Torts and Damages

De Guia v Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co.- doctor who

is in a cable car, standing in the rear platform was thrown away
& got bruises when the train was derailed off track and crashed
a post. Witnesses claim that it was on a higher speed than
normal but MER claims fortuitous event claiming the presence of
big stone which was the cause of derailment of train.
The relation between the parties was, therefore, of a
contractual nature, and the duty of the carrier is to be
determined with reference to the principles of contract law, that
is, the company was bound to convey and deliver the
plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the degree
of care which, under the circumstances, is required by law and
custom applicable to the case.
Although in case like this the defendant must answer for
the consequences of the negligence of its employee, the court
has the power to moderate liability according to the
circumstances of the case (art. 1103, Civ. Code): Furthermore,
we think it obvious that an employer who has in fact displayed
due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is entitled
to be considered a debtor in good faith, within the meaning of
article 1107 of the same Code. Construing these two provisions
together, applying them to the facts of this case, it results that
the defendant's liability is limited to such damages as
might, at the time of the accident, have been reasonably
foreseen as a probable consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff and which were in fact
a necessary result of those injuries.
Carlos v Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co during
typhoon, telephone wires were cut because an old tree was
uprooted causing the wire to come in contact with trolley wires
of the defendant. A 3-year old passing got electrocuted, which
policeman Carlos attempted to save her but he also died. His
daughter and wife sued MER for damages.
While it is true that when an electric railway company is
given authority to use the public streets for its lines, the law
implies a duty of using a very high degree of care in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of its appliances,
requiring it to employ every reasonable precaution known to
those possessed of the skill and knowledge requisite to the safe
conduct and control of such a dangerous agency for providing

1 thil lozada

against such dangers incident to its use, and holds it

accountable for the injury of any person due to the neglect of
that duty.
The duty and liability of electric companies is not limited
to keeping their own wires out of the streets, but extends to the
prevention of the escape of the dangerous force in their service
through any wires brought in contact with their own and of its
transmission thereby to anyone using the streets. Yet such
companies, in erecting and maintaining their wires, are
bound
only
to
anticipate
such
combination
of
circumstances and accidents and injuries therefrom, as
they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen, taking
into account their own experience and the practice of
others in similar conditions, together with what is
inherently probable in the condition of the wires as they
relate to the conduct of their business.
Picart v Smith riding his horse on Carlatan Bridge at La
Union.
Yamada v Manial Railroad Co Yamada with 3 others were
injured when driver of Barach Garage crossed the tracks without
stopping & collided with train. They suffered injuries. Barachs
arguments were it was a custom not to look and listen, the view
was obstructed by trees but was rebutted and it was a
populated place, flagman must be assigned there. Bell was
rung. 12-15 meters, unobstructed view.
Where, on approaching a crossing, the view of the tracks
in both directions is unobstructed for such a distance as to
render it perfectly safe to pass over without the use of any other
faculty than sight, such use alone is sufficient and it is not
necessary to stop or even to slacken speed or listen. On the
other hand, where the view of the tracks is obstructed, them it
is driver's duty to slacken speed, to reduce the noise, if any, of
the vehicle, to look and to listen, if necessary, or do any other
act necessary to determine that a train is not in dangerous
proximity to the crossing.
Practice which is dangerous to human life cannot
ripen into a custom which will protect anyone who
follows it. To go upon a railroad crossing without making any
effort to ascertain the approach of a train is so hazardous an act

Torts and Damages

and one so dangerous to life, that no one may be permitted to
excuse himself who does it, provided injury result. One who
performs an act so inherently dangerous cannot, when an
accident occurs, take refuge behind the plea that others have
performed the same act safely.
Person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver
direction as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but
exercise no other control over the conduct of the driver, is not
responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented
from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between
the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence either of
the locomotive engineer or the automobile driver.
Ordinarily where one rides in public vehicle with the
driver thereof and is injured by the negligence of a third person,
to which negligence that of the driver contributes his
contributory negligence is not imputable to the passenger
unless said passenger has or is in the position to have and
exercise some control over the driver with reference to the
matter wherein he was negligent. Whether the person injured
exercises any control over the conduct of the driver further than
to indicate the place to which he wishes to drive is a question of
fact to be determined by the trial court on all of the evidence in
the case.
Lilius v Manila Railroad Co. sight-seeing trip with wife &
daughter. In dayap, saw a truck and people stopped. He lessen
speed and blew his horn for them to get out of the way. Only
heard 2 short whistle. They collided with the train and the
center of the car. The way was obstructed with trees and
houses. No semaphore and the flagman and switchman was
late.
In order that a victim of an accident may recover
indemnity for damages from the person liable therefor, it is not
enough that the latter has been guilty of negligence, but it is
also necessary that the said victim has not, through his own
negligence, contributed to the accident, inasmuch as nobody is
a guarantor of his neighbor's personal safety and property, but
everybody should look after them, employing the care and
diligence that a good father of a family should apply to his own
person, to the members of his family and to his property, in
order to avoid any damage.

