Thursday, 22 August 2019

16) Layugan vs IAC

FACTS: on May 15, 1979 while at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, the Plaintiff and a
companion were repairing the tire of their cargo truck with Plate No. SU-730 which was
parked along the right side of the National Highway; that defendant's truckdriven
recklessly by Daniel Serrano bumped the plaintiff, that as a result, plaintiff was injured
and hospitalized at Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Research and Medical Center and the Our
Lady of Lourdes Hospital; that he spent TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Pl0,000.00) and will
incur more expenses as he recuperates from said injuries; that because of said injuries
he would be deprived of a lifetime income in the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P70,000.00); and that he agreed to pay his lawyer the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS

Defendant countered that the plaintiff was merely a bystander, not a truck helper being
a brother-in-law law of the driver of said truck; that the truck allegedly being repaired
was parked, occupying almost half of the right lane towards Solano, Nueva Vizcaya,
right after the curve; that the proximate cause of the incident was the failure of the
driver of the parked truck in installing the early warning device, hence the driver of the
parked car should be liable for damages sustained by the truck

On May 29, 1981, a third-party complaint was filed by the defendant against his
insurer,

amply supported by the evidence on record, the trial court rendered its decision and
ordered defendat to pay damages

Intermediate Appellate Court as earlier stated reversed the decision of the trial court
and dismissed the complaint, the third-party complaint, and the counter- claims of
both appellants.

ISSUE: WON CA CORRECT? WHO WAS NEGLIGENT? CA wrong isidro was negligent

HELD: The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case
may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts
the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
paterfamilias of the Roman law

ISIDROS CLAIM: Respondent Isidro posits that any immobile object along the
highway, like a parked truck, poses serious danger to a moving vehicle which has the
right to be on the highway. He argues that since the parked cargo truck in this case
was a threat to life and limb and property, it was incumbent upon the driver as well as
the petitioner, who claims to be a helper of the truck driver, to exercise extreme care so

1
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
that the motorist negotiating the road would be properly forewarned of the peril of a
parked vehicle. Isidro submits that the burden of proving that care and diligence were
observed is shifted to the petitioner, for, as previously claimed, his (Isidro's) Isuzu truck
had a right to be on the road, while the immobile cargo truck had no business, so to
speak, to be there. Likewise, Isidro proffers that the petitioner must show to the
satisfaction of a reasonable mind that the driver and he (petitioner) himself, provided an
early warning device, like that required by law, or, by some other adequate means that
would properly forewarn vehicles of the impending danger that the parked vehicle
posed considering the time, place, and other peculiar circumstances of the occasion.
Absent such proof of care, as in the case at bar, Isidro concludes, would, under the
doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, evoke the presumption of negligence on the part of the
driver of the parked cargo truck as well as his helper, the petitioner herein, who was
fixing the flat tire of the said truck.

COURTS ANSWER: The evidence on record discloses that three or four meters from
the rear of the parked truck, a lighted kerosene lamp was placed and Whether the
cargo truck was parked along the road or on half the shoulder of the right side of the
road would be of no moment taking into account the warning device consisting of the
lighted kerosene lamp placed three or four meters from the back of the truck.

IAC WRONG:From its finding that the parked truck was loaded with ten (10) big round
logs the Court of Appeals inferred that because of its weight the truck could not have
been driven to the shoulder of the road and concluded that the same was parked on a
portion of the road at the time of the accident. Consequently, the respondent court
inferred that the mishap was due to the negligence of the driver of the parked truck.
The inference or conclusion is manifestly erroneous. In a large measure, it is grounded
on speculation, surmise, or conjecture. How the respondent court could have reversed
the finding of the trial court that a warning device was installed (res ipsaliquitor not
applicable ca was applying it. It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima
facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the
duty of due care) once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy,
whether by the plaintiff or by the defendant, no presumptions will be involved and the
doctrine becomes inapplicable when the circumstances have been so completely
eludicated that no inference of defendant's liability can reasonably be made, whatever
the source of the evidence, ISIDROS driver’s claim while driving Isuzu truck at
Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya and at KM 285, I met another vehicle who (sic) did
not dim his (sic) lights which cause (sic) me to be blinded with intense glare of the light
that's why I did not notice a parked truck who (sic) was repairing a front flat tire. When I
was a few meters away, I saw the truck which was loaded with round logs. I step (sic)

