TORTS
providing financial assistance to
Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda
Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling
Company and Intergames, Inc. G.R.
No. 164749 March 15, 2017 THIRD
DIVISION
Bersamin, J.:
Proximate Cause
FACTS
To promote the sales of "Pop
Cola", defendant Cosmos, jointly with
Intergames, organized an endurance
running contest billed as the "1st Pop
Cola Junior Marathon" Plaintiffs' son
Rommel applied with Cosmos’ to be
allowed to participate in the contest
and after complying with the latter’s
requirements, his application was
accepted and he was given an official
number. Rommel joined the other
participants and ran the course
plotted by the defendants. As it turned
out, the plaintiffs' (sic) further alleged,
the defendants failed to provide
adequate safety and precautionary
measures and to exercise the diligence
required of them by the nature of their
undertaking, in that they failed to
insulate and protect the participants
of the marathon from the vehicular
and other dangers along the marathon
route. Rommel was bumped by a
jeepney that was then running along
the route, and in spite of medical
treatment given to him, he died later
that same day due to severe head
injuries. Petitioners sued Cosmos for
the death of their son. Cosmos denied
liability, insisting that it had not been
the organizer of the marathon, but
only its sponsor and that that its
participation had been limited to
Intergames. Intergames asserted that
Rommel's death had been an accident
exclusively caused by the negligence
of the jeepney driver, and that it was
not responsible for the accident and
that as the marathon organizer, it did
not assume the responsibilities of an
insurer of the safety of the
participants.
RULING
The negligence of Intergames as
the organizer
was the proximate cause of the death
of Rommel. In order for liability from
negligence to arise, there must be not
only proof of damage and negligence,
but also proof that the damage was
the consequence of the negligence.
The Court has ruled that the following
requisites must be present: (1)
Damages to the plaintiff.; (2)
Negligence by act or omission of which
defendant personally or some person
for whose acts it must respond, was
guilty.; (3) The connection of cause
and effect between the negligence and
the damage. Proximate cause is "that
which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any new
cause, produces an event, and
without which the event would not
have occurred." To be considered the
proximate cause of the injury, the
negligence need not be the event
closest in time to the injury; a cause
is still proximate, although farther in
time in relation to the injury, if the
happening of it set other foreseeable
events into motion resulting
ultimately in the damage.
An examination of the records
in accordance with the foregoing
concepts supports the conclusions
that the negligence of Intergames was
the proximate cause of the death of
Rommel; and that the negligence of
the jeepney driver was not an efficient
intervening cause. First, the
submission that Intergames had
previously conducted numerous safe
races did not persuasively
demonstrate that it had exercised due
diligence because, as the trial court
pointedly observed, "[t]hey were only
lucky that no accident occurred
during the previous marathon races
but still the danger was there."
Second, injury to the participants
arising from an unfortunate vehicular
accident on the route was an event
known to and foreseeable by
Intergames, which could then have
been avoided if only Intergames had
acted with due diligence by
undertaking the race on a blocked-off
road, and if only Intergames had
enforced and adopted more efficient
supervision of the race through its
volunteers. Third, the negligence of
the jeepney driver, albeit an
intervening cause, was not efficient
enough to break the chain of
connection between the negligence of
Intergames and the injurious
consequence suffered by Rommel. An
intervening cause, 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."
Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda
Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling
Company and Intergames, Inc. G.R.
No. 164749 March 15, 2017 THIRD
DIVISION
Bersamin, J.:
Assumption of Risk
FACTS
To promote the sales of "Pop
Cola", defendant Cosmos, jointly with
Intergames, organized an endurance
running contest billed as the "1st Pop
Cola Junior Marathon" Plaintiffs' son
Rommel applied with Cosmos’ to be
allowed to participate in the contest