2 thil lozada

Defendant the Manila Railroad Company alone is liable

for the accident by reason of its own negligence and that of its
employees, for not having employed the diligence of a good
father of a family in the supervision of the said employees in the
discharge of their duties.
Wright v Manila Electric RR & Light Co wright lives near
the tracks. One night, he drove home in a calesa, intoxicated.
Horse stumbled and fell which caused him injuries. Not only the
rails but part of the ties was above ground.
Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the
mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary
care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with the other
evidence tending to prove negligence. It is the general rule that
it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of
ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him, and no
greater degree of care is required than by a sober one. If one's
conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and
prudence, it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober.
US v Knight truck driver ran over 10-12 years old. On that
night, no other cars on the road except a roadroller
One person is not compelled to travel behind another on
the highway, and one has not the exclusive right to precede
another. The traveler may pass to the front when he can do so
in safety.
The employment of an automobile on the highway as a
means of transportation is a lawful use of the road, and if it
results in an injury to one traveling by another mode the driver
of the automobile cannot be held liable for injury, unless it is
made to appear that he used the machine at a time, or in
manner, or under circumstances inconsistent with a proper
regard for the rights of others.
While those who undertake to drive high-power motor
vehicles over the public highways may be, and should be
required to exercise great care and skill in the management and
control of their machines so as to avoid inflicting injury upon
others, still, they should not be required to exercise such
extraordinary precautions as would be necessary to
avoid all possibility that others may be injured in person
or property as a result of their own negligence or of

Torts and Damages

unforseen contingencies which a prudent and skillful
driver could not be expected to anticipate and provide
against.

US v Tayongtong painting telephone poles and was ran over

by a large passenger automobile
Arriving at a point in the highway just in front of the
deceased, the latter, to avoid the cloud of dust which was
drifting to his side of the road, started to cross the road to the
other side. He miscalculated the time and distance and as a
result was struck by the automobile and run over. His action in
starting across the road was so sudden and unexpected and,
when he reached the road, he was so close to the automobile,
that it was impossible to stop the machine in time to save him.
The body was picked up within the traveled portion of the
highway.
Where death is due to the negligence of the
decedent himself and not to the negligence of the driver
of the automobile, the latter cannot be held for
homicide. In this case the death of the deceased was due
entirely to his own negligence. There is not sufficient reliable
proof in the record to establish negligence on the part of the
accused. There being no negligence, he is not responsible, no
matter what the result of the accident may have been.

exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of

passengers.
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers
safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with
due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier
to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only
during the course of the trip but for so long as the
passengers are within its premises and where they ought
to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. The
statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of
or injury to passengers:
(a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or
(b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers
or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the
exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the
act or omission.
In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to
have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of
injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the
fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the
burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to
an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
Once such fault is established, the employer can then be
made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that
the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in
the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is
primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter
that has not been shown.
When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would
have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability
had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can
be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the
rules on tort to apply.

Light Rail Transit Authority v Navidad fist fight in a

railway station between a drunk passenger and security guard.
Navidad, the passenger fell on the tracks and died when he was
run over by the moving train.
A common carrier, both from the nature of its business
and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of

Barcelo v Manila Electric Railroad Co Barcelo was the

mother superior of Augustinian asked defendant to install light
in the church, on that night, the church was burned.
The burden of proof rests on one who seeks to recover
damages on the ground of the alleged negligence of another,
and before judgment for damages can be entered in such cases

US v Tanedo chicken hunting. When he fired one shot, he

also killed a teenage boy.
He who, while performing a legal act with due care,
causes some injury by mere accident without liability or
intention of causing it.
If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in
the performance of a lawful act executed with due care
and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal
liability.

