Anda di halaman 1dari 42

TORTS AND DAMAGES

REVIEWER

PART ONE:
TORT AND QUASI- DELICT

References:

CASIS, Torts and Quasi-Delict (Available at UP LAW Center Book Room)


REPUBLIC Act No. 386, Civil Code of the Philippines2
Executive Order No. 209 Family Code of the Philippines [Family Code]
CASIS, ANALYSIS OF PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON DAMAGES
[DAMAGES]

I. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A. The Concept of a Tort

1. Tort in Common Law?

a. Etymology Crooked, Twisted, Not Straight


b. Definition A violation imposed by law;
- A wrong independent of contract;
- Act or omission giving rise to a civil remedy which is not
an action or contract.
- Ones disturbance of another in right which the law has
created either in the absence of a contract
- civil wrongs
c. Common theme Seavy said that Harm is a common signature for tort
- In general, the action is based upon the theory that one has
aused harm to another.
- Torts action cover situations when one person causes
harm to another.

2. Tort under Philippine law


a. Existence of Philippine Tort Law

i. Intent of the Framers was to reject the term tort in favor of the term
quasi-delict.
- It was agreed to use if the term quasi-delict and rejected the
term tort because the former best describe the civil action
for damages envisioned under the proposed code. The latter
was rejected because the common law concept overed far
more that what the Commission envisioned.
- The original plan was to exclude intentional and malicious
acts from the coverage of the concept because these are to
be governed by the Revised Penal Code.
ii. Civil Code Test

Article 1902 Old Civil Coder (cf Article 2176 Civil Code)

Any Person who by an act of omission causes damage to another


by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done.

Art. 1902 of the old Civil code the exact definition/description of a tort.

Article 2176- Whoever by act or omission causes damage to


another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provision of this chapter.

- Even if the tort was rejected in favor of the term quasi-delict


it did not completely reject the concept of tort as evidenced
by the civil code.

b. Scope of Philippine Tort Law


-Although the tort is never used in the civil code, tort as a concept is reflected
in a number of civil code provisions Thus, the exact boundaries of Philippine
Tort Law are unclear.
- Antonio Carpio accepts that tort and quasi-delict are two distinct concepts
coming from two different legal traditions, he considers quasi-delicts as forming
one area of Philippine Tort Law.
-Thus, under this framework, a quasi-delict is a kind of tort. In other
words, a quasi-delict is a subset of tort and hence, every quasi-delict is a
tort. But certainly every tort is a quasi delict

c. Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law

Naguiat v. NLRC G.R. No. 116123, March 13, 1997


- Essentially, tort consists in the violation of a right given or
the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is
a breach of legal duty.
- Consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a
duty imposed by law.
- A breach of legal Duty

Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007

- a tort is a Wrong
- A tortuous act is the commission or omission of an act by
one, without right, whereby another receives some injury,
directly or indirectly, in person, property or reputation.
- Court is saying that intent is not an element of tort

d. Elements of Tort

According to Posser and Keeton, elements of torts are:


1. Duty or obligation recognized by law
2. Failure on the persons part to conform to the standard: a
breach of duty
3. Reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and
resulting injury
4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interest of others
Garcia v. Salvador G.R. No. 168512, March 20, 2007
Elements:
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate Cause

Case: The Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Test. Mali yung result ng test ni Garcia.

-The court ruled that violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law
imposes upon a person the duty to do something, his omission or non-
performance will render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.
- Garcia failed to comply with the standards because he conducted the test
without the supervision of the pathologist and released the result without
authorization of the latter.

Lucas v. Tuao, G.R. No. 178763, April 21 2009

Case: Yung nag ka sore eyes tapos nabulag ang isang mata ni Lucas.
- For lack of a specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by
members of the medical profession, such claim for damages is almost always
anchored on the alleged violation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
In medical negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist
a physician-patient relationship between the doctor and the victim. But just
like any other proceeding for damages, four essential (4) elements i.e., (1)
duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation,[76] must be
established by the plaintiff/s. All the four (4) elements must co-exist in order
to find the physician negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
- There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper
performance of such duty, by the attending physician when the patient is
injured in body or in health [and this] constitutes the actionable malpractice.
[80] Proof of such breach must likewise rest upon the testimony of an expert
witness that the treatment accorded to the patient failed to meet the standard
level of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same general
neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and
exercise in like cases.
- Even so, proof of breach of duty on the part of the attending physician is
insufficient, for there must be a causal connection between said breach and
the resulting injury sustained by the patient. Put in another way, in order
that there may be a recovery for an injury, it must be shown that the injury
for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong
done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct
and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes;
[81] that is, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. And the
proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.[82]
- Just as with the elements of duty and breach of the same, in order to
establish the proximate cause [of the injury] by a preponderance of the
evidence in a medical malpractice action, [the patient] must similarly use
expert testimony, because the question of whether the alleged professional
negligence caused [the patients] injury is generally one for specialized expert
knowledge beyond the ken of the average layperson; using the specialized
knowledge and training of his field, the experts role is to present to the
[court] a realistic assessment of the likelihood that [the physicians] alleged
negligence caused [the patients] injury.

Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, G.R. No. 150898, April 13, 2011 (see
Bersamin dissent)

Case: The chicken pox Incident

- The court ruled that Hao (General Manager) was not negligent for he complied
with his obligation under article 161 of the Labor Code.
- This is interesting because negligence does not appear to be relevant in the
context if the elements identified by the court nor in the violation of the legal
provision
- Regardless of whether the provision was violated negligently or not, the
violations would be liable for damages. Negligence of the employer would only
be relevant if the action was based on quasi-delict.

3. The Purpose of Tort Law


- Main purpose: Lesson/Exemplary/Deterrent
- Never would commit negligence again
- A form of example.
- Promote efficacy
- Purpose of tort law is compensation of individuals for losses which
they have suffered within the scope of their legally recognized
interests.
- Providing compensation for harm
- Serves corrective justice
- Provide deterrent to harmful conduct
B. The Concept of Quasi-Delict

1. Historical Background

Barredo v. Garcia G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942


- Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or
culpa-aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the civil
code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that
is entirely apart from a delict or crime.
- As interpreted by the code commission, the term quasi-
delict corresponds to what is referred to in Spanish legal
treaties as culpa-aquiliana, cupla-extra-contractual, or
cuasi-delitos.