2
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
on my foot brakes but it did not function with my many attempts. I have (sic) found out
later that the fluid pipe on the rear right was cut that's why the breaks did not function.
The private respondent or his mechanic, who must be competent, should have
conducted a thorough inspection of his vehicle before allowing his driver to drive it. In
the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case, we hold that Isidro failed to prove
that the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of his employees which
would exculpate him from solidary liability with his driver to the petitioner. RTC
reinstated

3
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
17) Ramos vs CA

FACTS: Erlinda Ramos, 47-year old robust woman underwent on an operation to the
stone at her gall bladder removed after being tested that she was fit for
"cholecystectomy” operation performed by Dr. OrlinoHozaka. Dr. Hosaka charged a fee
of P16,000.00, which was to include the anesthesiologist's fee and which was to be
paid after the operation. He assured Rogelio E. Ramos, husband that he will get a good
anesthesiologist who was Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez. Erlinda's hand was held by
Herminda Cruz, her sister -in-law who was the Dean of

the College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center together with her husband went
down with her to the operating room.

Instead of 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka arrived at about 12:15 P.M.Herminda noticing what Dra.
Perfecta Gutierrez was doing, saw the nailbed

of Erlinda becoming bluish and Dr. Hosaka called for

another anesthesiologist Dr. Calderon.

She went out of the operating room to tell Rogelio that something is wrong.

When she went back she saw Erlinda in a trendelenburg position and at 3 p.m. she was
taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where she stayed for a month due to
bronchospasm incurring P93,542.25 and she was since then comatosed.

She suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen in her brain for four to
five minutes.

She was also diagnosed to be suffering from "diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage”
Monthly expenses ranged from P8,000 to P10,000. Spouses Ramos and their minors
filed against Dr. Hosaka and Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez.

The trial court favored the Ramos' awarding P8,000 as actual monthly expenses
totalling to P632,000 as of April 15, 1992, P100,000 atty.

fees, P800,000 moral damages,P200,000 exemplary damages and cost of suit. The
appellate court reversed ordering the Ramos' to pay their unpaid bills of P93,542.25
plus interest.

ISSUE: Whether respondents were negligent and liable.


RULING: YES. Private respondents were all negligent and are solidarily liable for the
damages.

Res ipsa loquitur – a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the thing or the
transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of

4
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation, where ordinarily in a
medical malpractice case, the complaining party must present expert testimony to
prove that the attending physician was negligent.

This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation, Erlinda Ramos
already surrendered her person to the private respondents who had complete and
exclusive control over her. Apart from the gallstone problem, she was neurologically
sound and fit. Then, after the procedure, she was comatose and brain damaged—res
ipsa loquitur—the thing speaks for itself!

Negligence – Private respondents were not able to disprove the presumption of

negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate
cause of her condition. One need not be an anesthesiologist in order to tell whether or
not the intubation was a success. [resipsa loquitur applies here]. The Supreme Court
also found that the anesthesiologist only saw Erlinda for the first time on the day of the
operation which indicates unfamiliarity with the patient and which is an act of
negligence and irresponsibility.

The head surgeon, Dr. Hosaka was also negligent. He failed to exercise the proper
authority as the “captain of the ship” in determining if the anesthesiologist observed
the proper protocols. Also, because he was late, he did not have time to confer with
the anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery.

The hospital failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a
good father of the family in hiring and supervision of its doctors (Art. 2180). The
hospital was negligent since they are the one in control of the hiring and firing of their
“consultants”. While these consultants are not employees, hospitals still exert
significant controls on the selection and termination of doctors who work there which is
one of the hallmarks of an employer-employee reationship. Thus, the hospital was
allocated a share in the liability.

