Torts and Damages Case Digests: Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur PDF

Preview

Summary

NICO ARNOLD D. PICASOUniversity of Nueva Caceres, College of Law, Torts and Damages, 3rd Year Block A ATTY. JESME DONNA MENDOZA OBUMANICASE NO. 1 A. Spouses Bernabe Africa & Soledad Africa, et. , petitioners-appellants, vs****. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., Mateo Boquiren & Court of Appeals, respond...

Description

NICO ARNOLD D. PICASO University of Nueva Caceres, College of Law, Torts and Damages, 3rd Year Block A ATTY. JESME DONNA MENDOZA OBUMANI CASE NO. 1 A. Spouses Bernabe Africa & Soledad Africa, et.al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., Mateo Boquiren & Court of Appeals, respondents-appellees. G.R. No. L-12986 March 31, 1966 Ponente: MAKALINTAL., J. B.

Occurrence of the injury: In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the personal properties and effects inside them.

C.

Circumstances surrounding the cause of injury: Petitioners sued respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and Mateo Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the second as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire. As found by the trial court the Africas sustained a loss of P9,005.80, after deducting the amount of P2,000.00 collected by them on the insurance of the house.

D.

Specific circumstances attendant in the case to illustrate that in the ordinary course of things, occurrence would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care: In the report of the Police Department, it was shown that while while Leandro Flores was transferring gasoline from a tank truck into the underground tank of the Caltex Gasoline Station, an unknown Filipino lighted a cigarette and threw the burning match stick near the main valve of the said underground tank. Due to the gasoline fumes, fire suddenly blazed. Quick action of Leandro Flores in pulling off the gasoline hose connecting the truck with the underground tank prevented a terrific explosion. However, the flames scattered due to the hose from which the gasoline was spouting. It burned the truck and the following accessorias and residences. If the management or the person responsible for the gasoline station was exercising due diligence and proper care, they would’ve seen to it that no one should’ve lighted a cigarette around highly flammable materials such as gas/petroleum.

E.

Explanation of the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine: The doctrine in question is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or the presumption that in the occurrence of an accident, there is negligence. While both the trial court and the appellate court denied its application in the case at bar, the Supreme Court cited previous cases like Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and Development Co. and Jones vs. Shell Petroleum Corporation wherein similar facts and circumstances were at play, as well as a case decided by the supreme court of Louisiana, which all justified the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Supreme Court said “The principle enunciated in the aforequoted case applies with equal force here. The of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were appellees and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care."

F.

SC’s definition of the applicable doctrine: The Court defined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by citing a previous case decided by an appellate court which stated that the doctrine “where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation, that the injury arose from defendant's want of care."

CASE NO. 2 A. Gotesco Investment Corporation, petitioner, vs. Gloria E. Chatto and Lina Delza Chatto, respondents. G.R. No. L-87584 June 16, 1982 Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J. B.

Occurrence of the injury: In the afternoon of June 4, 1982 Gloria E. Chatto, and her 15-year old daughter, plaintiff Lina Delza E. Chatto went to see the movie "Mother Dear" at Superama I theater, owned by defendant Gotesco Investment Corporation. They bought balcony tickets but even then were unable to find seats considering the number of people patronizing the movie. Hardly ten (10) minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into darkness and pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, plaintiffs managed to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to get out to the street they walked the nearby FEU Hospital where they were confined and treated for one (1) day.

C.

Circumstances surrounding the cause of injury: Plaintiff Gloria Chatto was treated in said hospital from June 5 to June 19 and plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto from June 5 to 11. Per Medico Legal Certificate (Exh, "C") issued by Dr. Ernesto G. Brion, plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto suffered multiple physical injuries. Based on the medical report, she suffered multiple contusions and abrasions. On the other hand, Gloria Chattos suffered lacerated wounds, multiple contusions, and concussion.

D.

Specific circumstances attendant in the case to illustrate that in the ordinary course of things, occurrence would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care: The Supreme Court admitted the findings of the trial court that the collapse of the ceiling of the balcony was due to construction defects. The person who constructed the ceiling of the balcony of herein petitioner’s theatre was Jesus Jim Ong whom findings show was not a licensed engineer but only a graduate of architecture at St. Louie University in Baguio. He did not even pass the governmental examination for architects. Had he been competent to build the structure which collapsed, the resulting injuries to herein defendants would not have occurred.

E.