2. Nature

Articles 1157 (cf. 1089 old Code)

Obligation arise from:


1. Law
2. Contracts
3. Quasi-contracts
4. Acts or omissions punished by law; and
5. Quasi-delicts
Thus, a quasi-delict is one of the five sources of obligation. Article 1157 was
derived from article 1089 of the old civil code.

3. Governing Provisions

Article 1162
- Quasi-delicts are primarily governed by 19 articles of the civil code
and by special laws.
- 19 articles of the civil code (Arts. 2176-2194)
4. Definition

Article 2176 Civil Code (cf 1902 old Code)


- Defines a quasi-delict as the fault or negligence that
accompanies an act or omission which causes damage to
another, there being no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties.

5. Scope

a. Intentional acts

Article 2176
Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918
- the liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always
based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without
willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has
caused damage to another. (Cangco vs Manila Railroad)
- A voluntary act- merely referring to an act freely done or
without compulsion.
- Willful intent- an act done for the purpose of harm.

Elcano v. Hill G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977


- Concept of Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal
in character or in violation of the penal law, which voluntary
or not.
- the occurrence of the penal code and the civil code therein
referred to contemplate only acts of negligence and not
intentional voluntary acts.
- Quasi-delicts can cover acts committed through criminal
negligence
- The nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa criminal
or delict and mere culpa or fault with pertinent citation of
dicisions of the sc of spain, the works of recognized civilians,
and earlier jurisprudence of our own that the same given act
can result in civil liability not only under the penal code but
also under the civil code.
-
Andano v. IAC G.R. No. 74761, November 6, 1990
- Art 2176, whenever it refers to fault or negligence covers not
only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
- Court agreed with andamos that civil action was based on a
quasi-delict.
Baksh v. CA G.R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993.
- The court ruled that quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts
or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or
intent
- Torts is much broader that culpa-aquiliana because it
includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as
well as such assaults and battery, false imprisonment and
deceit.
- Thus, the court explained that art 2176 only covered
negligent acts and omissions on the basis og the general
scheme of the Philippine Legal system envisioned by the
[code] commissioners.
- A quasi-delict is committed by negligence and without willful
intent to be voluntary and negligent at the same time, but it
cannot be intentional in the sense that there is intent to
harm and negligent at the same time.

b. Damage to Property

Cinco v. Canonoy G.R. No. L-33171, May 31, 1979


- Quasi-delict is so broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property.
- It makes no distinction between damage to persons on the
one hand and damage to property on the other. Indeed, the
word damage is used in two concepts: the harm done and
reparation for the harm done. And with respect to harm
is not limited to personal but also to property injuries.

6. Elements

Article 2176
1. Act or Omission
2. Damage to another
3. Fault or negligence; and
4. No pre-existing contractual relation
Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74751 November 6, 1990
1. Damage to the plaintiff
2. Negligence by act or omission of the defendant, or by some other
person for whose act the defendant must respond; and
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

C. The Relationship Between Tort and Quasi- Delict

1. Distinct concepts
-Torts under Philippine law are those causes of action entitling a person to
remedies, mainly in the form of damages, for the injury caused to him.
-A quasi-delict is the concept dfined under article 1276 of the Civil Code. It is a
cause of action whereby one who is injured by an act or omission of another, there
being fault or negligence, is entitled to an award of damages, there being no pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties
- Torts: A classification of several causes of action. It includes both negligence acts
and acts with intent to harm.
-Quasi-delict: Is a single cause of action. Cover only negligent acts with no intent to
harm
2. Framework
-One way of looking is that a quasi-delict is a tort committed via negligence or a
quasi delict is a negligence tort.
- The Relationship may be represented by two circles, with quasi-delict as smaller
circle completely within the larger circle of tort.

D. Quasi- Delict & Delict

1. Distinguishing quasi- delict & delict


- Whatever happens to the criminal action does not affect the
quasi-delictual action. The success of the quasi-delictual
action does not depend on the success of the criminal
action.

Barredo v. Garcia, G.R. No. 48006, 8 July 1942

- Difference between crimes and cuasi-delitos


1. That the crimes affect the PUBLIC INTEREST, while
cuasi-delitos are only of private concern
2. That, consequently , the Penal Code punishes or
corrects the criminal act, while the civil code, by
means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because
the former are punished only if there is a penal law
clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos,
include all acts in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes.
2. Overlap between quasi- delict & delict

Barredo v. Garcia, supra


- If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only
to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal
import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa
aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life.
- To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages.
- To hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective,
and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property
first, would be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a
devious and cumbersome method of obtaining relief.

Elcano v. Hill, supra


- Under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an
accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil
action, not for civil liability arising from criminal
negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa
aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery."
- Art 2177 further supports the view that the same act,
which was the basis of a criminal action can be the basis
for a civil action for damages.
Andamo v. IAC, supra
- In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 15 this Court held that a quasi-
delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code
with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and
independent from a delict or crime a distinction exists between the civil
liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa
extra-contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil
liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for
quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the
acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil
case, unless, of course, in the event of an acquittal where the court has
declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which
case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of
the civil liability.

L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa G.R. no. 158995. September 26, 2006


- An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate
civil liabilities on the part of the offender,

1) civil liability ex delicto; and

2) independent civil liabilities, such as those

(a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony


(e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; the
intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or

(b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action


independent and distinct from the criminal action. Either of these
two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender.

- the court ruled that the case was a negligence suit brought under article 2176 of the
civil code to recover damages primarily from the petitioners as employers responsible
for their negligent driver pursuant to article 2180 of the civil code.

E. Culpa aquiliana and Culpa contractual


1. Distinguishing culpa aquiliana from culpa contractual
Non-contractual Obligation- It is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself
which creates the Vinculum Juris.
Contractual Relations- the Vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.

Extraordinary Diligence- Diligence as far as human care and foresight can


provide.

Diligence of a good father = Diligence of a reasonable man


a. Source

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra


- Foundation of the legal liability of Manila Railroad was the
contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for
the damage which Cangco had suffered arose from the
Breach of that contract by reason of the failure of Manila
Railroad to exercise Due care in its performance.

b. Burden of proof
Negligent act or omission (culpa aquillana)
- The burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the
negligence.
- Negligence or the fault
Contractual undertaking (culpa contractual)
- Proof of the contract and its non-performance is sufficient
prima facie to warrant a recovery.
- All that the plaintiff had to present were proof of the
contract and its non-performance.