5
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
18) Tan vs Jam Transit

Facts:Luz Palanca Tan (Tan) alleged that she was the owner of a passenger-type jitney
with plate number DKF-168.On March 14, 1997, at around 5:00 a.m., the said jitney
figured in an accident at an intersection along Maharlika Highway, Barangay Bangyas,
Calauan, Laguna, as it collided with a JAM Transit passenger bus bound for Manila,
bearing plate number DVG-557 and body number 8030.The bus was driven by Eddie
Dimayuga (Dimayuga).At the time of the collision, Tans jitney was loaded with quail
eggs and duck eggs (balot and salted eggs).It was driven by Alexander M. Ramirez
(Ramirez).Tan alleged that Dimayuga was reckless, negligent, imprudent, and not
observing traffic rules and regulations, causing the bus to collide with the jitney which
was then, with care and proper light direction signals, about to negotiate a left turn
towards the feeder or barangay road of Barangay Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna going to
the Poblacion.The jeepney turned turtle along the shoulder of the road and the cargo of
eggs was destroyed.Ramirez and his helper were injured and hospitalized, incurring
expenses for medical treatment at thePagamutang Pangmasain Bay, Laguna.Tan
prayed for damages in the amount of P400,000.00 for the damaged jitney,P142,210.00
for the destroyed shipment,P20,000.00 for moral damages, attorneys fees of
P20,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per court appearance of counsel, and other reliefs
warranted under the premises.In its Answer with Counterclaim, respondent JAM
Transit, Inc. (JAM) admitted ownership of the subject passenger bus and that
Dimayuga was under its employ.However, it denied the allegations in the Complaint,
and claimed that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of Ramirez.As
counterclaim, JAM sought payment of P100,000.00 for the damages sustained by the
bus,P100,000.00 for loss of income, and P50,000.00 as attorneys fees plusP3,000.00
per court appearance of counsel. The RTC ruled in favor of Tan and the CA ruled in
favor of JAM Transit,There was no evidence as to who between Ramirez and Dimayuga
was negligent in connection with the vehicular accident.The CA held that the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur can only be invoked when direct evidence is nonexistent or not
accessible.


Issue:Whether direct evidence is needed to prove the omission or negligence of Jam

Transit.

6
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
Holding:No,Verily, although there was no direct evidence that the JAM passenger bus
was overtaking the vehicles running along the right lane of the highway from the left
lane, the available evidence readily points to such fact.There were two continuous
yellow lines at the center of the highway, which meant that no vehicle in the said area
should overtake another on either side of the road.The double yellow center lines
regulation, which this Court takes judicial notice of as an internationally recognized
pavement regulation, was precisely intended to avoid accidents along highways, such
as what happened in this case.This prohibition finds support in Republic Act (R.A.) No.
4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), Section 41(e).Furthermore, it is observed
that the area of collision was an intersection.Section 41(c) of R.A. No. 4136, likewise,
prohibits overtaking or passing any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction at
any intersection of highways, among others.Thus, by overtaking on the left lane,
Dimayuga was not only violating the double yellow center lines regulation, but also the
prohibition on overtaking at highway intersections.Consequently, negligence can be
attributed only to him, which negligence was the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by petitioner.This prima facie finding of negligence was not sufficiently
rebutted or contradicted by Dimayuga. Therefore, a finding that he is liable for
damages to petitioner is warranted.Whenever an employees negligence causes
damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the section (culpa in eligiendo)
or supervision (culpa in vigilando)of its employees.To avoid liability for a quasi-delict
committed by its employee, an employer must overcome the presumption, by
presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.To warrant an award of
actual or compensatory damages for repair to damage sustained, the best evidence
should be the receipts or other documentary proofs of the actual amount
expended.However, considering that it was duly proven that the jitney was damaged
and had to be repaired, as it was repaired, and that the cargo of eggs was indeed
destroyed, but the actual amounts expended or lost were not proven, we deem it
appropriate to award P250,000.00 by way of temperate damages.Under Article 2224 of
the Civil Code,temperate damages may be recovered when pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED.The Decision dated June 2, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
89046 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.The Decision dated December 20, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna in Civil Case No. SC-3838 is
REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION.

7
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
19) Cantre vs Go

FACTS

Nora Go gave birth to her 4th child. Two hours later, she suffered profuse bleeding
inside her womb due to some placenta parts which were not completely expelled after
delivery. She then suffered hypovolemic shock, so her BP dropped to 40/0. Dr.
Milagros Cantre, an Ob-Gyne specialist and Nora's attending physician, together with
an assisting resident physician, performed various medical procedures to stop the
bleeding and to restore Nora's BP. While Dr. Cantre was massaging Nora's uterus for it
to contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to warm Nora and her baby. At
that time, she was unconscious.

