TORTS AND DAMAGESMartinez, E.Layugan vs. IACGR No. 13998Nov. 1988FACTS:1.

While
Layugan and a companion was fixing a truck parked along the right side of the highway, a cargo truck
driven by Serrano bumped Layugan, causing injury resulting to amputation. Based on the testomony of
the cargo truck driver, there was a problem in the breaks.2. Layugan sued the cargo truck owner, Isidro
for damages.3. Isidro, in his defense, claimed that the driver of the parked truck failed to install early
warning device which was the proximate cause of the incident.4. RTC ruled in favor of Layugan. But
IAC reversed the decision of RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not Layugan, as found by iac, is the one who is
negligent (under res ipsa).HELD: No. It is Isidro who is negligent.RATIO:1. On res ipsa:Res ipsa posits
that "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 if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of an explanation by the
defendant, that the acciddent arose from want of care." In this case, res ipsa does not apply because the
cause of injury is established, which is the bumping. In res ipsa, precisely the cause of injury is not
known and resort to this rule is necessary in the absence of direct evidence of fact of injury.2. On the
liability of Isidro:He is liable because he failed to prove exercise of diligence of a good father in
supervising his driver and the mechanic. Also, Isisdro should have checked the vehicle before allowing
his driver to drive it.DISPOSTIVE: Granted.