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra


FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento G.R. No. 141910 August 6, 2002
- The mere proof of the existence of the contract and the
failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding
right of relief. The kaw, recognizing the obligatory force of
contracts, will not permit a partyto be set free from liability
for any kind of misperformance of the contractual
undertaking or a contravention of the tenor thereof.
- Unless he can show extenuating circumstances, like proof of
his exercise of due diligence or of the attendance of furtuitos
event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability.

c. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause

Calalas v. CA G.R. No. 122039, 31 May 2000.


- The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions
for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract.
The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person
where there is no relation between him and another party. In
such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But,
where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate
the relation thus created.

d. Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee


-A case of culpa aquillana, then the employer can be held liable on the basis of
his own negligene.
- A proof of the employers negligence is not required in culpa contractual. The
employer cannot raise the defense that the breach was caused by te negligence
of his employees.
2. Is there an Intersection?

Article 2176

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra


Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163, March 4, 1959
- Definition of quasi delict expressly excludes the cases where
there is a pre-existing contractual relation between parties.
Consolidated Bank v. CA G.R. No. 138569, September 11, 2003
- The Law on Quasi-delict or culpa aquilliana is generally
applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual
relationship between the parties.
- As a general rule, a quasi-delict cannot exist if there is a pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties.
Air France v. Carrascoso G.R. No. L-21438, September 28, 1966
- Although the relation of passenger and carrier is
contractual both in origin and nature nevertheless the act
that breaks the contract may also be a tort
- The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended
with public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carriers
employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for
damages.
- Passengers do not contract merely for transportation So it
is, that any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier.
Far East v. CA G.R. No. 108164, February 23, 1995
- Where, without a preexisting contract between two parties,
an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable
tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually
bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions
to the case.
- Thus under this test, the second sentence of art. 2176 is
interpreted not as a rule of preclusion (i.e. the existence
of a contract precludes the existence of a quasidelict)
but merely a rule requiring independence. This means
that a quasi0delict can exisit between contractual
parties if the case of action exists without a contract.

PSBA v. CA G.R. No.. 84698, February 4, 1992


- When an academic institution accepts students for
enrollment, there is established a contract between them,
resulting in bilateral obligations which both are bound to
comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide
the students with an education that would presumably
suffice to equip him with necessary tools and skills to
pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand,
the students covenants to abide by the schools academic
requirements and observe its rule and regulations.
- In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however,
there is, as yet, no finding that the contract between the
school and Bautista had been breached thru the former's
negligence in providing proper security measures. This
would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there
be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally
to a breach of contractual obligation only. Using the test
of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would not be
relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence becomes
material only because of the contractual relation between
PSBA and Bautista. In other words, a contractual relation is
a condition sine qua nonto the school's liability. The
negligence of the school cannot exist independently of the
contract, unless the negligence occurs under the
circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code.
Syquia v. CA G.R. No. 98695, January 27, 1993
- A pre-existing contractual relation between the parties does
not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana.

Light Rail Transit v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003


- liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort
is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, 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.

II. NEGLIGENCE

A. Concept of Negligence

Article 1173
- Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place.
When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed
in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family
shall be required. Article 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174
are also applicable to a quasi-delict.

1. Determining the diligence required

Article 1173
- Determining the diligence required Article 1173. The fault or
negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation
and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith,
the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall
apply.
- What determines the diligence required are the following:
1. The nature of the obligation; and
2. The circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place.

Jorge v. Sicam G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007


- The diligence with which the law requires the individual at
all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the
situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act
which he is to perform.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998
- Generally, the degree of care required is graduated according
to the danger a person or property attendant upon the
activity which the actor pursues or the instrumentality
which he uses. The greater the danger the greater the degree
of care required. What is ordinary under extraordinary of
conditions is dictated by those conditions; extraordinary risk
demands extraordinary care. Similarly, the more imminent
the danger, the higher the degree of care.
PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891. November 2, 2006
- A collision occurred between a car and a PNR train at 12 AM
causing the death of Brunty, a passenger of the car. The car
was overtaking another car, with a blind curve ahead, when
it hit the train. PNR was found negligent.
- Doctrine: Negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. The test is, 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, the person is guilty of
negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed
to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
pater familias of the Roman law.
- Notes: The negligence of PNR consists in the inadequate
safety precautions placed in the site. The extraordinary
diligence required of common carriers is not applicable in
this case since Brunty was not a passenger.
PNR v. CA. G.R. No. 157658, 15 October 2007
- Amores was driving when he came toa railroad crossing. He
stopped before crossing then proceeded. But just as he was
at the intersection, a PNR train turned up and collided with
his car, killing him. There was neither a signal nor a
crossing bar at the intersection to warn motorists and aside
from the railroad track, the only visible warning sign was a
dilapidated "stop, look, and listen" sign. No whistle blow was
heard from the train before the collision. The SC held PNR
liable, and that Amores did everything, with absolute care
and caution, to avoid the collission.
- Doctrine: Negligence has been defined as the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.

2. Default standard of diligence

Article 1173
- If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.

B. Degrees of Negligence

Amedo v. Rio G.R. No. L-6870, May 24, 1954


- Managuit was a seaman. While he was on board the ship
doing his job, he jumped into the water to retrieve his 2-peso
bill, which was blown by the wind. He drowned. His mother
was not allowed to recover because in acting as such, he was
grossly negligent.
Doctrine: Gross negligence is defined to be the want of even
slight care and diligence. By gross negligence is meant such
entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person
in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of
carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the danger of
injury to person or property of others. It amounts to a
reckless disregard of the safety of person or property.
- Notes: When the act is dangerous per se, doing it constitutes
gross negligence.
- To compensate his employer for a personal injry:
1. Arise out of employment
2. In the course of employment
3. Not caused by notorious negligence/gross negligence.

