Understanding the Legal Principle: “El Que Es Causa De Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado”

In the Philippine legal system, the principle “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado“ translates to “He Who is the Cause of the Cause is the Cause of the Evil Cause.” This Latin maxim underlines the concept of proximate cause in determining liability. It suggests that if an individual’s actions or negligence set off a chain of events that leads to harm, that individual may be held accountable for the resulting damage, even if the harm occurred indirectly. This principle plays a crucial role in civil cases, particularly in tort law, where establishing responsibility is key to securing justice for the aggrieved party.

The Role of Proximate Cause in Assigning Liability

The principle emphasizes the importance of identifying the proximate cause of harm. In legal terms, the proximate cause is the primary cause that directly leads to an event, particularly a harmful one. When applying “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado,” the court looks at whether the defendant’s actions were closely linked to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If the defendant’s actions are found to be the initial trigger that set the harmful events in motion, they may be deemed liable, even if the actual damage was caused by another party down the line. This principle ensures that those who indirectly contribute to harm are not absolved of responsibility.

Application in Philippine Tort Law

In the context of Philippine tort law, this legal maxim is often invoked to establish a chain of causation. For example, if a company negligently manufactures a defective product that later causes injury, the company could be held liable, as they are the “cause of the cause” of the harm. The courts will examine the sequence of events leading up to the injury to determine whether the company’s negligence was the proximate cause. This application of “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” ensures that justice is served by holding the appropriate parties accountable for their actions.

Importance in Civil Cases

This principle is particularly important in civil cases where multiple parties may be involved in a chain of events leading to harm. It allows the court to pinpoint the origin of the problem and assign liability accordingly. For instance, in cases involving medical malpractice, if a doctor’s initial misdiagnosis leads to improper treatment and subsequent harm, the doctor may be held liable for the ultimate damage, even if other factors also contributed. The maxim “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” helps ensure that victims can seek compensation from those whose actions were the root cause of their suffering.

Ensuring Fairness and Accountability

By applying this principle, the Philippine courts uphold the values of fairness and accountability in legal proceedings. It prevents individuals or entities from escaping liability simply because their actions were not the immediate cause of harm. Instead, the focus is on whether their actions were the starting point of the chain of events that led to the damage. “El que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” reinforces the idea that justice must consider the broader context of actions and consequences, ensuring that those responsible for initiating harmful events are held to account.

Applying “El Que Es Causa De Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado” to the Case of New Seataoo Corporation

In the context of New Seataoo Corporation, the principle “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado,” which translates to “He Who is the Cause of the Cause is the Cause of the Evil Cause,” can be invoked to examine the root cause of the company’s fraudulent activities. This legal maxim is particularly relevant in assessing liability and accountability when determining who or what entity should be held responsible for the harm caused by the company’s operations. If the root cause of the criminal activities is traced back to the initial approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), then the question arises: should the SEC bear some responsibility for the subsequent harm?

The Role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The SEC plays a crucial role in regulating and overseeing corporations, ensuring that they operate within the bounds of the law. When the SEC grants a license for a company to operate, it does so under the assumption that the company will abide by the rules and regulations set forth in its Articles of Incorporation. However, if a company like New Seataoo Corporation deviates from these guidelines and engages in suspicious or illegal activities, the principle of “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” could suggest that the SEC, as the initial enabler, bears some responsibility for the company’s actions. If the SEC had not approved the incorporation, the subsequent fraudulent activities might not have occurred.

Identifying the Root Cause of the Scam

To understand the full scope of responsibility, it is essential to trace the sequence of events leading to the scam perpetrated by New Seataoo Corporation. The root cause can be linked back to the SEC’s decision to grant the company a license to operate. If it can be established that the SEC’s approval was the starting point for the company’s eventual illegal activities, then according to the principle of “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado,” the SEC could be seen as the cause of the cause, making it partially liable for the harm caused by the company’s actions.

The SEC’s Responsibility and Oversight

While the SEC’s role is to ensure that companies comply with their Articles of Incorporation, it is not uncommon for companies to engage in fraudulent activities after receiving approval. The principle “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” raises questions about the extent of the SEC’s liability. Should the SEC be held accountable for not foreseeing the potential for fraud, or is the blame solely on New Seataoo Corporation for violating its Articles of Incorporation? This legal principle invites a deeper examination of whether the initial authorization by the SEC was a contributing factor to the fraudulent outcomes.