and after complying with the latter’s
requirements, his application was
accepted and he was given an official
number. Rommel joined the other
participants and ran the course
plotted by the defendants. As it turned
out, the plaintiffs' (sic) further alleged,
the defendants failed to provide
adequate safety and precautionary
measures and to exercise the diligence
required of them by the nature of their
undertaking, in that they failed to
insulate and protect the participants
of the marathon from the vehicular
and other dangers along the marathon
route. Rommel was bumped by a
jeepney that was then running along
the route, and in spite of medical
treatment given to him, he died later
that same day due to severe head
injuries. Petitioners sued Cosmos for
the death of their son. Cosmos denied
liability, insisting that it had not been
the organizer of the marathon, but
only its sponsor and that that its
participation had been limited to
providing financial assistance to
Intergames. Intergames asserted that
Rommel's death had been an accident
exclusively caused by the negligence
of the jeepney driver, and that it was
not responsible for the accident and
that as the marathon organizer, it did
not assume the responsibilities of an
insurer of the safety of the
participants. And lastly, as the CA
ruled in favour of respondents, where
assumption of risk is present, there
could be no cause of action against it
because the acceptance and approval
of Rommel's application to join the
marathon had been conditioned on
his waiver of all rights and causes of
action arising from his participation in
the marathon.
RULING
The doctrine of assumption of risk
had no application to Rommel. The
doctrine of assumption of risk means
that one who voluntarily exposes
himself to an obvious, known and
appreciated danger assumes the risk
of injury that may result therefrom. It
rests on the fact that the person
injured has consented to relieve the
defendant of an obligation of conduct
toward him and to take his chance of
injury from a known risk, and
whether the former has exercised
proper caution or not is immaterial. In
other words, it is based on voluntary
consent, express or implied, to accept
danger of a known and appreciated
risk; it may sometimes include
acceptance of risk arising from the
defendant's negligence, but one does
not ordinarily assume risk of any
negligence which he does not know
and appreciate. As a defense in
negligence cases, therefore, the
doctrine requires the concurrence of
three elements, namely: (1) the
plaintiff must know that the risk is
present; (2) he must further
understand its nature; and (3) his
choice to incur it must be free and
voluntary.
The concurrence of the three elements
was not shown to exist. Rommel could
not have assumed the risk of death
when he participated in the race
because death was neither a known
nor normal risk incident to running a
race. Although he had surveyed the
route prior to the race and should be
presumed to know that he would be
running the race alongside moving
vehicular traffic, such knowledge of
the general danger was not enough,
for some authorities have required
that the knowledge must be of the
specific risk that caused the harm to
him. He could not have appreciated
the risk of being fatally struck by any
moving vehicle while running the race.
Instead, he had every reason to
believe that the organizer had taken
adequate measures to guard all
participants against any danger from
the fact that he was participating in
an organized marathon. Stated
differently, nobody in his right mind,
including minors like him, would have
joined the marathon if he had known
of or appreciated the risk of harm or
even death from vehicular accident
while running in the organized
running event. Without question, a
marathon route safe and free from
foreseeable risks was the reasonable
expectation of every runner
participating in an organized running
event. Neither was the waiver by
Rommel, then a minor, an effective
form of express or implied consent in
the context of the doctrine of
assumption of risk. There is ample
authority, to the effect that a person
does not comprehend the risk involved
in a known situation because of his
youth, or lack of information or
experience, and thus will not be taken
to consent to assume the risk. Clearly,
the doctrine of assumption of risk
does not apply to bar recovery by the
petitioners. Our Lady Of Lourdes Hospital v
Spouses Romeo And Regina
Capanzana G.R. No. 189218 March
22, 2017 FIRST DIVISION

