Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contributory Negligence
The complaint filed by the plaintiff, as she stated that her children might have ingested the pan
coating, is untenable and such action is premature. No clear showing of damage or injury to
children nor evidenced by medical documents. The herein plaintiff is not even certain that the
children have ingested the pan coating. Indubitably, plaintiff has no cause of action to indict
the defendant. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. 1 The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in
favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and (c)
an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting
injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of
relief from the defendant.2 Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises
only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action
in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.3
In Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Sweet Lines, Inc.,
the Supreme Court declared that:
In the doctrinal case of Surigao Mine Exploration Co. Inc., vs. Harris, the
Supreme Court ruled:
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that there is a cause of action that the plaintiff may
have against the defendant Sunshine, the former notwithstanding had acted with Contributory
Negligence on her part due to the wrong use of the frying pan when it had no instruction
regarding its use:
Plaintiff should have noticed the pan coating come of during the cooking process, after
she transfers the food to the container and even before the children eats the cooked meal.
Plaintiff lacked the sense of responsibility when she feed the cooked meal to her children. For it
not had been the failure to observe sense of responsibility, she could have not given her
4
Art. 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
children such food. In addition to the plaintiff’s lack of vigilance, Vani Houseware Inc had found
out that the damage to the frying pans was caused by the consumer’s improper use, such as
overheating, scrubbing with scouring pad, or banging pan on stove. The plaintiff’s contention
to the pan coating coming off may be due to her improper use.
As the pan had no indicated instructions, she could have consulted the supplier regarding the
usage. Otherwise, it was negligence on her part to use the frying pan without any necessary
precautions. This situation falls under the doctrine of caveat emptor or ‘as is where is’5, where
she used the frying pan on her own risk notwithstanding that there is no provided instructions
on the bundled promo pack. Thus, without checking the product itself, she therefore bought
the frying pan as it is.
5
Consolidated Rural Bank, Inc. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Heirs of Teodoro Cruz G.R. No.
132161 January 17, 2005