs.

SPECIFIC RULES

Rules are legal norms that are formal and mechanical. They are triggered by a few easily identified
factual matters and are opaque in application to the values that they are designed to serve (e.g. drive at
not more than 60kph).

Standards, on the other hand, are flexible, context-sensitive legal norms that require evaluative judgments
in their application (example, drive safely).

NEGLIGENCE CASES

Standards are the legal norms that are being followed in deciding negligence cases. Courts apply a
standard in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the particular case they are deciding. The courts do
no prescribe specific rules of conduct to be followed by all persons. “The standard of reasonable care is
set by law but its application in a particular case is a question of fact in the sense that propositions of good
sense which are applied by one judge in one case should not be regarded as propositions of law. What
results is that the courts in each case must balance all conflicting interests and consider all the
circumstances.

In the case of Corliss vs. The Manila Railroad Company, the Supreme Court pointed out the opinion of
Justice Holmes in one railroad case that seemed to indicate that setting the standard means specifying
what to do in a given situation. The opinion had been interpreted to suggest that a driver who is traversing
a railroad crossing must, at all times, stop and see if there is an oncoming locomotive.

“Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.” (US vs. Juanillo; US vs. Barias and as cited Cusi, et al. vs. Philippine National Railways)

“want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its
application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the
failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances. Every case must be dependent on
its facts. The circumstances indicative of lack of due care must be judged in the light of what could
reasonably be expected of the parties. If the objective standard of prudence be met, then negligence is
ruled-out”

“There must be that observance of the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the situation
demands. Each and every case on question of negligence is to be decided in accordance with the peculiar
circumstances that present themselves. There can be no hard and fast rule.” (Corliss vs. The Manila
Railroad Co., 27SCRA674).

The presence of gross negligence is statutorily recognized. Art.2231 of the NCC provides that “in quasi-
delicts exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.” Gross
negligence is defined in this jurisdiction as negligence where there is “want of even slight care and
diligence.” (Amadeo vs. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc, 95Phil33). It also characterized as implying conscious
indifference to consequence; pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result to
injury, utter disregard of consequences (Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. vs. The Workmen’s
Compensation Commission).
 “QUASI-DELICT – ARTICLE 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

Under the provision, the essential requisites for a quasi-delictual action are [1] an act or omission
constituting fault or negligence; [2] damage caused by said act or omission; [3] the causal relation
between the damage and the act or omission. (Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals,
269SCRA695).

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?

NEGLIGENCE IS CONDUCT

A court that determines the question of existence of negligence is concerned with what the defendant
did or did not do. What is important in the determination of the presence or absence of negligence is
whether the person who is sought to be held liable omitted to do something which a reasonable man
would do or did something which a reasonable man would not do. The state of mind of the actor is not
important; good faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial. Hence, the existence of negligence in a
given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment but by the behavior of the actor in the
situation before him. (Picart vs. Smith). Even if the actor believed that he exercised proper diligence, he
will still be liable if his conduct did not correspond to what a reasonable man would have done under the
same circumstances.

The conduct that should be examined in negligence cases is prior conduct, that is, conduct prior to the
injury that resulted or, in proper cases, the aggravation thereof. The law imposes a duty on the doer to
take precaution against its mischievous results, hence, what is important is that what was called in a
dissenting opinion in one case as “diligence before the fact.” (St. Francis High School vs. Court of
Appeals, 194SCRA341).
This diligence may include the duty to investigate. Where the situation suggest investigation and
inspection in order that its danger may fully appear, the duty to make such investigation and inspection is
imposed (Dichitang, et.al. vs. Vicente V. Aguilar & Co., et.al., 8CAR2s 618, 622).

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

“With respect to the rules promulgated by administrative agencies, the Supreme Court observed in one
case that “there is practically unanimity in the proposition that violation of a rule promulgated by a
Commission or Board is not negligence per se but it may be evidence of negligence.” (Cipriano vs. Court
of Appeals).

“Petitioner in this case was the owner of an establishment engaged in rustproofing of vehicles.
Private respondent’s car, that was brought to the petitioner’s shop for rustproofing, was burned
when fire destroyed the same shop. It was established later that petitioner failed to comply with
the requirement of PD 1572 to register with the DTI as well as Ministry Order No.32 issued by
the same Department requiring all covered enterprises to secure insurance coverage. Such
failure to comply with the statute and administrative regulation was considered negligence per
se.”
The weight of authority is that violation of statute is negligence per se. Although there is authority for the
view that violation of administrative rules merely constitute evidence of negligence on the part of the
violator, there is also authority for the view that violation of administrative rules is also negligence per se.
it is believed that the better rule is to consider violation of statute or administrative rules as a
circumstance that gives rise to a presumption of negligence unless the law provides otherwise. It is not
consistent with the demands of justice and equity to put citizens in straightjackets consisting of detailed
prescriptions with no room for exceptions or discretion. This will give room for human handicaps to
operate. It will allow the defendant in negligence cases to prove that his case is one of those unanticipated
cases where the rule is inapplicable. There would be no harm to the injured party because if the said harm
caused by the defendant is the harm sought to be prevented by the statute, then it can only mean that
defendant will not be able to rebut the presumption of negligence.

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 not have occurred.”

“In any event, the requisites of quasi-delict must still be complete before an action based thereon can
prosper. The plaintiff must still present proof that the proximate cause of his injury is the negligence of
the defendant. Such must be presented that there was causal connection between the negligence or
violation of the statute and the injury. Absent the same, the defendant will not be held liable.” (Delgado
Vda. De Gregorio, et.al., vs. Go Chong Bing, 102Phil556).

“The rule that no liability attaches unless it appears that there was a causal connection between the
negligent between the negligent act or omission charged and the injury is applicable where the act or
omission complained of constitutes a violation of some statute of ordinance even though such violation
constitutes negligence per se or is prima facie evidence of negligence. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled in
United States vs. Bonifacio, thus:

“that even if the driver violated traffic rules by going beyond the speed limit, there would still be
no liability on account thereof because causal relation was not established xxx. The relation of
cause and effect must exist between the negligence or imprudence of the accused and the
injury inflicted. If it appears that the injury in no wise resulted from the violation of the regulation,
of the negligent conduct of the accused, he incurs no liability under the provisions of this article.

Doubtless a presumption of negligence will frequently arise from the very fact that an accident
occurred at the time when the accused was violating a regulation; especially if the regulation
has for its object the avoidance of such an accident. But this presumption may, of course, be
rebutted in criminal as well as in civil cases by competent evidence.”