3 thil lozada

Torts and Damages

the fact of negligence must be affirmatively established by
competent evidence.
Ong v Metropolitan Water District boy drowned in pool,
lifeguard attempted to save him but futile attempt.
The present action is governed by Article 2176 in relation
to Article 2080 of the new Civil Code. The first article provides
that "whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damages done." Such fault or negligence is called quasi-delict.
Under the second article, this obligation is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible. The owners of resorts to which
people generally are expressly or by implication invited are
legally bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the
management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of
making them reasonably safe for visitors"
The doctrine of last clear chance simply means that
the negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for
the negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his
negligence. The last clear chance doctrine can never apply
where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and
if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at
hand after the peril is or should have been discovered; at least
in cases in which any previous negligence of the party charged
cannot be said to have contributed to the injury.
Penullar v PNB Moya has an OCT on land but Miguel filed
case alleging ownership on such. The case became final and a
Torrens title was issued with Miguel, he mortgaged to PNB. PNB
foreclosed . Penullar, heir of Moya, sued to annul mortgage and
title. He claims title was invalid but mortgage was valid.
Where Torrens Titles were issued as a result of regular
land registration proceedings and were later given as security to
a bank loan, the subsequent declaration of said torrens titles as
null and void, does not authorize the cancellation of the
mortgaged rights of the bank which acted in good faith.
He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause
damages shall, as between two innocent parties.

4 thil lozada

Canlas v CA , Asian Savings Bank, Contreras and

Manosca Canlas agreed to have a business venture with
Manosca. Canlas issued a SPA to mortgage his 2 lots in BF.
Canlas delivered the TCTs to Manosca. MAnosca fraudulently
used TCT to mortgage 100k from Atty. Magno, with impostor
Canlas spouse. He also was able to get a 500,000 loan from ASN
again with the impostor spouse. Due to failure to pay, foreclosed
lot. Canlas to annul the deed of real estate mortgage.
The degree of diligence required of banks is more than
that of a good father of a family; in keeping with their
responsibility to exercise the necessary care and prudence in
dealing even on a registered or titled property. The business of a
bank is affected with public interest, holding in trust the money
of the depositors, which bank deposits the bank should guard
against loss due to negligence or bad faith, by reason of which
the bank would be denied the protective mantle of the land
registration law, accorded only to purchasers or mortgagees for
value and in good faith. The bank did not observe that diligence
in ascertaining or verifying the real identity of the couple, not
vent a single ID was exhibited.
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is
applicable here, the respondent bank must suffer the resulting
loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect
that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of
one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or
where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising
therefrom.
Gan v CA drining a Toyota sedan. She was trying to avoid the
car overtaking her, swerving, she bumped with an old man who
was about to cross the street. He died.
The test for determining whether or not a person is
negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to
the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man
in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law
imposes the duty oil the doer to take precaution against its

Torts and Damages

mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence.
The EMERGENCY RULE. "Under that rule, one who
suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have
been a better method, unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own negligence."
Petitioner certainly could not be expected to act with all
the coolness of a person under normal conditions. The danger
confronting petitioner was real and imminent, threatening her
very existence. very powerful instinct of self-preservation.
Mc Kee v IAC and Tayag and Manalo head-on collision with
cargo truck loaded with 200 cavans of rice and Ford Escort. 2
boys suddenly darted from right side of the road. Koh blew horn
and swerved to the left at teh lane of the truck.
EMERGENCY RULE. PROXIMATE CAUSE. DOCTRINE OF
LAST CLEAR CHANCE. Art 2185, a person driving a vehicle is
presumed negligenct if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation. The truck driver is negligence.
He was running at 48 kph along the bridge while the maximum
speed allowed by law is only 30kph.
The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a
quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
Phoenix Construction v IAC driver of dump truck parked
slightly on the part of the road. Volkswagen with no headlights
collided with dump truck. Art 2180 is only contributory
negligence.
The improper parking of truck created an unreasonable
risk for anyone driving on that street for which the truck driver
should be held responsible as the negligence of a car driver
bumping that truck was no more than a foreseeable
consequence of the risk created by the truck driver.
Doctrine of last clear chance in common law cannot be
applied as a general rule in negligence cases in our civil law
system. Of the fundamental importance are the nature of the

5 thil lozada

negligent act or omission of each party and the character and

gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest
of the community.