Marinduque v. Workmens G.R. No. L-8110, June 30, 1956


- Mamador was laborer. He boarded a company truck with
others to go to work. When it tried to overtake another truck,
it turned over and hit a coconut tree. Mamador died. Upon
complaint, the defense of the company was that Mamador
was notoriously negligent, for violating a company policy
prohibiting riding in hauling trucks, and was, thus, barred
from recovery. The SC cited Corpus Juris to the effect that
violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is
not negligence per se, much less that of a company policy. It
may, however, evidence negligence. Even granting that there
was negligence, it certainly was not notorious.
- Doctrine: Notorious negligence is the same as gross
negligence, which implies a conscious indifference to
consequences, pursuing a course of conduct which would
naturally and probably result in injury, or utter disregard of
consequences. Notes: Mere riding or stealing a ride on a
hauling truck is not negligence, ordinarily, because
transportation by truck
is not dangerous per se.
Ilao- Oreta v. Ronquillo G.R. No. 172406, October 11, 2007
- Dr. Ilao-Oreta failed to attend to a scheduled laparoscopic
operation scheduled by the spouses Ronquillo, to determine
the cause of the wife's infertility. The wife already underwent
pre-operation procedures at that time. Dr. Ila-Oreta claimed
that she was in good faith, only failing to account the time
difference between the Philippines and Hawaii, where she
had her honeymoon. The SC ruled that her conduct was not
grossly negligent, since the operation was only exploratory.
Her "honeymoon excitement" was also considered.
Doctrine: Gross negligence is the want or absence of or
failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the entire
absence of care.
Notes: That she failed to consider the time difference was
probably a big lie, since the estimated time of arrival is
clearly shown in the ticket.

C. Standard of conduct

1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct


- Reasonable man changes every time. It leave us to
compare the standard conduct

2. The Fictitious Person

a. Common laws reasonable person


b. Civil laws good father of a family

TEST:
1. 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.
2. Whether the actor disregarded the foreseeable
harm caused by his action.
Article 1173
Picart v. Smith G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918
- An automobile hit a horseman, who was on the wrong side
of the road. The horseman thought he did not have time to
get to the other side. The car passed by too close that the
horse turned its body across, with its head toward the
railing. Its limb was broken, and its rider was thrown off and
injured. The SC found the automobile driver negligent, since
a prudent man should have foreseen the risk in his course
and that he had the last fair chance to avoid the harm.
Doctrine: The test to determine the existence of negligence in
a particular case is: 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? The law here in effect adopts the standard
suppose to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to
the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence
and prudence and determines liability by that.
Notes: The Picart test is the most cited test of negligence. It
introduced the use of the fictitious person. It has the
markings of common law but because it uses the concept of
the discreet paterfamilias, later enshrined in the Civil Code
as the good father of a family, it is now a civil law test.
Sicam v. Jorge G.R. No. 159617. August 8, 2007
- Jorge pawned jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam. Armed
men entered the pawnshop and took away cash and jewelry
from the pawnshop vault. Jorge demanded the return of the
jewelry. The pawnshop failed. The SC held Sicam liable for
failing to employ sufficient safeguards for the pawned goods.
It held that robbery, if negligence concurred, is not a
fortuitous event. Also, Article 2099 requires a creditor to take
care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father
of a family.
Doctrine: The diligence with which the law requires the
individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the
nature of the situation in which he is placed and the
importance of the act which he is to perform. Negligence,
therefore, is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do;
or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. It is want of care required by the
circumstances.
Notes: The fictitious person is not the standard. It is his
conduct.
Corinthian Gardens v. spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008
- The Cuasos built their house on a lot adjoining that owned
by the Tanjangcos. Their plan was approved by Corinthian
Gardens. It turned out, however, that the house built
encroached on the lot of the Tanjangcos. The SC found
Corinthian Gardens negligent for conducting only "table
inspections," when it should have conducted actual site
inspections, which could have prevented the encroachment.
Doctrine: A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be
merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and
may be one which creates a situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of
nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary
prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or
similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable
risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to
do it in a more careful manner.
Notes: The test cited in the case was the Picart test.
3. Special Circumstances

Aonuevo v. CA G.R. No. 130003 20 October 2004


- There long has been judicial recognition of the peculiar dangers posed by the
motor vehicle. As far back as 1912, in the U.S. v. Juanillo25, the Court has
recognized that an automobile is capable of great speed, greater than that of
ordinary vehicles hauled by animals, "and beyond doubt it is highly
dangerous when used on country roads, putting to great hazard the safety
and lives of the mass of the people who travel on such roads."26 In the same
case, the Court emphasized:

A driver of an automobile, under such circumstances, is required to use a greater


degree of care than drivers of animals, for the reason that the machine is capable
of greater destruction, and furthermore, it is absolutely under the power and
control of the driver; whereas, a horse or other animal can and does to some
extent aid in averting an accident. It is not pleasant to be obliged to slow down
automobiles to accommodate persons riding, driving, or walking. It is probably
more agreeable to send the machine along and let the horse or person get out of
the way in the best manner possible; but it is well to understand, if this course is
adopted and an accident occurs, that the automobile driver will be called upon to
account for his acts. An automobile driver must at all times use all the care and
caution which a careful and prudent driver would have exercised under the
circumstances.

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda G.R. No. 172200. July 6, 2010


- Albayda, Master Sergeant in the Philippine Air Force, was at
an intersection riding his bike when he was hit by a taxi
driven by Completo. Albayda suffered injuries, including
breaking his knee. The SC found Completo negligent, since
he was overspeeding when he reached the intersection. Also,
the bike already had the right of way at the time of the
incident.
Doctrine: The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least
equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway, and it
is fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a
motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to
the other because of the physical advantages the automobile
has over the bicycle.
Notes: The witnesses for the same parties are of the same
number. It seems odd, therefore, to apply the test of
negligence when the facts are not settled by preponderance
of evidence. Thus, it appears that the court sympathized
with Albayda, who was serving the government and was left
by his wife, supposedly because of his injuries.

Pacis v. Morales G.R. No. 169467. February 25, 2010


- Morales owned a gun shop. An employee of the shop allowed
Pacis to inspect a gun brought in for repair. It turned out
that the gun was loaded and when Pacis laid it down, it
discharged a bullet, hitting his head. He died. The SC found
Morales, as the owner, liable, since he failed to exercise the
diligence required of a good father of a family, much less that
required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons.
- Doctrine: A higher degree of care is required of someone who
has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as
dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in
possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities has the
duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or
business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing
with dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher
degree of care.
- Notes: Two things may be considered negligent: the keeping
of a defective gun loaded and the storing a defective gun in a
drawer. It is strange, however, that the negligence of the
employee was not discussed, when the presumption that the
employer was negligent only arises after the negligence of the
employee is established. Also, that the wound sustained was
in the head appears to be a factual anomaly.

