Case Name: Africa v. Caltex (Phil), Inc.

By: Trisha Andrea Draper

GR No. L-12986 Topic: Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
Date: March 31, 1966

FACTS
In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo St. 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 houses.
The owners, among them petitioner spouses Africa and heirs of Ong, sued respondents Caltex Phil., Inc., the alleged
owner of the station, and Mateo Boquiren, the agent in charge of its operation, for damages.

The action is for damages under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the old Civil Code. The trial court and the Court of Appeals
found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents had exercised due care in the premises and with
respect to the supervision of their employees.

ISSUE
Whether or not, without proof as to the cause or origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply so as
to presume negligence on the part of the appellees?
HELD
Yes. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, "where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be
under the management of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not
happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."

The principle applies with equal force in the case at bar. The gasoline station, with all its appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring
houses. The persons who knew or could have known the cause of the fire were the appellees and their employees, but
they failed to give any explanation. It is fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of
care.

In a report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties, it was stated that the location of the gasoline
station was within a very business district where many people mill around throughout the day until late at night, and
that the concrete walls adjoining the neighborhood are only 2.5 meters high at most and cannot prevent the flames
from leaping over it in case of fire. The descriptive facts contained in the report only strengthened the presumption of
negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, since on their face they called for more stringent measures of
caution.

Doctrine Notes

Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is show to be For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to
under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is apply, the following requisites should
such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have be present:
its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, (a) the accident is of a kind which
in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose ordinarily does not occur in the
from want of care. absence of someones
negligence;
(b) it is caused by an instrumentality
within the exclusive control of
the defendant or defendants; and
(c) the possibility of contributing
conduct which would make the
plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.