Balancing Accountability Between the SEC and New Seataoo Corporation

Ultimately, while New Seataoo Corporation is directly responsible for its actions, the principle “el que es causa de causa es causa del mal causado” suggests that the SEC’s role in allowing the company to operate cannot be ignored. The SEC’s decision to grant the license, despite being made in good faith, may have inadvertently set the stage for the fraudulent activities that followed. This raises the complex issue of balancing accountability between the regulatory body and the company. If the SEC had not approved the incorporation, the scam may never have occurred, positioning the SEC as a potential cause of the cause in this scenario.

Insights and Forum for Discussion

Ang New Seataoo Corporation ay nabigyan ng karapatang mag-operate at maging legal na kumpanya ng Securities and Exchange Commission noong October 4, 2022. Mula noong araw na yun hanggang June 10, 2024 ay naging maayos ang operasyon ng kumpanya.

Noong June 10, 2024 nang inilabas ng SEC ang Revocation Order dito nagkaroon ng problema ang mga sellers at hindi na nakawithdraw pa ng kani-kanilang mga pera.

Kung i-a-apply natin ang

“El Que Es Causa De Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado”

Gumawa ng paglabag ang SEATAOO CORPORATION sa paggawa ng mga bagay na hindi nakasulat sa Article  of Incorporation. In short, gumawa ng criminal activities ang New Seataoo Corporation.

Bilang ahensya ng gobyerno na nagbigay ng karapatan at ginawang legal ang operasyon ng Seataoo, sila ang dahilan kung bakit nagawa ito ng Seataoo. Kung hindi nila b inigyan ng Authority ang Seataoo to operate, hindi ito tatakbo sa loob ng higit isang taon.

That is if we want to trace the Root-cause of the situation. 

1. Bakit binigyan ng Authority to Operate?
2. Bakit hindi sinuri ang Application?
3. Bakit pinatagal ng higit isang taon?
4. Bakit pino-force ng SEC ang mga tao na ituring na scam ang SEATAOO at ireklamo ito?

Ano pong masasabi ninyo sa AFFIDAVIT? Ito po ang mga tanong nang marami sa ating mga Sellers.

YES, pumanig tayo o panigan natin ang Securities and Exchange Commission at idiin natin ang New Seataoo Corporation. Patunayan nating Investment ang Seataoo at palabasing SCAM ito.

Ano ang ASSURANCE na makukuha at maliliquidate ang mga PERA natin?

Open Forum Discussion with a Lawyer

Sa mga interested pong dumalo at makibahagi sa Open Forum Discussion with a Lawyer, ay ito po ang ZOOM Link.

──────────
Vincent Bongolan is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88197493950?pwd=61m0fd6Gyp3K6ZenIXfkyPr70BLJ6D.1

Meeting ID: 881 9749 3950
Passcode: 975589

Ano ang pag-uusapan sa Sunday

YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/live/O-4UhyvcXTc

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS OR ACTIONS TO DISCUSS

Inilabas ng Securites and Exchange Commission ang Revocation Order without any order from their end. Walang nakalagay o nakasulat na salita o kautusan na habang hinihintay ang apila ng SEATAOO ay ibalik muna ang pera natin dahil wala naman tayong paki-alam sa usaping legal at mga technicalities. In other words, problema nilang lutasin at pag-usapan ang namamagitang conflict sa pagitan nilang dalawa.

Kung sigurado ang SEC sa kanilang Assessment na gumagawa ang SEATAOO ng PONZI Activities, na nagso-solicit ang SEATAOO ng pera in the form of INVESTMENT, sana ay Closure order na ang inilabas nila at ipinag-utos na sa SEATAOO na ibalik ang pera ng mga Sellers. Pero bakit hindi ganoon ang kanilang inilabas o sinabi sa Revocation Order?

Hindi sila sigurado sa kanilang naging assessment at wala silang matibay na ebidensya na ang Seataoo ay gumagawa ng Ponzi Scheme Activities kaya kung mapapansin natin ang term na ginamit ng SEC ay “PONZI-LIKE” scheme Activities. Pangalawang napansin ko dito ay ang sinasabing nanghihingi o nagso-solicit ang Seataoo diumano ng Pera in the form of an investment, ngunit walang nakalagay or screenshot ng ebidensya o pruweba na nanghihingi nga ang Seataoo. Isa pang naging palaisipan sa akin ay malinaw na sinabi ng SEC sa Revocation ay “Based on the Reports we received”. Ibig sabihin, pinagbasehan ng SEC ang reports or email o sulat na hindi naman authenticated o hindi naman formal complaint at lalong hindi galing sa mga taong hindi naman connected o hindi naman na-scam ng SEATAOO. Bakit sila nakinig sa Report samantalang tayong mga legitimate SELLERS ng SEATAOO ay ine-encourage tayong magsampa ng formal complaint. Dapat ay naglabas sila ng REVOCATION ORDER at inilagay doon ang isang kautusan na isole ang pera natin habang inaayos ng SEATAOO ang APPEAL nito.

