D. Defenses in Negligence Cases 1. Art. 2179.

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. Taylor vs. Manila Railroad and Light Co. Under all the circumstances of this case the negligence of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon the him, and that the defendant, therefore is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred. A man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he cannot demand reparation therefor from another. PLDT vs. Esteban The accident was not due to the absence of warning signs, but to the plaintiff himself who knew the perils of the road. A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause of action has the burden in the first instance of proving the existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must fail. GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corporation et al. The immediate and proximate cause of the collision is the gross negligence of PAC's pilots (Twin Otter aircraft). Proximate cause is defined as 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 this case, the fact that PAC's pilots disregarded PAL's right of way (Boeing 737) and did not ask for updated clearance right before crossing an active runway was the proximate cause of the collision.

2. Contributory Negligence. Art. 2179. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. Umali vs. Bacani The series of negligence on the part of defendants' employees resulting in a live wire lying on the premises without any visible warning of its lethal character constituted the immediate and proximate cause of the injury. The negligence of the victim's parents in not properly taking care of the child, which enabled him to leave the house alone on the morning of the incident and go to a nearby place where the fatal fallen wire ultimately electrocuted him, is only contributory and might mitigate respondent's liability. Cangco vs. Manila Railroad The conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence. a. Extent of Mitigation Phoenix Construction vs. IAC The collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence of parking askew without any warning lights or reflector devices. Dionisio's negligence was only contributory, that the immediate and proximate cause of the injury remained the truck driver's lack of due care. Consequently, respondent may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts.

M. H. Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company Rakes could not have known of the damage in the track as it was another employee who swore he notified the foreman about said damage. On the other hand though, Rakes contributory negligence can be inferred from the fact that he was on the side of the cars when in fact there were orders from the company barring workers from standing near the side of the cars. His disobedience to this order does not bar his recovery of damages though. 3. Violation of Statute or Ordinance by the Plaintiff Ramos vs. C. O. L. Realty Corporation If Aquilino heeded the MMDAs prohibition against crossing Katipunan Avenue from Rajah Matanda, the accident would not have happened. This specific untoward event is exactly what the MMDA prohibition was intended for. Thus, a prudent and intelligent person who resides within the vicinity where the accident occurred, Aquilino had reasonable ground to expect that the accident would be a natural and probable result if he crossed Katipunan Avenue since such crossing is considered dangerous on account of the busy nature of the thoroughfare and the ongoing construction of an underpass. 4. Assumption of Risk (volenti non fit injuria; no wrong is done to him who consents) a. Requisites The plaintiff must know that the risk is present; He must further understand its nature; and that His choice to incur it is free and voluntary Afialda vs. Hisole It was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal (carabao) from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.

5. Fortuitous Event a. Elements The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or the failure of the debtors to comply with their obligations must have been independent of human will; The event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if foreseeable, impossible to avoid; The occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal manner; and The obligor must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor. Southeastern College Inc. vs. CA Petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of its school building in question and that typhoon Saling was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by private respondents' house. Prespondents' claim for actual and moral damages as well as attorney's fees must fail. Petitioner cannot be made to answer for a purely fortuitous event, more so because no bad faith or willful act to cause damage was alleged and proven to warrant moral damages. 6. Prescription Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict

Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. CA and Geronimo Coca Colas reckless and negligent manufacture of adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption constituted negligence. Civil action of which prescribes in four years. 7. Last Clear Chance a. Cases when defense was applied Picart vs. Smith It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. PLDT vs. CA and Esteban, supra Achevara vs. Ramos The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case; Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. The petitioners stated that when the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep, Benigno Valdez maneuvered his vehicle towards the western shoulder of the road to avoid a collision, but the owner-type jeep driven by Ramos continued to move to the western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep.

b. Cases when the doctrine was held inapplicable PNR et al. v. Vizcarra et al. Reynaldo did not incur contributory negligence, because he had no reason to anticipate the impending danger, acting only upon the impression that it was safe to proceed. It was PNRs failure to secure public safety by installing safety equipment and signage, and maintaining them that caused the injury. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District Since it is not known how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool and it being apparent that he went there without any companion in violation of one of the regulations of appellee as regards the use of the pools, and it appearing that the lifeguard responded to the call for help as soon as his attention was called to it and immediately after retrieving the body all efforts at the disposal of appellee had been put into play in order to bring him back to life, it is clear that there is no room for the application of the doctrine of last clear chance invoked by appellants to impute liability to appellee. Bustamante vs. CA The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply because as against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury. The case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles. 8. Emergency or Sudden Peril Doctrine Mckee vs. IAC Considering the sudden intrusion of the two boys into the lane of the car, the court finds that Jose Koh adopted the best means possible in the given situation to avoid hitting them. Applying the emergency test, therefore, it is

clear that he was not guilty of negligence. It was the truck driver's negligence in failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision which was the proximate cause of the collision. 9. Defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. vs. C & A Construction, Inc. The defense raised by petitioner was that it exercised due diligence in the selection of Capt. Jusep because the latter is a licensed and competent Master Mariner. It should be stressed, however, that the required diligence of a good father of a family pertains not only to the selection, but also to the supervision of employees. It is not enough that the employees chosen be competent and qualified, inasmuch as the employer is still required to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees. 10. Damnum absque injuria

Pro Line vs. CA Pro Line and Questor were merely protecting their right against the illegal manufacture of Spalding balls. One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury (Qui jure suo utitur nullum damnum facit). If damage results from a persons exercise of his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria. Sps. Custodio vs. CA The act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. It is within the right of petitioners, as owners, to enclose and fence their property.