Cases 55-73
Rakes v Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co one of 8 laborers in the
employment of defendant. They were transporting rails off a
boat. Plaintiff not walking in front but alongside that the car met
an accident. The rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking
his leg and amputated. Certain part of track was dislodged
caused by a recent typhoon.
Principle of proportional damages negligence of
injured person contributing to his injury but not being one of
the determining causes of the principal accident, does not
operate as a bar to recovery, but only in reduction of his
damages. Each party is chargeable with damages in proportion
to his fault. Disobedience of plaintiff in placing himself in danger
contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate,
although not as its primary cause.
1. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one
of its determining factors, he cannot recover.
2. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes
only to his should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed
suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
Teh v Philippine Aerial Taxi passenger of hydroplane, when
it landed but the propeller is still in motion, went down and his
arms was caught and amputated.
Tehs negligence alone was the direct cause of the
accident.
Bernardo v Legaspi collision of automobiles both negligent
Where plaintiff in the negligence action, y his own
carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, i.e., to
accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot
recover.

Torts and Damages

Phil Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC rented a jeepney but right rear
wheel was detached, bumped with bus. Is the insurer of the
jeepney liable or Phil Rabbit Bus?
DOCTRINE of LAST CLEAR CHANCE applies in a suit
between the owners and drivers of 2 colliding vehicles, not
where the passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce contractual obligations.
Carrier, presumed at fault or negligent, the moment a
passenger dies or is injured. Accident caused either by defects
in the automobile or negligence of driver, not a caso fortuito.
Driver, not jointly and severally liable with carrier in case
of breach of contract of carriage.
Bustamante v CA collision between gravel and sand truck &
passenger bus. Several passengers of the bus were thrown out
and died.
DOCTRINE of LAST CLEAR CHANCE
1. cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a
test of whether only one of them should be held liable to
the injured person by reason of his discovery of latters
peril
2. cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently
negligent.
3. As to 3rd persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by
pleading that another had negligently failed to take
action which could have avoided the injury. Cannot be
used against heirs of passengers by owners and drivers.
Taylor v Manila Electric Co Taylor with friends visited
defendantpremises to make them a cylinder for a miniature
engine. Not there, so wander and found 20-30 brass fulminating
caps explosion of blasting charges of dynamite. It blasted. It
company negligent?
The company may be negligent but such negligence was
not the proximate cause of the injury. The negligence of the
defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not
the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff not
attributable to the negligence of the defendant. Plaintiffs
action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting a match
to the contents was the proximate cause of the explosion.

6 thil lozada

GR: an adult that entitle him to recover damages for an

injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another he must
himself have been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard
to an infant of tender years. The care and caution required
of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only.
Boy is already 15 years old.
Del Prado v Manila Electric Co boarded a moving street car
placing one foot motorman accelerated & DP lost balance
and fell. His legs crashed and amputated
Nevertheless, although the motorman of this car was
not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on, it was his duty to do
act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff's
peril while he was attempting to board the car. The
premature acceleration of the car was, in our opinion, a
breach of this duty. The duty that the carrier of passengers
owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as
well as to those alighting therefrom.
1. Where liability arises from a mere tort (culpa
aquiliana), not involving a breach of positive
obligation, an employer, or master, may exculpate
himself, under the last paragraph of article 1903 of the
Civil Code, by providing that he had exercised due
degligence to prevent the damage;
2. whereas this defense is not available if the liability of
the master arises from a breach of contrauctual duty
(culpa contractual).

It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in

attempting to board the moving car was not the proximate
cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of the
injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the
power prematurely. A person boarding a moving car must be
taken to assume the risk of injury from boarding the car
under the conditions open to his view, but he cannot fairly be
held to assume the risk that the motorman, having the
situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the
speed of the car before he is planted safely on the platform.
Only mitigate damages

Torts and Damages

Astudillo v Manila Electric Co young boy electrocuted
reached an electric light pole in a public place in intramuros.
Liability of electric light companies for damages for
personal injuries is governed by the rules of negligence. Such
companies are, however, not insurers of the safety of the
public. But considering that electricity is an agency, subtle
and deadly, the measure of care required of electric
companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to
the danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of
diligence and care extends to every place where
persons have a right to be.
The negligence came from the act of the Manila
Electric Company in so placing its pole and wires as to be
within proximity to a place frequented by many people, with
the possibility ever present of one of them losing his life by
coming in contact with a highly charged and defectively
insulated wire.
Violation of franchise, an ordinance, or a statute might
constitute negligence. But the converse is not necessarily
true, and compliance with a franchise, an ordinance, or
a statute is not conclusive proof that there was no
negligence. The franchise, ordinance, or statute
merely states the minimum conditions. The fulfillment of
these conditions does not render unnecessary other
precautions required by ordinary care.
Del Rosario v Manila Electric Co similar to Aurenina wire
burning & smoking. Informed the Manila Electric company a
2nd grade child touched the wires.
It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can
properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his immature
years and the natural curiosity which a child would feel to do
something out of the ordinary, and the mere fact that the
deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8
years does not, in our opinion, alter the case. But even
supposing that contributory negligence could in some
measure be properly imputed to the deceased, a proposition
upon which the members of the court do not all agree, yet
such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of
action in this case, not having been the determining cause of
the accident.
7 thil lozada

