Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

POSITION PAPER

FOR THE DEFENDANT

I. SATEMENT OF FACTS

Complainant Daniella Bartolome is a 3rd year JD student in FEU Makati. She is enrolled
in Torts and Damages under defendant Atty. Romina Mondragon. During one class, she was
called for recitation. But before she can finish her recitation, she suddenly lost consciousness. In
the process, she hit her head in the right corner of the table and blood gushes out from her
forehead. Aside from that, there was blood flowing down her legs. Because of this, the class was
cut short and she was rushed in Makati Medical Center. Most of her classmates noticed that
during her recitation, she already looked pale and unwell. They also said that she was not
responsive to the questions which annoyed Atty. Romina. As a result, Daniella received harsh
words and insults from the professor. She was pursued relentlessly by Atty. Romina to the point
that she was already standing for almost 2 hours. Based on her medical examination, she was 3
months pregnant and had a miscarriage. She also suffered from head injury from her fall.
However, Daniella was not aware of her pregnancy. Also, she was traumatized from losing her
baby that she needed to seek for psychiatric help. Her medical expenses amounted to PhP
350,000. Hence, she filed a complaint for damages against Atty. Romina.

II. ISSUE
(1) Whether or not the act of Atty. Mondragon is the proximate cause of the injury suffered by
Bartolome. No.
III. DISCUSSION
(1) The act of Atty. Mondragon is not the proximate cause of the injury.

Article 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. 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.

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.

To hold a defendant liable for torts, it must be clearly shown that he is the proximate cause
of the harm done to the plaintiff. The nexus or connection of the cause and effect, between
a negligent act and the damage done, must be established by competent evidence.
(Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15,
2017)
Application
Applying Art. 2179 in this case, it cannot be said that the harsh words that the plaintiff
received from the defendant professor are the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by
plaintiff but it is caused naturally by the pregnancy of plaintiff. The primary question here
is whether without the harsh words and insults from Atty. Mondragon, would Bartolome
eventually faint, hit her head on the table, and ultimately to suffer a miscarriage. The
answer would be in the affirmative because feeling dizzy and fainting are common during
pregnancy and when Bartolome went to school feeling unwell and without medical help
subjected herself to a medical risk. Hence, Atty. Mondragon is not liable because what
caused her injury is the plaintiff’s own negligence and common symptoms of pregnancy.

Вам также может понравиться