vIf a prudent man can foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued, it is his duty to take

precautions to guard against that harm.

v Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently nrohahle to warrant his foregoing the conduct
or guarding against its consequences
2) WON the alleged acts/omissions of Respondents is the proximate cause of the deaths of the victims? — NO
To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another. a claimant must
establish the relation between the omission and the damage. He must prove that the defendant's
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury,
+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.
vTest: Where the victim contributes to the principal occurrence , as one of its determining factors, he
cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may
recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum
deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
vPublic respondent had been remiss in its duty to re-empty the tank annually, but such negligence is not a
continuing one. In fact, upon learning that the tank needs to be cleaned, they immediately took steps to remedy
it.
It is an undisputed fact that people have been using the toilet but have remained unscathed. They pass over
it, but since it's well-covered they are unharmed. The absence of any accident was u to the public respondent's
compliance with the sanitary and plumbing specifications in constructing the toilet and tank.
The toxic gas from the waste matter could not have leaked out because the tank was air-tight. The only
indication that it was full was when water came out of it. Yet even when it was full there was no report of
any casualty of gas poisoning despite the people's continued use of it.
vEngineer Demetrio Alindada of the city government testified as to the safety of the tank and the toilet. An
accident such as toxic gas leakage is unlikely to happen unless the cover is removed.
The accident which caused the victims' deaths happened because the victims, on their own and without
authority from the public respondent, opened the tank.
Victim Bertulano is an old hand in the service and is presumed to know the hazards of the job (of
cleaning septic tanks). Their failure to take precautions is the proximate cause of the accident.

Other issues:
3) As to the lack of ventilation pipe in the toilet, which Petitioners allege emphasize the negligence of the
public respondent, the court held that theirs is not an expert witness. On the other hand, Engr Alindada
testified that the sanitary plan would not have been approved unless it is in conformance with sanitary
requirements (ventilation pipe need not be constructed separately/outside the building, but could also be
embodied in the hollow blocks).
4) As to the lack of warning signs, toilets and septic tanks are not nuisance per se which the Civil Code
necessitates warning signs for.
5) Court also held that there was no contractual relationship whatsoever between the victims and
the public respondent.

DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 1990 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.