Africa v Caltex fire broke out at Caltex, it started while

gasoline was being hosed from a tank when fire spread and
burned several neighboring houses. Failed to put a firewall
Plaintiff had failed to show any specific act of
negligence, but the appellate court overruled the defense
under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "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."
Gasoline is a highly combustible material, in the
storage and sale of which extreme care must be taken. On
the other hand, fire is not considered a fortuitous event, as it
arises almost invariably from some act of man. We find it
established by the record that the filling station and the tank
truck were under the control of the defendant and operated
by its agents or employees.
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.
"The intention of an unforeseen and unexpected
cause, is not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from
consequences of negligence, if such negligence directly and
proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the
resulting injury."
Republic v Luzon Stevedoring collided with one of the
posts of Nagtahan Bridge. Luzon claims obstruction of
navigation
Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary
object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate
openings for the passage of water craft, including barges like
of appellant's, it is undeniable that the unusual event that
the barge, exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the
bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the

Torts and Damages

part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the
tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such
a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In Anglo
American Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is
known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule.
The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not
impossibility to foresee the same. The very measures
adopted by appellant prove that the possibility of danger was
not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen, and was not caso
fortuito.
FF Cruz & Co v CA furniture shop because of respondent
failed to build a firewall. Fire from shop other houses also got
burned.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, applicable in the case
considering the presence of combustible materials in the
furniture shop, and the failure of petitioner to build a firewall.
Even without applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor,
petitionees failure to construct a firewall between its shop and
the residence of private respondents, in accordance with city
ordinances, supports a finding of negligence. Failure to comply
with an ordinance providing for safety regulations is an act of
negligence.
Laguyan v IAC stationary cargo truck changing tire with EWD
(burning lamp) another truck ran over the helper whose legs
was subsequently amputated.
The existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by the personal judgment of the actor in a given
situation. It is the law that determines what would be reckless or
negligent.
Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself Rebuttable
presumption or inference that defendant was negligent,
which arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury
was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident
was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of
negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby
negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere
fact that accident happened provided character of accident
and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that
in absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that
8 thil lozada

thing which caused injury is shown to have been under

management and control of alleged wrongdoer.
The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be invoked
when and only when, under the circumstance
involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily
available.
Macalinao v Ong Both EE of Sebastian. Ong was driving and
Macalianao is a passenger. It collided with front of jeepney,
opposite direction. M was paralyzed and died.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR is a latin phrase which literally
means the thing or the transaction speaks for itself. It
recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence
without direct proof allowing the principle to substitute for
specific proof of negligence. The doctrine can be invoked only
when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and
not readily available.
Requisites:
1. accident is a kind w/c ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence
2. caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control
of the defendant/s
3. possibility of contributing conduct which would make the
plaintiff responsible is eliminated
4. defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show
that the injury was caused by his/her want of due care.
(4th req from AmJur)
No 2 motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide
as a matter of course unless someone is negligent. Whenever
an EEs negligence causes damage or injury to another, there
instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the ER failed to
exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or
supervision of its employees. Due diligence in supervision
requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the
guidance of EEs and the issuance of proper instructions as well
as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent
compliance with the rules.
Ramos v CA Erlinda Ramos was experiencing pains in stone
in gall
bladder. Dr. Hosaka hired Dr Guiterrez as

Torts and Damages

anaesthesiologist. Upon the scheduled operation, hosaka was
late. Due to faulty intubation because of delay of oxygen in
brain for 4-5mins. Comatose and hospitalized for 4 mons.
Mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not
dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. It is
simply a step in the process of such proof, permitting the
plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident, enough
of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating
an inference or presumption of negligence.
When the doctrine of res ipsa loqiutor is availed by the
plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed
with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. It
is not available in a malpractice suit if the only showing is that
the desired result of an operation or treatment was not
accomplished.
Reyes v Sisters of Mercy Hosp Jorge recurring fever &
chills. He was suspected of typhoid fever. Vomiting cyanosis
and convulsion and died

9 thil lozada

Perle Cie d Seguros v Sarangaya III

NPC v CA

Ma-ao Sugar Central v CA