4. Children

Taylor v. Manila Railroad G.R. No. 4977 March 22, 1910


- David Taylor, 15 years old, and Manuel, 12, obtained
fulminating caps from the compound of Manila Railroad.
They experimented on them. The experiment ended with a
bang, literally. The explosion caused injury to the right eye
of Taylor. His father sued for damages. The defense of Manila
Railroad is the entry to their compound was without its
invitation. The SC held that the absence of invitation cannot
relieve Manila Railroad from liability. However, it held that
the proximate cause of the injury was Taylor's negligence.
Doctrine: The personal circumstances of the child may be
considered in determining the existence of negligence on his
part.
Notes: The age-bracket regime, where certain age groups are
treated as incapable of negligent conduct, was not applied
here. Also, the standard applied differs from that objective
standard of conduct generally applied to adults.

Jarco Marketing v. CA G.R. No. 129792. December 21, 1999


- Zhieneth, 6 years old, was pinned down by a gift-wrapping
counter at a department store, when her mother
momentarily let her go to sign a credit card slip. She died.
The SC found Jarco Marketing negligent, since it did not
employ safety measures even when it knew that the counter
was unstable. That Zhieneth was negligent, that she climbed
the counter, is incredible.
Doctrine: A conclusive presumption runs in favor of children
below 9 years old that they are incapable of contributory
negligence.
Notes: The 9-year mark was adopted from the Sangco's
discussion on the matter, citing the same age mark for
determining discernment in criminal law. This analogy,
however, is erroneous since discernment, in criminal law, is
used to determine the existence of criminal intent, which is
wildly different from negligence.

Ylarde v. Aquino G.R. No. L-33722. July 29, 1988


- Ylarde, a 10-year old student, and other fellow students were
asked by Aquino, their teacher, to help him in burying large
blocks of stones. Aquino left them for a while and told them
not to touch anything. After Aquino left, they played and
Ylarde jumped into the hole while one of them jumped on
the stone, causing it to slide into the hole. Ylarde was not
able to get out of the hole in time and died. The SC ruled
that Aquino was negligent in leaving his pupils in the
dangerous site, and that it was natural for said pupils to
play. It disregarded the claim that Ylarde was imprudent.
Doctrine: The degree of care required to be exercised must
vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for
himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of
care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged
according to the average conduct of persons of his age and
experience. The standard of conduct to which a child must
conform for his own protection is that degree of care
ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity,
discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or
similar circumstances.
Notes: The choice of standard of diligence for children also
depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Experts
a. In general
-Standards= Higher than a prudent man

Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998.


- Those who undertake any work calling for special skills are
required not only to exercise reasonable care in what they do
but also possess a standard minimum of special knowledge
and ability.
Every man who offers his services to another, and is
employed, assumes to exercise in the employment such
skills he possesses, with a reasonable degree of diligence. In
all these employments where peculiar skill is requisite, if one
offers his services he is understood as holding himself out to
the public as possessing the degree of skill commonly
possessed by others in the same employment, and if his
pretensions are unfounded he commits a species of fraud on
every man who employs him in reliance on his public
profession.

Culion v. Phiippine Motors G.R. No. 32611. November 3, 1930


- Culion contracted Philippine Motors to convert the engine of
his fishing vessel to process crude oil instead of gasoline.
When they tried to test it, a backfire broke out. When it
reached the carburetor, the fire grew bigger. Apparently, the
carburetor was soaked with oil from a leak from the tubing,
which was improperly fitted to the oil tank. The SC held
Philippine Motor negligent for failing to use the skill that
would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert in
repairing gasoline engines on boats. Ordinarily, a backfire
would not be followed by a disaster.
- Doctrine: When a person hold himself out as being
competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be
liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of
one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he
attempts to do.
b. Pharmacist

US v. Pineda G.R. No. L-12858. January 22, 1918


- Santos bought medicine in Santiago Pinedas pharmacy for
his sick horses. He was given the wrong medicine. His
horses died. The SC held him criminally liable under The
Pharmacy Law.
Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care
and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care has
been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a
specially high degree," "the highest degree of care known to
practical men." In other words, the care required must be
commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill
employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of
the business which the law demands. Caveat emptor does
not apply because the pharmacist and the customer are not
in equal footing in this kind of transaction.
Notes: Even when the mistake is not fatal, the pharmacist
will still be held liable if the rule laid down applied. Also,
caveat emptor may apply in cases of well-known medicine.

Mercury Drug v. De Leon G.R. No. 165622. October 17, 2008


- Judge De Leon was given a prescription by his doctor friend
for his eye. He bought them from Mercury Drug but he was
given drops for the ears. When he applied the drops to his
eyes, he felt searing pain. Only then did he discover that he
was given the wrong medicine. Mercury Drug invoked the
principle of caveat emptor. The SC held Mercury Drug and
its employee liable for failing to exercise the highest degree of
diligence expected of them.
- Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy demands care and
skill, and druggists must exercise care of a specially high
degree, the highest degree of care known to practical men. In
other words, druggists must exercise the highest practicable
degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and
reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct
of the business, so that human life may not constantly be
exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of
deadly poisons for harmless medicines.
c. Medical professionals
NOTE: Witnesses must of the same specific specialization
The elements of medical negligence are:
(1) duty;
(2) breach;
(3) injury; and
(4) proximate causation.

Cruz v. CA G.R. No. 1224-15. November 18, 1997


- Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali. The
hospital was untidy, and during the operation, the family
had to obtain blood, oxygen supply, and other articles
necessary for the operation outside the hospital. Lydia went
into shock and her blood pressure dropped. She was
transferred to another hospital. Dr. Cruz was charged with
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The SC absolved
Dr. Cruz. While the facts point to the existence of reckless
imprudence, it was not shown that such imprudence caused
the death of Lydia. Moral and exemplary damages were,
however, awarded.
Doctrine: By accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents
that, having the needed training and skill possessed by
physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will
employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his
patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same
level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor
would use to treat a condition under the same
circumstances. It is in this aspect of medical malpractice
that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the
standard of care of the profession but also that the
physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below
such standard. Further, inasmuch as the causes of the
injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable
only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been
recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to
support the conclusion as to causation.

Dela Torre v. Imbuido G.R. No. 192973 September 29, 2014


- "[M]edical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical
negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available
to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical
professionalwhich has caused bodily harm." In order to
successfully pursue such a claim, a patient, or his or her
family as in this case, "must prove that a health care
provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do
something which a reasonably prudent health care provider
would have done, or that he or she did something that a
reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that
failure or action caused injury to the patient."