Explanation of the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine: The Supreme Court said that the doctrine of force majeure or an act of God did not apply in this case. This is because, as the Court stated, “Petitioner's claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not even

founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted that "he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed." Having interposed it as a defense, it had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. It could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation does not imply force majeure.” F.

SC’s definition of the applicable doctrine: The Supreme Court cited a case it decided 85 years ago, the case of Pons y Compañia vs. La Compañia Maritima, where force majeure was defined in as “inevitable accident or casualty; an accident produced by any physical cause which is irresistible; such as lightning. tempest, perils of the sea, inundation, or earthquake; the sudden illness or death of a person.” (Blackstone) Further definitions include one by legal luminaries and commentators like Escriche, Bouvier, Chief Justice Corkburn, all offer the same or similar meanings. As the Court stated, “The term generally applies, broadly speaking, to natural accidents, such as those caused by lightning, earthquake, tempests, public enemy ,etc.”

CASE NO. 3 A. Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin and Allan Batiquin, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Quedo Acogido & Flotilde Villegas, respondents. G.R. No. 118231 July 05, 1996 Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J. B.

Occurrence of the injury: In the morning of September 21, 1988 Dr. Batiquin, with the assistance of Dr. Doris Teresita Sy, O.R. Nurse Arlene Diones and some student nurses performed a simple caesarean section on Mrs. Villegas at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital and after 45 minutes Mrs. Villegas delivered her first child, Rachel Acogido, at about 11:45 that morning. Thereafter, Plaintiff remained confined at the Hospital until September 27, 1988 during which period of confinement she was regularly visited by Dr. Batiquin. Soon 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. . . which she had been taking up to December, 1988. The abdominal pains and fever kept on recurring and bothered Mrs. Villegas no end despite the medications administered by Dr. Batiquin. When the pains became unbearable and she was rapidly losing weight she consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho at the Holy Child's Hospital in Dumaguete City on January 20, 1989.

C.

Circumstances surrounding the cause of injury: Dr. Ma. Salud Kho examined Mrs. Villegas at the Holy Child's Hospital on January 20, 1989 and found Mrs. Villegas to be feverish, pale and was breathing fast. Upon examination she felt an abdominal mass one finger below the umbilicus which she suspected to be either a tumor of the uterus or an ovarian cyst, either of which could be cancerous. She had an x-ray taken of Mrs. Villegas' chest, abdomen and kidney. She also took blood tests of Plaintiff. A blood count showed that Mrs. Villegas had an infection inside her abdominal cavity. The results of all those examinations impelled Dr. Kho to suggest that Mrs. Villegas submit to another surgery to which the latter agreed. When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas she found whitishyellow 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, 2 inches by 3/4 inch in size. It could have been a torn section of a surgeon's gloves or could have come from other sources. And this foreign body was the cause of the infection of the ovaries and consequently of all the discomfort suffered by Mrs. Villegas after her delivery on September 21, 1988.

D.

Specific circumstances attendant in the case to illustrate that in the ordinary course of things, occurrence would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care: The piece of rubber found by Dr. Kho when she examined and operated on the abdomen and uterus of defendant Mrs. Villegas establishes that Dr. Batiquin did not exercise due diligence and proper care when she treated Mrs. Villegas. If Dr. Batiquin was very careful and exercised the diligence required of medical practitioners when operating on their patients, such rubber – presumably from the rubber gloves used – would not have been left and lodged inside the body of Mrs. Villegas. Although what Dr. Kho did with the rubber is – whether it was sent to the Pathologist or was thrown away – is disputed, what was not disputed was that such rubber was the cause of the injury to Mrs. Villegas.

E.

Explanation of the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor are applicable. The Supreme Court stated that all the requisites for the recourse to the doctrine are present. These requisites are: 1) absence of evidence or explanation that the injury complained of was the consequence of any other cause, and 2) that the injury complained of would not have happened if, in the ordinary course of things, proper care and due diligence were exercised and there was no negligence. The Supreme Court said “First, the entire proceedings of the caesarean 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's body, which, needless to say, does not occur unless through the intersection of negligence. Second, since aside from the caesarean 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 caesarean 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's abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.

F.

SC’s definition of the applicable doctrine: The Court defined it as “Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."

CASE NO. 4 A. D.M. Consunji, Inc., petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Quedo Acogido & Flotilde Villegas, respondents. G.R. No. 137873 April 20, 2001 Ponente: KAPUNAN, J. B.