     While in the recovery room, Nora's husband John David noticed a fresh gaping
wound (2 1/2 x 3 1/2 in) in the inner portion of her left arm near the armpit. When he
asked the nurses about the cause of the injury, he was informed that it was due to a
burn. John David filed a request for investigation. Dr. Cantre said that what caused the
injury was the blood pressure cuff. John David brought Nora to the NBI for a physical
examination. The medico-legal said that the injury appeared to be a burn and that a
droplight when placed near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such burn. He
dismissed the likelihood that the wound was caused by a blood pressure cuff since the
scar was not around the arm, but just on one side of the arm. Nora's injury was referred
to a plastic surgeon for skin grafting. However, her arm would never be the same--the
surgery left an unsightly scar, her movements are restricted, and the injured arm aches
at the slightest touch.

     Sps. Go filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Cantre, the medical director, and
the hospital. In the RTC, parties have rested their respective cases, but the court
admitted additional exhibits [consist mostly of medical records produced by the
hospital during trial pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum] offered by Sps. Go, which
were not testified to by any witness. RTC ruled in favor of the spouses. CA affirmed
RTC with modification (complaint dismissed with respect to the medical director and
the hospital; only moral damages awarded).

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. WON the questioned additional exhibits are admissible in evidence. YES

2. WON Dr. Cantre is liable for the injury suffered by Nora Go. YES

8
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
RATIO

Preliminary discussion

Dr. Cantre's counsel admitted the existence of the additional exhibits when they were
formally offered for admission by the RTC. In any case, given the circumstances of this
case, a ruling on Dr. Cantre's negligence may be made based on the res ipsa
loquitur doctrine even in the absence of the additional exhibits.

Backgrounder

The Hippocratic Oath mandates physicians to give primordial consideration to their

patients' well-being, and if a doctor fails to live up to this precept, he is accountable for
his acts. This notwithstanding, courts face a unique restraint in adjudicating
medical negligence cases because physicians are not guarantors of care,
and they never set out to intentionally  cause injury to their
patients. HOWEVER, intent is immaterial in these cases because where negligence
exists and is proven, it automatically gives the injured a right to reparation for the
damage caused.

Res ipsa loquitur x Medical negligence cases

In medical negligence cases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence
of an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the person who
controls the instrument causing the injury, provided that the
following requisites concur:

1. Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur absent someone's

negligence

• Wound not an ordinary occurrence in the act of delivering a baby; could

not have happened unless negligence set in somewhere

2. Caused by an instrumentality within defendant's exclusive control

• It doesn't matter WON the injury was caused by the droplight or by the
blood pressure cuff, since both are within the exclusive control of the
physician in charge [Dr. Cantre] under the captain of the ship doctrine
[surgeon in charge of an operation is held liable for his assistants'
negligence during the time when they are under the surgeon's control].

9
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
3. Possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible
is eliminated

• Wound could only be caused by something external to and outside the

control of Nora since she was unconscious while in hypervolemic shock.

On Dr. Cantre's other arguments + what would have been her saving grace

• BP cuff defense does not afford her an escape. The medical practice is to

deflate the cuff immediately after use, or else, it could cause an injury similar to
what happened to Nora. If the wound was caused by the constant taking of BP,
it must have been done so negligently as to inflict a gaping wound.

• The argument that the failed plastic surgery was a measure to prevent
complication (and not intended as a cosmetic procedure) does not negate
negligence on Dr. Cantre's part.

• Dr. Cantre has been Nora's ob-gyne for her past 3 deliveries, and this is the first
time that Dr. Cantre is being held liable for damages due to negligence in the
practice of her profession. She promptly took care of the wound before infection
set in. Since Nora was in a critical condition at that time, saving her life became
Dr. Cantre's elemental concern. Still, her good intentions characteristics do
not justify negligence. 

NCC provisions applied

• NCC 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being

fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. [...]