- The Court emphasized in Lucas, et al. v. Tuao that in


medical negligence cases, there is a physician-patient
relationship between the doctor and the victim, but just like
in any other proceeding for damages, four essential elements
must be established by the plaintiff, namely: (1) duty; (2)
breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation. All four
elements must be present in order to find the physician
negligent and, thus, liable for damages.

- Note: The critical and clinching factor in a medical


negligence case is proof of the causal connection between
the negligence and the injuries.

Casumpang v. Cortejo G.R. Nos.171127, 171217 & 171221 March 11, 2015
- Once a physician-patient relationship is established, the
legal duty of care follows. The doctor accordingly becomes
duty-bound to use at least the same standard of care that a
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a medical
condition under similar circumstances.

- Medical malpractice suit, an action available to victims to


redress a wrong committed by medical professionals who
caused bodily harm to, or the death of, a patient.33 As the
term is used, the suit is brought whenever a medical
practitioner or health care provider fails to meet the
standards demanded by his profession, or deviates from this
standard, and causes injury to the patient.

- To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the


plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patients heir) must prove
that the doctor either failed to do what a reasonably prudent
doctor would have done, or did what a reasonably prudent
doctor would not have done; and the act or omission had
caused injury to the patient.34 The patients heir/s bears the
burden of proving his/her cause of action.

Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc. G.R. No. 191018 January 25, 2016
- The standard is based on the norm observed by other reasonably
competent members of the profession practicing the same field of
medicine. Because medical malpractice cases are often highly
technical, expert testimony is usually essential to establish: (1) the
standard of care that the defendant was bound to observe under the
circumstances; (2) that the defendant's conduct fell below the
acceptable standard; and (3) that the defendant's failure to observe
the industry standard caused injury to his patient.
- The expert witness must be a similarly trained and experienced
physician. Thus, a pulmonologist is not qualified to testify as to the
standard of care required of an anesthesiologist22 and an autopsy
expert is not qualified to testify as a specialist in infectious diseases.

III. PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE

A. In motor vehicle mishaps

Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of Article 2180 are applicable.

Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

1. Previous violation

Articles 2184

2. Simultaneous violations
Article 2185
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin G.R. No. 173180 August 24, 2012
- The court gave greater weight to the trial courts finding
of negligence on the part of the jitney driver and that
this was the proximate cause of the accident.

- We(SC) did not lose sight of the fact that at the time of the
incident, Jabon was prohibited from driving the truck due to
the restriction imposed on his drivers license, i.e.,
restriction code 2 and 3. As a matter of fact, Jabon even
asked the Land Transportation Office to reinstate his
articulated license containing restriction code 8 which would
allow him to drive a tractor-trailer. The Court of Appeals
concluded therefrom that Jabon was violating a traffic
regulation at the time of the collision.

- Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic


regulation. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the
legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of
the mishap, a person was violating any traffic
regulation. However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals,27 we held that a causal connection
must exist between the injury received and the violation
of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the
violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or
legal cause of the injury or that it substantially
contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or
in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is
without legal consequence unless it is a contributing
cause of the injury.

Sanitary Steam v. CA G.R. No. 119092 December 10, 1998

Doctrine: The violation if the traffic code was not enough. Such violation
must be the proximate cause of the injury. It did not say that the
violation must be the proximate cause before the presumption could
arise.
- First of all, it has not been shown how the alleged negligence
of the Cimarron driver contributed to the collision between
the vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the burden of showing a
causal connection between the injury received and the
violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. He
must show that the violation of the statute was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially
contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in
part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without
legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the
injury. 3 Petitioner says that "driving an overloaded vehicle
with only one functioning headlight during nighttime
certainly increases the risk of accident," 4 that because the
Cimarron had only one headlight, there was "decreased
visibility," and that the tact that the vehicle was overloaded
and its front seat overcrowded "decreased [its]
maneuverability," 5 However, mere allegations such as these
are not sufficient to discharge its burden of proving clearly
that such alleged negligence was the contributing cause of
the injury.

Aonuevo v. CA G.R. No. 130003 20 October 2004

- The Code Commission was cognizant of the difference in the


natures and attached responsibilities of motorized and non-
motorized vehicles. Art. 2185 was not formulated to compel
or ensure obeisance by all to traffic rules and regulations. If
such were indeed the evil sought to be remedied or guarded
against, then the framers of the Code would have expanded
the provision to include non-motorized vehicles or for that
matter, pedestrians. Yet, that was not the case; thus the
need arises to ascertain the peculiarities attaching to a
motorized vehicle within the dynamics of road travel. The
fact that there has long existed a higher degree of diligence
and care imposed on motorized vehicles, arising from the
special nature of motor vehicle, leads to the inescapable
conclusion that the qualification under Article 2185 exists
precisely to recognize such higher standard. Simply put, the
standards applicable to motor vehicle are not on equal
footing with other types of vehicles.

Note: the court ruled that article 2185 should not apply to
non-motorized vehicles, even by analogy. It said that there
was factual and legal basis that necessitated the distinction
under Article 2185, and to adopt Anonuevos thesis would
unwisely obviate this distinction.

B. Possessions of dangerous weapons or substance

Article 2188
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.

C. Common carriers

Articles 1734-1735, 1752

Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.

D. Res ipsa loquitur

1. Definition
2. Statement of the Rule
Definition/statement of the rule. This doctrine is stated thus: 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 reasonable
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care.

3. Elements
1. Occurrence of an injury and it does not occur out of normal course
of event, unless someone is negligent.
2. The thing which caused the injury was under control and
management of the defendant (exclusive control)
3. The occurrence was such in the ordinary course of things would not
happen if those who had control or management used proper care.
4. The absence of explanation by the defendant.

a. Nature of the accident

b. Control over the cause


-Exclusivity is important because it norrows the point person for
negligence
Professional Services v. Agana G.R. No. 126297 January 31, 2007
- After her hysterectomy operation at Medical City, Natividad
Agana found out that two pieces of sponges were left inside
her, which has caused her pain for a long time. Dr. Ampil,
who closed the incision, invoking res ipsa loquitur, blamed
Dr. Fuentes, who conducted the operation itself. The SC
absolved Dr. Fuentes, since he ceased to have control of the
thing which caused the injury, when Dr. Ampil took over. On
the contrary, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon, liable under
the "captain of the ship" rule.
- Doctrine: The most instrumental in the requisites [see
Requisites above] for the doctrine to apply is the control and
management of the thing which caused the injury.