BAKIT INEENCOURAGE TAYO NG SEC NA IREKLAMO ANG SEATAOO

Sa isang pagkakataon na kung saan ay isang seller at ilang guest ay inimbitahan ng SEC upang magkaroon ng Face-to-Face conference. Sa kanilang pag-uusap ay nagbigay ng idea ang SEC na mag-file na daw ng formal complaint against New Seataoo Corporation. Binigyan nila ng formal template ang mga pumunta sa conference.

Malinaw ang intensyon ng SEC na nakasulat sa Complaint-Affidavit na dapat ang mga Seller ay magsampa ng formal na complaint at idemanda at ireklamo ang SEATAOO na para bang gusto nilang mag-isip, maglabas ng mga ebidensya at gumawa ng paraan ang mga sellers na patunayan at sabihing SCAM ang SEATAOO. Isang bagay na mahirap patunayan dahil bilang seller, papano natin mapapatunayan na nanghingi sa atin ang SEATAOO, papano tayo na-scam ng SEATAOO at marami pang ibang magdidiin sa SEATAOO.

KAMPIHAN NATIN ANG SEC: ANONG MANGYAYARI?

Kung sakaling gawin natin ang mga sinasabi ng SEC at madidiin ang SEATAOO. Maglalabas gn korte ng Garnishment Order na kung saan ay kikilos ang AMLAC, at BSP upang i-freeze ang lahat ng monetary and equipment assets ng SEATAOO. Ibig sabihin, tuluyang mawawalan ng karapatan ang SEATAOO na mahawakan at makuha ang pera nito.

Magiging HONEST kaya ang Gobyerno na may mga Monetary at ibang assets pa ang SEATAOO na kanilang nahabol? Hindi kaya sa bandang huli ay sabihin nilang, ginawa namin ang lahat. Tinulungan namin ang mga SELLERS, subalit huli na ang lahat. nakuha na ng SEATAOO ang kanilang pera. Therefore, wala na kaming maliliquidate.

Dahil sa ganitong sitwasyon, malilinis ng tuluyan ang pangalan ng kanilang ahensya at hindi na matatanong pa o makukwestyon katulad ng mga sumusunod:

1. Bakit nila binigyan ng license to operate ang SEATAOO?
2. Bakit hindi nila sinuri ang mga dokumento na isinumite ng SEATAOO.
3. Bakit hindi nila vinerify ang mga legitimacy at katotohanan sa mga incorporators?
4. Wala bang hinging passport, birth certificate para malaman kung legit ang mga tao.
5. Bakit tumagal ang kumpanya ng halos dalawang taon.

 

MY SUGGESTION THIS SUNDAY?

Bagamat may nakikita akong pagkakamali sa Seataoo at una nga rito ay hindi natin kilala ang mga totoong tao sa likod ng kumpanya, sinasabing dummy ang mga incorporators, ayaw makipag-usap o sumagot ni Dylan Lim, ayaw din lumabas ng HEAD ng Seataoo na si Ivander Flores upang magsalita sa publiko.

Ayaw ko rin idiin ang SEC dahil sa mga bagay o lapses sa kanilang parte gaya ng lamang ng bakit nila pinayagan ang operasyon ng SEATAOO? Bakit tumagal ng almost 2 years, bakit hindi vinerify ang mga incorporators.

1. Quit Claim – Ang aking idea sa Quit Claim ay hilingin natin sa korte or sa SEC na kausapin o utusan ang SEATAOO na isole ang ating mga pera. Hindi tayo magsasampa ng reklamo against SEATAOO, basta isole lang nila ang pera natin na parang QUITS.

2. Motion for Reconsideration – Hihilingin natin sa korte o kaya sa SEC na i-modify o mag-append ng additional clause sa kanilang Revocation Order na ipag-utos nila sa SEATAOO na habang may nakasampang appeal ang SEATAOO sa SEC ay isole ang pera ng mga Sellers. Sa ngayon kasi ay kulang ang laman ng revocation order at wala man lang proteksyon ang mga sellers at wala ding direksyon ang mga sellers kung ano ang dapat gawin habang naghihintay tayong ma-resolve ang anumang conflict sa kanilang dalawa.