• NCC 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,

serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission. [200k moral damages awarded]

10
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
20) Batiquin vs CA

Facts:

Mrs. Villegas submitted to Dr. Batiquin for prenatal care as the latter's private
patient sometime before September 21, 1988. In the morning of September 21, 1988
Dr. Batiquin, along with other physicians and nurses, performed a caesarean operation
on Mrs. Villegas and successfully delivered the latter’s baby. After leaving the hospital,
Mrs. Villegas began to suffer abdominal pains and complained of being feverish. She
also gradually lost her appetite, so she consulted Dr. Batiquin at the latter's polyclinic
who prescribed for her certain medicines. However, the pains still kept recurring. She
then consulted Dr.Ma. Salud Kho. After examining her, Dr Kho suggested that
Mrs.Villegas submit to another surgery. When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Mrs.
Villegas she found whitish-yellow discharge inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left
and right ovaries which gave out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus, and a piece
of rubber material on the right side of the uterus, embedded on the ovarian cyst. The
piece of rubber appeared to be a part of a rubber glove. This was the cause of all of the
infection of the ovaries and consequently of all the discomfort suffered by Mrs.
Villegas. The piece of rubber allegedly found was not presented in court, and Dr. Kho
testified that she sent it to a pathologist in Cebu City for examination. Aside from Dr.
Kho's testimony, the evidence which mentioned the piece of rubber is a Medical
Certificate, a Progress Record, an Anaesthesia Record, a Nurse's Record, and a
Physician's Discharge Summary.

Issue:

Whether or not Dr. Batiquin is liable

Held:

Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of
negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct
proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. The rule, when applicable to
the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is not intended to and does not dispense
with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the
burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked
when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not
readily available.

11
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
In the instant case, all the requisites for recourse to the doctrine are present. First, the
entire proceedings of the cesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. In
this light, the private respondents were bereft of direct evidence as to the actual culprit or
the exact cause of the foreign object finding its way into private respondent Villegas' body,
which, needless to say, does not occur unless through the intervention of negligence. Second,
since aside from the cesarean section, private respondent Villegas underwent no other
operation which could have caused the offending piece of rubber to appear in her uterus, it
stands to reason that such could only have been a by-product of the cesarean section
performed by Dr. Batiquin. The petitioners, in this regard, failed to overcome the
presumption of negligence arising from resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Batiquin
is therefore liable for negligently leaving behind a piece of rubber in private respondent
Villegas' abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.

The court reiterates its recognition of the vital role the medical profession plays in the lives
of the people and State's compelling interest to enact measures to protect the public from
"the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake
to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma. Indeed, a physician is bound to serve the
interest of his patients "with the greatest of solicitude, giving them always his best talent and
skill." Through her tortious conduct, the petitioner endangered the life of Flotilde Villegas, in
violation of her profession's rigid ethical code and in contravention of the legal standards set
forth for professionals, in the general and members of the medical profession, in particular.

12
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
21) DM Consunji vs CA

FACTS: Jose Juego, a construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from
the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. . Juego together with Jessie Jaluag
and Delso Destajo [were] performing their work as carpenter[s] at the elevator core of
th
the 14 floor of the Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building on board a [p]latform made
of channel beam (steel) measuring 4.8 meters by 2 meters wide with pinulid plywood
flooring and cable wires attached to its four corners and hooked at the 5 ton chain
block, when suddenly, the bolt or pin which was merely inserted to connect the chain
block with the [p]latform, got loose xxx causing the whole [p]latform assembly and the
victim to fall down to the basement of the elevator core, Tower D of the building under
construction thereby crushing the victim of death, save his two (2) companions who
luckily jumped out for safety. Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased’s employer, D.M.
Consunji, Inc.

Res ipsa loquitur became an issue in relation to DM Consunji’s objection to PO3

Villanueva’s testimony. What Consunji took particular exception to is PO3 Villanueva’s
testimony that the cause of the fall of the platform was the loosening of the bolt from
the chain block. Petitioner claimed that such portion of the testimony is mere opinion.
18
Subject to certain exceptions, the opinion of a witness is generally not admissible.
Petitioner does not dispute the existence of the requisites for the application of res ipsa
loquitur, but argues that the presumption or inference that it was negligent did not arise
since it "proved that it exercised due care to avoid the accident which befell
respondent’s husband."


ISSUE: WON CA erred in holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor [sic] is applicable
to prove negligence on the part of petitioner.

HELD: The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in this wise: While
negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while the mere happening of an
accident or injury will not generally give rise to an inference or presumption that it was
due to negligence on defendant’s part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which
means, literally, the thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the
thing or instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances accompanying an
injury may be such as to raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other person who is charged with
negligence.