Josefa v. Manila Electric Co. G.R. No. 182705 July 18, 2014
-The present case satisfiesall the elements of res ipsa loquitur. It is very
unusual and extraordinary for the truck to hit an electricity post, an
immovable and stationary object, unless Bautista, who had the exclusive
management and control of the truck, acted with fault or negligence. We
cannot also conclude that Meralco contributed to the injury since it
safely and permanently installed the electricity post beside the street.
Thus, in Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp.,52 we imputed vicarious
responsibility to Luzon Stevedoring Corp. whose barge rammed the
bridge, also an immovable and stationary object. In that case, we found it
highly unusual for the barge to hit the bridge which had adequate
openings for the passage of water craft unless Luzon Stevedoring Corp.s
employee had acted with negligence.

BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo G.R. No. 161151 March 24, 2014

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means "the thing or the
transaction speaks for itself." It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of
the occurrence of 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 the thing that caused the
injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of
things, would not happen if those who had management or control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of a
sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that the
accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care.
This rule is grounded on the superior logic of ordinary human
experience, and it is on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge that negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of
the accident itself. Hence, the rule is applied in conjunction with the
doctrine of common knowledge.

For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to


exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur
in the 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 that would
make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
c. No contribution to the injury from the injured

Note: this element perhaps makes a medical negligence case a prime


candidate for the application of the rule because ordinarily, a patient is
rendered incapable of acting while under the care of a doctor.

4. Effect of direct evidence

Layugan v. IAC G.R. No. 73998 November 14, 1988

- Hence, it has generally been held that the presumption of


inference arising from the doctrine cannot be availed of, or is
overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or
presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which
is the cause of the injury complained of or where there is
direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and
all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence
clearly appear. Finally, 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 elucidated that no inference of
defendants liability can reasonably be made, whatever the
source of the evidence, as in this case.

Tan v. Jam Transit G.R. No. 183198 November 25, 2009


- Tan was the owner of a jitney loaded with quail eggs and
duck eggs. It was negotiating a left turn when it collided with
a JAM Transit bus. The jitney turned turtle. Its driver and
passenger were injured. The eggs were destroyed. SC held
the bus driver was negligent for overtaking when there were
double yellow center lines on the road, which means
overtaking is prohibited. Res ipsa loquitur was held
applicable, since the incident could not have happened in
the absence of negligence, the bus was under the control of
the driver, and the jitney driver was not contributorily
negligent.
- Doctrine: Res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law
and does not constitute an independent or separate ground
for liability. Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary, a
mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it
furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the
burden of producing a specific proof of negligence.
- Notes: While the SC stated that the doctrine was applicable,
it still examined the evidence proving the negligence of the
bus driver. This means that the doctrine was not necessary
in resolving the case.

College Assurance v. Belfranlt G.R. No. 155604 November 22, 2007


- Fire razed a building owned by Belfranlt Development and
leased to College Assurance Plan. damages. It was caused by
an overheated coffee percolator in the store room leased to
College Assurance. College Assurance assailed the report of
the fireman to this effect. The SC held that even without
such report, res ipsa loquitur may be applied. The fire was
not an spontaneous occurrence. It originated from the store
room, in the possession and control of College Assurance.
Belfranlt Development had no hand in the incident, and it
has no means to find out for itself the cause of the fire.
- Doctrine: When the doctrine applies, it may dispense with
the expert testimony to sustain an allegation of negligence.
The inference of negligence is not dispelled by mere denial.
- Notes: The case illustrates clearly the element of control in
the requisites for the application of the doctrine. Also, only
College Assurance has the knowledge of, or at least it had
the best opportunity to ascertain, the cause of the fire.

5. Nature of the rule


The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a
mere procedural convenience.

However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive
law and, as such, does not create orconstitute an independent or separate
ground of liability. Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or in the
nature of a procedural rule. It is regarded as a mode of proof, or a mere
procedural convenience.

Nature of a procedural rule, a rule of evience and not a rule of substantive law
and therefore does not create or constitute an independent or separate ground of
liability.

6. Effect of the rule


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.
[Layugan v. IAC, 1988; Batiquin v. CA, 1998]

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 part of 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. [Layugan v. IAC, 1988; Batiquin v.
CA, 1996]

[I]t furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing
specific proof of negligence.[Ramos v. CA, 1999; Tan v. JAM Transit, 2009]

As stated earlier, the defendants 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 presumption or inference may be rebutted or
overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances disputable
presumption, such as that 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. [DM
Consunji v. CA, 2001]

7. Justification for the rule

DM Consunji v. CA G.R. No. 137873 April 20, 2001

- One of the theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity,


i.e., that necessary evidence is absent or not available. xxx
The 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 defendants
negligence is beyond plaintiffs power.

8. Res ipsa inquitor versus expert testimony in medical negligence cases

Cruz v. CA G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997


Dr. Cruz performed a hysterectomy on Lydia Umali. The hospital was
untidy, and during the operation, the family had to obtain blood, oxygen
supply,and other articles necessary for the operation outside the
hospital. Lydia went into shock and her blood pressure dropped. She was
transferred to another hospital. Dr. Cruz was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide. The SC absolved Dr. Cruz. While the
facts point to the existence of reckless imprudence, it was not shown that
such imprudence caused the death of Lydia. Moral and exemplary
damages were, however, awarded.
Doctrine: By accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having
the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons
practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill
in the treatment of his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least
the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would
use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this
aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to
establish not only the standard of care of the profession but also that the
physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard.
Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice
actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has
been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to support
the conclusion as to causation.
Casumpang v. Cortejo G.R. Nos.171127, 171217 & 171221 March 11, 2015
- Once a physician-patient relationship is established, the
legal duty of care follows. The doctor accordingly becomes
duty-bound to use at least the same standard of care that a
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a medical
condition under similar circumstances.

- Medical malpractice suit, an action available to victims to


redress a wrong committed by medical professionals who
caused bodily harm to, or the death of, a patient.33 As the
term is used, the suit is brought whenever a medical
practitioner or health care provider fails to meet the
standards demanded by his profession, or deviates from this
standard, and causes injury to the patient.

- To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the


plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patients heir) must prove
that the doctor either failed to do what a reasonably prudent
doctor would have done, or did what a reasonably prudent
doctor would not have done; and the act or omission had
caused injury to the patient.34 The patients heir/s bears the
burden of proving his/her cause of action.

Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc. G.R. No. 191018 January 25, 2016

Res ipsa loquitur is not applicable when the failure to observe due
care is not immediately apparent to the layman.

