A) Plaintiff’s Negligence
1. Ramos v COL Realty - If the master is injured by the
negligence of a third person and by the concurring
contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the
latters negligence is imputed to his superior and will
defeat the superiors action against the third person,
assuming of course that the contributory negligence was
the proximate cause of the injury of which complaint is
made.
2. Manilla Electric Co v Remoquillo - To us it is clear
that the principal and proximate cause of the
electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a
remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act
of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized
iron sheet without taking any precaution, such as looking
back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its
contacting said iron sheet, considering the latter’s length
of 6 feet.
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of
an action if such remote cause did nothing more than
furnish the condition or give rise to the occassion by
which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the
injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occassion.
3. PLDT v CA - The perils of the road were known to,
hence appreciated and assumed by, private
respondents. By exercising reasonable care and
prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have
avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even
assuming arguendo that there was some alleged
negligence on the part of petitioner.
The presence of warning signs could not have
completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of
said signs was to inform and warn the public of the
presence of excavations on the site. The private
respondents already knew of the presence of said
excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of these
excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall
into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving
of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident
mound. As opined in some quarters, 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
4. Lambert v Heirs of Ray Castillon - The underlying
precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who
is partly responsible for his own injury should not be
entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the
consequences of his own negligence. The defendant
must thus be held liable only for the damages actually
caused by his negligence.[15] The determination of the
mitigation of the defendants liability varies depending on
the circumstances of each case. The Court had
sustained a mitigation of 50%
5. PBC v CA - The point is that as a business affected with
public interest and because of the nature of its functions,
the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind
the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In the case
before us, it is apparent that the petitioner bank was
remiss in that duty and violated that relationship.
it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was
likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements
of account. Had it done so, the company would have
been alerted to the series of frauds being committed
against RMC by its secretary. The damage would
definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only
RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a
little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by
RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall
mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the
private respondent
B) Fortuitous Event
1. Real v Belo - It is established by evidence that the fire originated
from leaking fumes from the LPG stove and tank installed at
petitioner's fastfood stall and her employees failed to prevent the
fire from spreading and destroying the other fastfood stalls,
including respondent's fastfood stall. Such circumstances do not
support petitioner's theory of fortuitous event.
 In this case, petitioner not only failed to show that she submitted
proof that the LPG stove and tank in her fastfood stall were
maintained in good condition and periodically checked for
defects but she also failed to submit proof that she exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of her employees.
2. Southern College v CA - In the present case, other than the
said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to
determine the real cause of the partial unroofing of petitioners
school building. Private respondents did not even show that the
plans, specifications and design of said school building were
deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any substantial
deviation from the approved plans and specifications. Nor did
they conclusively establish that the construction of such building
was basically flawed.
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.
3. Perla Compania De Seguros v Spouses Sarangaya III - a
mechanical defect will not release the defendant from liability if it
is shown that the accident could have been prevented had he
properly maintained and taken good care of the vehicle.
C) Assumption of Risk
1. Ilocos Norte electric company v CA - shall We punish her for
exercising her right to protect her property from the floods by
imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she
assumed the risk of personal injury? Definitely not. For it has
been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule,
that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must
abide by the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or
if the life or property of another is in peril (65A C.S.C.
Negligence(174(5), p. 301), or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property (Harper and James, "The Law of Torts."
Little, Brown and Co., 1956, v. 2, p. 1167). Clearly, an
emergency was at hand as the deceased's property, a source of
her livelihood, was faced with an impending loss. Furthermore,
the deceased, at the time the fatal incident occurred, was at a
place where she had a right to be without regard to petitioner's
consent as she was on her way to protect her merchandise.
Hence, private respondents, as heirs, may not be barred from
recovering damages as a result of the death caused by
petitioner's negligence.
D) Emergency Rule
1. Valenzuela v CA - While the emergency rule applies to those
cases in which reflective thought, or the opportunity to
adequately weigh a threatening situation is absent, the conduct
which is required of an individual in such cases is dictated not
exclusively by the suddenness of the event which absolutely
negates thoughtful care, but by the over-all nature of the
circumstances. A woman driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by a
flat tire on a rainy night will not be faulted for stopping at a point
which is both convenient for her to do so and which is not a
hazard to other motorists. She is not expected to run the entire
boulevard in search for a parking zone or turn on a dark Street or
alley where she would likely find no one to help her. It would be
hazardous for her not to stop and assess the emergency (simply
because the entire length of Aurora Boulevard is a no-parking
zone) because the hobbling vehicle would be both a threat to her
safety and to other motorists. In the instant case, Valenzuela,
upon reaching that portion of Aurora Boulevard close to A. Lake
St., noticed that she had a flat tire. To avoid putting herself and
other motorists in danger, she did what was best under the
situation.
E) Due Diligence
1. Ramos v Pepsi Cola - two things are apparent: (1) That
when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or
employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that
there was negligence on the part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in
supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that
the presumption is juris tantum and not juriset de jure, and
consequently may he rebutted. It follows necessarily that if
the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in
selection and supervision he has exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is
overcome and he is relieved from liability.
F) Prescription
1. Spouses Santos v Hon Pizardo - prescription of the
action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an
action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime
especially as the latter action had been expressly
reserved.
Causation

A) Proximate cause
1. Spouses Vergara v Torrecampo -