CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > C. PROXIMATE CAUSE > 3. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

Definition of Proximate Cause

Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. It is the legal cause that sets the events in motion and is responsible for the harm.

Efficient Intervening Cause

An efficient intervening cause refers to a new and independent force or event that breaks the causal connection between the original negligent act and the resulting injury. If such a cause intervenes and is sufficient to produce the injury by itself, the original actor may no longer be held liable.

Key Principles:

Characteristics of an Efficient Intervening Cause:
- Independent: It must originate from a source separate from the original negligent act.
- Sufficient: It must be capable of causing the harm by itself without the contribution of the initial negligence.
- Superseding: It must override the original actor's negligence and become the direct cause of the injury.
Effect on Liability:
- The presence of an efficient intervening cause absolves the original actor of liability because the chain of causation is broken.
- Liability shifts to the party responsible for the intervening act or is negated entirely if the event is deemed fortuitous.
Intervening Cause vs. Concurrent Negligence:
- An intervening cause breaks the causal chain.
- In cases of concurrent negligence, the negligent acts of multiple parties combine to cause the injury, and all negligent parties may be held liable.
Foreseeability:
- If the intervening cause is foreseeable, it does not break the chain of causation. The original negligent actor remains liable.
- Conversely, an unforeseeable intervening cause may absolve the original actor of liability.

Common Examples of Efficient Intervening Causes:

Acts of Nature (Force Majeure):
- Earthquakes, floods, or other natural events that could not have been anticipated or prevented.
Criminal Acts of Third Parties:
- An independent criminal act that intervenes in the sequence of events may absolve the original actor unless the act was foreseeable (e.g., leaving a vehicle unlocked in a high-crime area).
Gross Negligence of a Third Party:
- A subsequent act of gross negligence by another party may interrupt the causal chain.
Medical Malpractice:
- Negligent treatment by a medical professional after an initial injury could constitute an efficient intervening cause.

Judicial Doctrine in Philippine Jurisprudence

The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled on efficient intervening causes in numerous cases under quasi-delict principles. Key jurisprudential highlights include:

Barredo v. Garcia (1942):
- Proximate cause was defined as an unbroken chain of causation. Efficient intervening causes were acknowledged as events that could sever liability.
Amadora v. Court of Appeals (1988):
- Held that foreseeability is critical. If the subsequent event was a foreseeable consequence of the original negligent act, the chain is not broken.
Mendoza v. Manila Electric Co. (2007):
- The Court absolved Meralco of liability due to an efficient intervening cause—a third party’s tampering of electric meters, which was beyond Meralco’s control and unforeseeable.
Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation v. De los Santos (1996):
- Established that the negligence of another party intervening after an initial act may not automatically break causation unless it is entirely independent and unforeseeable.

Exceptions to the Doctrine:

Foreseeable Intervening Acts:
- If the intervening cause is a natural and probable result of the original negligence, it does not break the causal link. The original negligent actor is still liable.
Contributory Negligence:
- The victim’s own actions may be considered but do not absolve the original actor unless they constitute a proximate cause of the harm.

Application in Practice:

In applying the concept of efficient intervening cause, courts assess:

The nature and foreseeability of the intervening act.
The temporal and logical proximity between the original act and the injury.
Whether the original negligence was a substantial factor leading to the harm.
The independence of the intervening act.

A meticulous analysis is required to ensure fairness and adherence to the principles of law and justice, as guided by the Civil Code and case law.

Conclusion:

Efficient intervening causes are pivotal in determining liability in quasi-delicts. The doctrine underscores the importance of causation in civil liability while balancing the principle of foreseeability. By applying these rules judiciously, courts safeguard justice and equitably distribute accountability among parties.