The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the
burden of evidence onto the respondent. Res ipsa loquitur, literally, "the
thing speaks for itself;" is a rule of evidence that presumes negligence
from the very nature of the accident itself using common human
knowledge or experience.

The application of this rule requires: (1) that the accident was of a kind
which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) that the
instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive: control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) that the
injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution from the injured person.38 The concurrence of these
elements creates a presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted,
overcomes the plaintiffs burden of proof.

Cayao- Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete G.R. No. 159132 December 18, 2008
Dr. Cayao-Lasam conducted a dilatation and curettage procedure (raspa)
on Ramolete. Almost a month after, she went back to the hospital. A dead
fetus was found in her womb. She underwent operations, which rendered
her incapable of bering a child. The SC absolved Dr. Cayao-Lasam, since
there was no expert testimony presented to the effect that she breached
her professional duties, and Ramolete herself failed to attend the follow-
up check-ups after the operation, which could have avoided the injury.
Doctrine: There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases:
duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. A physician is duty-bound
to use at least the same level of care that any reasonably competent
doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances.
Breach of this duty, whereby the patient is injured in body or in health,
constitutes actionable malpractice. As to this aspect of medical
malpractice, the determination of the reasonable level of care and the
breach thereof, expert testimony is essential.
Notes: The elements enumerated is the same as that for a tort. It,
therefore, shares the same problem as that of tort, that is, lack of
statutory basis. The requirement of expert testimony is understandable
in this case.
Lucas v. Tuao G.R. No. 178763 April 21, 2009
Lucas consulted Dr. Tuao his "sore eyes." He was prescribed a medicine.
Not long after, however, his sore eyes turned into a viral infection.
Maxitrol was then prescribed. The infection subsided. Upon discovery
that Maxitrol increased the chance of contracting glaucoma, he
consulted Dr. Tuao, who brushed it aside. His right eye became blind
because of glaucoma. On consultation to another physician, Lucas was
informed that his condition would require long-term care. The SC
absolved Dr. Tuao. It found that Lucas failed to discharge the burden of
proof by failing to present expert testimony to establish the standard of
care required, breach, and proximate causation, which requires expert
testimony.
Doctrine: Just like any other proceeding for damages, four essential
elements i.e., (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation,
must be established in medical negligence cases. In accepting a case, the
physician, for all intents and purposes, represents that he has the
needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons
practicing in the same field; and that he will employ such training, care,
and skill in the treatment of the patient. This standard level of care, skill
and diligence is a matter best addressed by expert medical testimony,
because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter
peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in the field.
Notes: The action was primarily based on Article 2176. However, instead
of using the three elements for quasidelict, the elements of the common-
law tort was used.
Ramos v. CA G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
- For her cholecystectomy, the surgeon for Ramos was late,
and her anesthesiologist was incompetent. Something went
wrong during the intubation, that her nailbeds became
bluish. She had to be placed in a trendelenburg position, so
her brain can get enough oxygen. A respiratory machine was
rushed into the operating room. For lack of oxygen in her
brain, she went into a comatose condition. In the action for
damages, the SC held that the damage sustained presents a
case for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Brain damage
does not normally occur in a gall bladder operation in the
absence of negligence. The anesthesia was under the
exclusive control of the doctors. The patient was
unconscious, incapable of contributory negligence. The
presumption of negligence arose, and remained unrebutted.
- Doctrine: The injury incurred by petitioner Erlinda does not
normally happen absent any negligence in the
administration of anesthesia and in the use of an
endotracheal tube. The instruments used in the
administration of anesthesia, including the endotracheal
tube, were all under the exclusive control of Dr. Gutierrez
and Dr. Hosaka. Thus the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can
be applied in this case. Res ipsa could apply in medical
cases. In cases where it applies, expert testimony can be
dispensed with.
- Notes: Expert testimony may be dispensed with when res
ipsa loquitur applies. There were proof of negligence in this
case. Nonetheless, the doctrine was still applied.

Cruz v. Agas, Jr. G.R. No. 204095 June 15, 2015


In this case, the Court agrees with Dr. Agas that his purported
negligence in performing the colonoscopy on Dr. Cruz was not
immediately apparent to a layman to justify the application of res ipsa
loquitur doctrine.
Dr. Agas was able to establish that the internal bleeding sustained by Dr.
Cruz was due to the abnormal condition and configuration of his sigmoid
colon which was beyond his control considering that the said condition
could not be detected before a colonoscopic procedure. Dr. Agas
adequately explained that no clinical findings, laboratory tests, or
diagnostic imaging, such as x-rays, ultrasound or computed tomography
(CT) scan of the abdomen, could have detected this condition prior to an
endoscopic procedure. Specifically, Dr. Agas wrote:

On the other hand, in the present case, the correlation between


petitioners injury, i.e., tear in the serosa of sigmoid colon, and the
colonoscopy conducted by respondent to the petitioner clearly requires
the presentation of an expert opinion considering that no perforation of
the sigmoid colon was ever noted during the laparotomy. It cannot be
overemphasized that the colonoscope inserted by the respondent only
passed through the inside of petitioners sigmoid colon while the
damaged tissue, i.e., serosa, which caused the bleeding, is located in the
outermost layer of the colon. It is therefore impossible for the
colonoscope to touch, scratch, or even tear the serosa since the said
membrane is beyond reach of the colonoscope in the absence of
perforation on the colon.13

Dr. Cruz failed to rebut this.

Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital G.R. No. 210445 December 2, 2015


An expert witness is not necessary as the res ipsa loquitur doctrine
is applicable

To establish medical negligence, this Court has held that an expert


testimony is generally required to define the standard of behavior by
which the court may determine whether the physician has properly
performed the requisite duty toward the patient. This is so considering
that the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of a patient is
usually a matter of expert opinion.10

Solidum v. People of the Philippines11 provides an exception. There, the


Court explained that where the application of the principle of res ipsa
loquitur is warranted, an expert testimony may be dispensed with in
medical negligence cases:
Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in
malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act
or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need
for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence. The reason is that the general
rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters
clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are
within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by
anyone familiar with the facts.

Solidum v. People G.R. No. 192123 March 10,2014


Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or the transaction
speaks for itself." The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means 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 reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."24 It is simply "a
recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and
experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an
inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by
the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the
superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such
experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the
mere occurrence of the accident itself.

Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of


common knowledge."

Anda mungkin juga menyukai