Torts; Preliminary Considerations; viz Crime
Bataclan v. Medina
GR No. 10126 (1957)
Facts:
1. On September of 1952, around 2am, a Medina
Transportation bus was on its way to Pasay
from Cavite, when one of the front tire burst
and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell
into a ditch on the right side of the road and
turned turtle.
2. Some of the passengers were able to pull
themselves out of the wreck and was able to
leave the bus. Some of them even tried to help
their fellow passengers but some passengers
were pinned and could not be pulled out from
the bus. At this time, some passengers
clambered up to the road and shouted for
help.
3. After about half an hour, people in the nearby
village responded. They went to the wreckage
and brought lighted torch with them. The
torch was made of bamboo with a wick on the
upper end fueled by petroleum. As the men
approached the overturned bus, fire
consumed the bus almost immediately
burning alive the four passengers trapped
inside. One of whom is Juan Bataclan. It
appears that the gasoline spilled from the bus’
tank and the gasoline caught fire from the
torch.
4. The heirs of Bataclan sued the owner of
Medina Transport for damages. The owner of
the bus company denies liability saying that
the proximate cause of the unfortunate
incident was the fire caused by the torch
carried by the village people and not the
overturning of the bus.
Issue:
Whether or not the proximate cause of
Bataclan’s death was the overturning of the bus
hence making the bus owner liable for damages
Torts and Damages | Atty. Kim Dayag | PLS Summer Class 2019
Ruling:
1. The proximate cause of Bataclan’s death was
the overturning of the bus. 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 other words, it is that
event that produced a continuous natural
chain of events, which led to the injury.
2. In the present case, it was ruled that the
proximate cause was the overturning of the
bus, which was the result of the bus driver’s
negligence. From the facts of the case it was
established that:
Chain of events:
i. The driver was informed and was
instructed to change the tires
immediately as they were already old,
but he did not follow said
instructions.
ii. Had the driver followed the
instructions, the tires would not have
burst even if he was driving a bit fast.
iii. The tire burst caused the vehicle to be
out of control and eventually fall on a
ditch.
iv. It is but natural that the surviving
passengers call for help and it is also
expected that the village people will
try to rescue them.
v. It is natural that from that state of the
bus, gasoline from its tank would leak
and it would have soaked the
surrounding area, which would have
been smelt. Despite this, the driver
and the conductor failed to warn the
rescuers who carried with them a
torch.
vi. Fire consumed the bus leading to the
death of the trapped passengers.
3. Given that the proximate cause was the
overturning of the bus, which was the result
of the negligence of the driver, under the Civil
Code, the bus owner is primarily liable.

Torts and Damages | Atty. Kim Dayag | PLS Summer Class 2019