Definition of Terms:

1.
E. Natural and Probable Consequence test
- It must appear that this injury was not only the natural but also the probable consequences that
are merely possible. The general test of human experience that is used to determine what is
foreseeable is applied in determining what is natural and probable.
-The natural and probable consequences have been said to be those which human foresight can
anticipate because, they happen so frequently, they may be expected to recur.
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary
that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Involves two things:
1. Causality -damage would not have resulted without the fault or negligence of the
defendant
2. Adequacy-the fault of the defendant would normally result in the damage suffered by the
obligee
F. Cause-in-fact Test
It is necessary that there be proof that defendants conduct is a factor in causing plantiffs
jurisdiction
The first step is to determine whether defendants conduct in point of fact was a factor in
causing plaintiffs damage. If the injury as to causes, in fact shows that the defendants
conduct, in point of fact, was not a factor in causing plaintiffs damage, the matter ends
there, but if it be shown that his conduct was a factor in causing such damage, then the
further would not have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent. The
question is whether his conduct played such a part in causing the damage as would make
him the author of such damage and liable therefor in the eyes of the law.
G. But For Test or sine qua non test
Defendants conduct is the cause in fact of the injury under this test if the damage would
not have resulted had there been negligence on the part of the defendant
This is the test commonly applied in Philippine jurisdiction

-This test is frequently referred to as the sine qua non rule. The negligence need not be
the sole cause of the injury. The actor is liable to respond in damages although there are
other causes concurring with the negligence, as long as it is the proximate concurring
cause, or true cause, that is, the other cause or causes would not have produced the
injury independently of his negligence.

The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the
excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act
would have prevented the injury. (PLDT, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57079,
September 29, 1989)
H. Policy Tests of Negligence
If the damage or injury to the plantiff is beyond the limit of the liability fixed by law, the
defendants conduct cannot be considered the proximate cause of the damage

1. Foresight perspective- the defendant is not liable for the unforeseeable consequences of
his act
a. Forseeability test- The defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury as a result
of his act or if his conduct was reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate,
there is no negligence and no liability.
b. Natural and probable consequences test
c. Natural and ordinary or direct consequences test
2. Directness perspective- makes the defendant liable for damages which are beyond the
risk
a. Hindsight test
b. Orbit of risk test
c. Substantial factor test Under this test, if the actors conduct is a substantial factor in
bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have
foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not prevent
him from being liable. In order to be a substantial factor in producing the harm, the
causes set in motion by the defendant must continue until the moment of the damage
or at least down the setting in motion of the final active injurious force which
immediately produced or preceded the damage.

I. Concurrent Cause
Intervening cause which merely cooperated with the primary cause and which did not
break the chain of causation
The joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable