Ruling:

Negative. The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of
Tacloban, Leyte, on the evening when the religious procession was held. There was
nothing abnormal in allowing the child to walk along a few paces in advance of the mother.
No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile appearing and of a frightened child
running and falling into a ditch filled with hot water. The sudden death of the child was due
principally to the extensive burns from the hot water.

As enunciated in the case of Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., in determining
the proximate cause of the accident, distinction must be made between the accident and
the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been no accident.

In the instant case, had there been no hot water in the ditch, the falling of the child in it
could have probably resulted into mere physical injuries. Thus, Article. 2176 is applicable,
which explicitly provides that 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 a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Also, even assuming that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence, the trial
court would still be at fault in dismissing the action for damages because the contributory
negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but
could only result in reduction of the damages.

Doctrine:

In determining the proximate cause of the accident, distinction must be made between
the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been
no accident.