Occurrence of the injury: The victim, Jose A. Juego, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo were working as carpenters at the elevator core of the 14th floor of the Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building on board a platform when suddenly, the bolt or pin got loose causing the whole platform 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.

C.

Circumstances surrounding the cause of injury: The victim fell from the 14th floor when the platform made of channel beam steel measuring 4.8 meters by 2 meters wide with pinulid plywood flooring and cable wires was disconnected to the 5 ton chain block. The bolt or pin which was the only thing connecting the chain block with the platform was only merely inserted. In the investigation report, it is stated “It is thus manifest that Jose A. Juego was crushed to death when the [p]latform he was then on board and performing work, fell. And the falling of the [p]latform was due to the removal or getting loose of the pin which was merely inserted to the connecting points of the chain block and [p]latform but without a safety lock.”

D.

Specific circumstances attendant in the case to illustrate that in the ordinary course of things, occurrence would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care: The reasoning of the Court of Appeals is illustrative in showing that there is negligence. It stated that “The construction site is within the exclusive control and management of appellant. It has a safety engineer, a project superintendent, a carpenter leadman and others who are in complete control of the situation therein. The circumstances of any accident that would occur therein are peculiarly within the knowledge of the appellant or its employees. On the other hand, the appellee is not in a position to know what caused the accident…… “ “No worker is going to fall from the 14th floor of a building to the basement while performing work in a construction site unless someone is negligent[;] thus, the first requisite for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur is present. As explained earlier, the construction site with all its paraphernalia and human resources that likely caused the injury is under the exclusive control and management of appellant[;] thus[,] the second requisite is also present. No contributory negligence was attributed to the appellee’s deceased husband[;] thus[,] the last requisite is also present.”

E.

Explanation of the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine: The Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitor” was applicable in the case at bar. The Court explained that, contrary to the contention of petitioner, “the defendant’s (herein petitioner) negligence is presumed or inferred when the plaintiff 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 explain. The petitioner thus cannot say that the conditions requisite to the availability of res ipsa loquitur are available but go on to say that there is no negligence on its part or that it is the injured party who has to prove that the petitioner is negligent when the same has already been presumed. The petitioner also did not offer any other explanation, other than the sworn statement of its leadman Ferdinand Fabro, - which the Court deemed to be inadmissible under the hearsay rule. Thus, without any other evidence to the contrary, if the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur are present, the presumption of negligence on the part of the management remains.

F.

SC’s definition of the applicable doctrine: The Court defined it as “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.”

CASE NO. 5 A. Marcelo Macalinao, et.al., petitioners, vs. Eddie Medecielo Ong, et.al., respondents. G.R. No. 146635 December 14, 2005 Ponente: PUNO, J. B.

Occurrence of the injury: Macalinao and Ong were employed as utility man and driver, respectively, at the Genetron International Marketing, a single proprietorship owned and operated by Sebastian. On 25 April 1992, Sebastian instructed Macalinao, Ong and two truck helpers to deliver a heavy piece of machinery, a reactor/motor for mixing chemicals, to Sebastian's manufacturing plant in Angat, Bulacan. While in the process of complying with the order, the vehicle driven by Ong, Genetron's Isuzu Elf truck with plate no. PMP-106 hit and bumped the front portion of a private jeepney with plate no. DAF-922 along Caypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan at around 11:20 in the morning. Both vehicles incurred severe damages while the passengers sustained physical injuries as a consequence of the collision. Macalinao incurred the most serious injuries among the passengers of the truck.

C.

Circumstances surrounding the cause of injury: Macalinao's body was paralyzed and immobilized from the neck down as a result of the accident and per doctor's advice, his foot was amputated. He also suffered from bed sores and infection. His immedicable condition, coupled with the doctor's recommendation, led his family to bring him home where he died on 7 November 1992. Before he died, Macalinao was able to file an action for damages against both Ong and Sebastian before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81.

D.

Specific circumstances attendant in the case to illustrate that in the ordinary course of things, occurrence would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care: Ong drove the Isuzu truck in a reckless and imprudent manner thereby causing the same to hit the private jeepney. It observed that while respondents claimed that Ong was driving cautiously and prudently at the time of the mishap, no evidence was presented to substantiate the claim.

E.

Explanation of the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine: The doctrine applicable in this case res ipsa loquitur. The Court held that the photographs of the accident which the appellate court cavalierly brushed aside as insignificant deserve substantial cogitation as held in the ca...