(1) Concept of Negligence PNR (petitioners) vs Ethel Bunty (respondents), G.R. No. 169891, November , !!6"o#trine$s%(a) Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by thoseconsiderations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or thedoing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.(b)Thedoctrineoflast clearchancestatesthat wherebothpartiesarenegligent but thenegligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible todeterminewhosefault ornegligencecausedtheloss, theonewhohadthelast clearopportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.(c)oral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to compensate and alleviate insomewaythephysical suffering, mental anguish, fright, seriousan!iety, besmirchedreputation, wounded feelings, moral shoc", social humiliation, and similar in#ury un#ustlycausedaperson.$lthoughincapableofpecuniarycomputation, moral damagesmustnevertheless be somehow proportional to and in appro!imation of the suffering inflicted.(d)$ctual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for anin#ury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural #ustice, aimed at repairingthe wrong done. To be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a reasonable degree ofcertainty. $ court cannot rely on speculation, con#ecture, or guesswor" as to the fact andamount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered, andon evidence of the actual amount thereof.&e'(l Provisions%$rticle%1&', ($)*'+ ,hoever, byact or omission, causes damagetoanother, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. -uch fault ornegligence, if there is no pre.e!isting contractual relation between the parties, is called a /uasi.delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.)(#ts%0thel 1runty2slatedaughter,(honda1runty,an $mericanciti3en, visited4hilippinessometime in 5anuary 16*7 and prior to her departure, she and her 8ilipino host 5uan anuel .9arcia, traveledto1aguioCityaboardaercedes1en3sedanwithplatenumber8:&66,driven by (odolfo ;. ercelita. as it hadleft the ;a :nion station at 11+77 p.m., 5anuary %>, 16*7.1y %+77 a.m., (honda, 9arcia and ercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at1arangay (i3al, oncada, Tarlac. ercelita, driving at appro!imately &7 "m?hr, drove past avehicle, unaware of the railroad trac" up ahead and that they were about to collide with 4N(Train No. T.&1. ercelita was instantly "illed when the ercedes 1en3 smashed into the train@the two other passengers suffered serious physical in#uries. $ 5ames Aarrow brought (honda tothe Central ;u3on Boctor2s Aospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutesfrom arrival. 9arcia, who had suffered severe head in#uries, was brought via ambulance to thesamehospital. AewastransferredtotheanilaBoctor2sAospital, andlater tothea"atiedical Center for further treatment.0thel 1runty sent a demand letter to 4N( to as" indemnity for the death of her daughter, but4N( did not respond. $s a result, she and 9arcia filed a complaint in the (TC anila (later triedby 1r. %7, anila (TC). They alleged that it was 4N(2s failure to provide necessary e/uipmentat the railroad crossing in 1rgy. (i3al, oncada. Tarlac which was pro!imate and direct cause of9arcia2s in#uries and the death of (honda. eanwhile, contrary to 1runty and 9arcia2sallegations, 4N( stated that it was not negligent in selection and supervision of its employees(using the diligence of a good father doctrine) and it was ercelita2s negligence which was theimmediate and pro!imate of the accident.