PROXIMATE CAUSE (comments are in red):

MENDOZA V. GOMEZ, GR 160110, June 18, 2014

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. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is
that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground
to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.
The proximate cause of the injury of Jose is his illicit sexual relationship or adultery with
Maine, a married woman. By the emphasized portion in the definition, it can be deduced
that Jose and Maine were responsible for the first event because they were caught in the
act of sexual intercourse, by no other than the legal husband. At the heat of their
passion, Jose, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, a part-time law student at
that, know that what they are doing is wrong and if caught, he could expect that an
injury will result therefrom, obviously from the legal husband who expected nothing but
the love and fidelity of his wife.
MENDOZA V. GOMEZ, GR 160110, June 18, 2014 (SAME CASE BUT AS TO MORAL
DAMAGES):
Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason
of the defendant's culpable action.
In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an exception rather than the
rule. Moral damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to compensate and
alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly
caused to a person. To be entitled to such an award, the claimant must satisfactorily
prove that he has suffered damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of
the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages
must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The
claimant must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the
acts of the defendant.
In fine, an award of moral damages calls for the presentation of 1) evidence of
besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the
claimant; 2) a culpable act or omission factually established; 3) proof that the wrongful
act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the
claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances expressed or
envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 2219, moral damages may be awarded in a case of adultery which is
specifically provided under item 4 of the said provision. It is a direct offense that caused
immense suffering, mental torture, and depression to the husband, and wounded
feelings, fright, and feelings of not being wanted to the child who were both neglected

and disfavored everytime the mother chose to have sex with her paramour. For
subjecting an innocent child and a loving husband to social humiliation and besmirched
reputation, moral damages in the amount of P5,000,000.00 is prayed for.
ADDITIONAL SIMILAR JURISPRUDENCE ON PROXIMATE CAUSE, AS REQUESTED:
SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN and the minors NORMA, LUZVIMINDA,
ELENITA, OSCAR and ALFREDO BATACLAN, represented by their Natural
guardian, SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN, vs.MARIANO MEDINA, G.R.
No. L-10126, October 22, 1957
A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is found in Volume 38, pages 695-696 of
American jurisprudence, cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. It is as follows:
. . . '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.' And more comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under
such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect
at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom.
This is the case of the overturned bus where the people intending to help brought a
lighted torch because it was dark and because the gasoline spilled, the fire from the
torches ignited it which caused the bus to burn with all the 3 trapped victims inside. The
proximate cause of the death is not the fire but the negligence of the driver.
LAMBERT S. RAMOS vs. C.O.L. REALTY CORPORATION, G.R. No. 184905, August
28, 2009
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. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is
that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground
to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.

WHAT IS ADULTERY? (relative to it being the proximate cause of the injury)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GUADALUPE ZAPATA AND DALMACIO BONDOC,
GR NO. L-3047, March 16, 1951
Adultery is a crime of result and not of tendency, as the Supreme Court of Spain has held
(S. 10 December 1945); it is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and
exhausted or completed at the moment of the carnal union. Each sexual intercourse
constitutes a crime of adultery (Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, Vol. II, p. 569). True, two or
more adulterous acts committed by the same defendants are against the same person
the offended husband, the same status the union of the husband and wife by their
marriage, and the same community represented by the State for its interest in
maintaining and preserving such status. But this identity of the offended party, status
society does not argue against the commission of the crime of adultery as many times as
there were carnal consummated, for as long as the status remain unchanged, the nexus
undissolved and unbroken, an encroachment or trespass upon that status constitutes a
crime. There is no constitutional or legal provision which bars the filing of as many
complaints for adultery as there were adulterous acts committed, each constituting one
crime.