13
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury
complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and that the
occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course of things would
not happen if those who had its

control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes
stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the
21
injury arose from or was caused by the defendant’s want of care.

One of the theoretical based for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e., that necessary
22
evidence is absent or not available. 

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory that the defendant in
charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the
accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such
knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege negligence in general terms and to rely
upon the proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence. The
inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence
of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the
defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.

It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur furnishes a bridge by which a
plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant who knows or
should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in
respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine,
another court has said, is a rule of necessity, in that it proceeds on the theory that
under the peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is applicable, it is within the
power of the defendant to show that there was no negligence on his part, and direct
proof of defendant’s negligence is beyond plaintiff’s power. Accordingly, some court
add to the three prerequisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the
further requirement that for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must appear that
the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the
accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or
opportunity for explanation of the accident.

Petitioner apparently misapprehends the procedural effect of the doctrine. As stated

25
earlier, the defendant’s negligence is presumed or inferred when the plaintiff

14
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
establishes the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Once the plaintiff makes
out a prima facie case of all the elements, the burden then shifts to defendant to
26
explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other
evidence and, under appropriate circumstances disputable presumption, such as that
27
of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference. It is not for the defendant to
explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference from arising.
Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only after the
circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established.


Petitioner is correct. Fabro’s sworn statement is hearsay and inadmissible. Affidavits

are inadmissible as evidence under the hearsay rule, unless the affiant is placed on the
28
witness stand to testify thereon. The inadmissibility of this sort of evidence is based
not only on the lack of opportunity on the part of the adverse party to cross-examine
the affiant, but also on the commonly known fact that, generally, an affidavit is not
prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the
affiant’s statements which may either be omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
29
them. Petitioner, therefore, cannot use said statement as proof of its due care any
more than private respondent can use it to prove the cause of her husband’s death.
Regrettably, petitioner does not cite any other evidence to rebut the inference or
presumption of negligence arising from the application of res ipsa loquitur, or to
establish any defense relating to the incident.

15
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
22) College Assurance vs Belfranit

FACTS: Belfrant Development Inc. (BDI) was the owner of Belfrant building in Angeles
City, Pampanga. It leased to College Assurance Plan Phil and Comprehensive Annuity
nd rd
Plans and Pension Corporation (Petitioners) several units on the 2 and 3 floors of the
rd
building. Fire destroyed portions of the building, including the 3 floor units being
occupied by the petitioners. A field investigation report by an unnamed arson
investigator assigned to the case disclosed:
rd
Origin of the fire: store room occupied by the CAP located at the 3 floor

Cause of fire: accidental (overheated coffee percolator)


These findings were reiterated in the certification, which the BFP City Fire

petitioners as a supporting document for the latter’s insurance claim. BDI sent to
petitioners a Notice to Vacate the leased premises to make way for repairs and to pay
reparation estimated at 1.5million.
nd
Petitioners vacated the premises including the units in the 2 floor but they did not act
on the demand for reparation. After succeeding demands went unheeded, BDI filed a
complaint for damages.Both trial and appellate court ruled against the petitioner

ISSUE:whether the petitioners are liable for damages


RULING: Yes. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsaloquitor in this case, even if
there were documents emanating from the BFP that were presented as evidence as to
the cause of fire.

The court ruled that The CA correctly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur under
[35]
which expert testimony may be dispensed with to sustain an allegation of negligence
if the following requisites obtain: a) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent; b) the cause of the injury was under the exclusive
control of the person in charge and c) the injury suffered must not have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

The fire that damaged Belfranlt Building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but
the outcome of a human act or omission. It originated in the store room which
petitioners had possession and control

of. Respondent had no hand in the incident. Hence, the convergence of these facts

16
 Thursday, 22 August 2019
and circumstances speaks for itself: petitioners alone having knowledge of the cause
of the fire or the best opportunity to ascertain it, and respondent having no means to
find out for itself, it is sufficient for the latter to merely allege that the cause of the fire
was the negligence of the former and to rely on the occurrence of the fire as proof of
[37]
such negligence. It was all up to petitioners to dispel such inference of negligence,
but their bare denial only left the matter unanswered.

17