Sereno, CJ.:

Proximate Cause

FACTS

Regina Capanzana (Regina), a 40-

year-old nurse and clinical instructor
pregnant with her third child, was
scheduled for her third caesarean
section. However, a week earlier, she
went into active labor and was
brought to petitioner hospital for an
emergency C-section. She first
underwent a preoperative physical
examination, as a result she was
found fit for anesthesia.
Subsequently, she gave successfully
gave birth. 13 hours after her
operation, Regina who was then under
watch by her niece, complained of a
headache, a chilly sensation,
restlessness, and shortness of breath.
After undergoing an x-ray, she was
found to be suffering from pulmonary
edema. Hence, was transferred to the
ICU. When her condition still showed
no improvement, Regina was
transferred to the Cardinal Santos
Hospital. The doctors thereat found
that she was suffering from rheumatic
heart disease. This development
resulted in cardiopulmonary arrest
and, subsequently, brain damage.
Regina lost the use of her speech,
eyesight, hearing and limbs. She was
discharged, still in a vegetative state.
Respondent spouses Capanzana filed
a complaint for damages against
petitioner hospital for the latter's
failure to detect the heart disease of
Regina and but also to provide the
appropriate medical management
before, during, and after the
operation. Petitioners denied the
allegations, whereby in Regina’s
consultations and prenatal check-ups
of Regina in the latter's three
pregnancies, she never complained
nor informed the doctor of any
symptom or sign of a heart problem.
And further claimed that there was no
instruction to the hospital or the staff
to place Regina in a room with a
standby oxygen tank. They also
claimed that the nurses on duty had
promptly attended to her needs.
RULING
Proximate cause has been defined as
that which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces injury,
and without which the result would
not have occurred. An injury or
damage is proximately caused by an
act or a failure to act, whenever it
appears from the evidence in the case,
that the act or omission played a
substantial part in bringing about or
actually causing the injury or damage;
and that the injury or damage was
either a direct result or a reasonably
probable consequence of the act or
omission. It is the dominant, moving
or producing cause.
The Court affirms the findings of the
courts below that the negligent delay
on the part of the nurses was the
proximate cause of the brain damage
suffered by Regina. the omission of
the nurses - their failure to check on
Regina and to refer her to the resident
doctor and, thereafter, to immediately
provide oxygen - was clearly the
proximate cause that led to the brain
damage suffered by the patient. The
Court further notes that the
immediate response of the nurses was
especially imperative, since Regina
herself had asked for oxygen. They
should have been prompted to
respond immediately when Regina
herself expressed her needs, especially
in that emergency situation when it
was not easy to determine with
certainty the cause of her breathing
difficulty. Indeed, even if the patient
had not asked for oxygen, the mere
fact that her breathing was labored to
an abnormal degree should have
impelled the nurses to immediately
call the doctor and to administer
oxygen. As the trial court and the CA
both held, had the nurses promptly
responded, oxygen would have been
immediately administered to her and
the risk of brain damage lessened, if
not avoided.

Spouses Jesus Fernando And
Elizabeth S. Fernando v Northwest
Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 212038
SECOND DIVISION
Peralta, J.:
Bad faith in contract of carriage
FACTS
The Fernandos initiated the filing
of the instant case which arose from two
separate incidents: first, when Jesus
Fernando arrived at the LA Airport via
Northwest Airlines, however upon arrival
at the airport it was found out that his
documents reflect his return ticket. He
approached a Northwest personnel, Linda
Puntawongdaycha, but the latter merely
glanced at his ticket without checking its
status and peremptorily said that the
ticket has been used and could not be
considered as valid. Jesus Fernando gave
the personnel the number of his Elite
Platinum World Perks Card for the latter
to access the ticket control record for her
to see that the ticket is still valid. But
Puntawongdaycha refused to check the
validity of the ticket, instead, looked at
Jesus Fernando with contempt, then
informed the Immigration Officer that the
ticket is not valid because it had been
used.
Second incident when spouses
fernando Departed from the LA Airport,
where they reached the gate
area, Northwest supervisor Linda Tang
stopped them and demanded for the
presentation of their paper tickets. They
failed to present the same since
Northwest issued electronic tickets which
they showed to the supervisor. In the
presence of the other passengers, Tang
rudely pulled them out of the queue. They
asked Tang to punch in their Elite
Platinum World Perks Card number to
verify their tickets, but Linda Tang
arrogantly told them that if they wanted
to board the plane, they should produce
payment for their new tickets, otherwise
Northwest would order their luggage off-
loaded from the plane. They were able to
retrieve their control numbers and they
were confirmed passengers but when they
reached he gate, the plane had already
departed. They were only able to depart
the following day
RULING
The Northwest airline breached the
contract of carriage and it was in bad
faith, hence they are entitled to moral,
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
along with actual damages. Northwest
committed a breach of contract in failing
to provide the spouses with the proper
assistance to avoid any inconvenience
and that the actuations of Northwest in
both subject incidents fall short of the
utmost diligence of a very cautious
person expected of it.
Northwest is in bad faith. The
Northwest personnel failed to exercise the
utmost diligence in assisting the
Fernandos. The actuations of Northwest
personnel in both subject incidents are
constitutive of bad faith. Bad faith does
not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence. It imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong. It means
breach of a known duty through some
motive, interest or ill will that partakes of
the nature of fraud. A finding of bad faith
entitles the offended party to moral
damages.
Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be
treated by the carrier’s employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due
consideration. They are entitled to be
protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and
abuses from such employees. The
discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the
latter an action for damages against the
carrier.