G.R.$No.$115024$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$7,$1996!

MA.$LOURDES$VALENZUELA,!petitioner,!!
vs.!
COURT$OF$APPEALS,$RICHARD$LI$and$ALEXANDER$COMMERCIAL,$INC.,!respondents.!
x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x!
G.R.$No.$117944$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$7,$1996!
RICHARD$LI,!petitioner,!!
vs.!
COURT$OF$APPEALS$and$LOURDES$VALENZUELA,$respondents.!
D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N!
KAPUNAN,$J.:!
These!two!petitions!for!review!on!certiorari!under!Rule!45!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Court!stem!from!an!action!to!recover!damages!by!petitioner!
Lourdes!Valenzuela!in!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Quezon!City!for!injuries!sustained!by!her!in!a!vehicular!accident!in!the!early!morning!of!June!24,!
1990.!The!facts!found!by!the!trial!court!are!succinctly!summarized!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!below:!
This!is!an!action!to!recover!damages!based!on!quasi/delict,!for!serious!physical!injuries!sustained!in!a!vehicular!accident.!
Plaintiff's!version!of!the!accident!is!as!follows:!At!around!2:00!in!the!morning!of!June!24,!1990,!plaintiff!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!was!driving!a!blue!
Mitsubishi!lancer!with!Plate!No.!FFU!542!from!her!restaurant!at!Marcos!highway!to!her!home!at!Palanza!Street,!Araneta!Avenue.!She!was!travelling!
along!Aurora!Blvd.!with!a!companion,!Cecilia!Ramon,!heading!towards!the!direction!of!Manila.!Before!reaching!A.!Lake!Street,!she!noticed!
something!wrong!with!her!tires;!she!stopped!at!a!lighted!place!where!there!were!people,!to!verify!whether!she!had!a!flat!tire!and!to!solicit!help!if!
needed.!Having!been!told!by!the!people!present!that!her!rear!right!tire!was!flat!and!that!she!cannot!reach!her!home!in!that!car's!condition,!she!
parked!along!the!sidewalk,!about!1/1/2!feet!away,!put!on!her!emergency!lights,!alighted!from!the!car,!and!went!to!the!rear!to!open!the!trunk.!She!
was!standing!at!the!left!side!of!the!rear!of!her!car!pointing!to!the!tools!to!a!man!who!will!help!her!fix!the!tire!when!she!was!suddenly!bumped!by!a!
1987!Mitsubishi!Lancer!driven!by!defendant!Richard!Li!and!registered!in!the!name!of!defendant!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!Because!of!the!impact!
plaintiff!was!thrown!against!the!windshield!of!the!car!of!the!defendant,!which!was!destroyed,!and!then!fell!to!the!ground.!She!was!pulled!out!from!
under!defendant's!car.!Plaintiff's!left!leg!was!severed!up!to!the!middle!of!her!thigh,!with!only!some!skin!and!sucle!connected!to!the!rest!of!the!
body.!She!was!brought!to!the!UERM!Medical!Memorial!Center!where!she!was!found!to!have!a!"traumatic!amputation,!leg,!left!up!to!distal!thigh!
(above!knee)".!She!was!confined!in!the!hospital!for!twenty!(20)!days!and!was!eventually!fitted!with!an!artificial!leg.!The!expenses!for!the!hospital!
confinement!(P120,000.00)!and!the!cost!of!the!artificial!leg!(P27,000.00)!were!paid!by!defendants!from!the!car!insurance.!

In!her!complaint,!plaintiff!prayed!for!moral!damages!in!the!amount!of!P1!million,!exemplary!damages!in!the!amount!of!P100,000.00!and!other!
medical!and!related!expenses!amounting!to!a!total!of!P180,000.00,!including!loss!of!expected!earnings.!
Defendant!Richard!Li!denied!that!he!was!negligent.!He!was!on!his!way!home,!travelling!at!55!kph;!considering!that!it!was!raining,!visibility!was!
affected!and!the!road!was!wet.!Traffic!was!light.!He!testified!that!he!was!driving!along!the!inner!portion!of!the!right!lane!of!Aurora!Blvd.!towards!
the!direction!of!Araneta!Avenue,!when!he!was!suddenly!confronted,!in!the!vicinity!of!A.!Lake!Street,!San!Juan,!with!a!car!coming!from!the!opposite!
direction,!travelling!at!80!kph,!with!"full!bright!lights".!Temporarily!blinded,!he!instinctively!swerved!to!the!right!to!avoid!colliding!with!the!
oncoming!vehicle,!and!bumped!plaintiff's!car,!which!he!did!not!see!because!it!was!midnight!blue!in!color,!with!no!parking!lights!or!early!warning!
device,!and!the!area!was!poorly!lighted.!He!alleged!in!his!defense!that!the!left!rear!portion!of!plaintiff's!car!was!protruding!as!it!was!then!"at!a!
standstill!diagonally"!on!the!outer!portion!of!the!right!lane!towards!Araneta!Avenue!(par.!18,!Answer).!He!confirmed!the!testimony!of!plaintiff's!
witness!that!after!being!bumped!the!car!of!the!plaintiff!swerved!to!the!right!and!hit!another!car!parked!on!the!sidewalk.!Defendants!
counterclaimed!for!damages,!alleging!that!plaintiff!was!reckless!or!negligent,!as!she!was!not!a!licensed!driver.!
The!police!investigator,!Pfc.!Felic!Ramos,!who!prepared!the!vehicular!accident!report!and!the!sketch!of!the!three!cars!involved!in!the!accident,!
testified!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!"near!the!sidewalk";!this!witness!did!not!remember!whether!the!hazard!lights!of!plaintiff's!car!were!on,!and!did!
not!notice!if!there!was!an!early!warning!device;!there!was!a!street!light!at!the!corner!of!Aurora!Blvd.!and!F.!Roman,!about!100!meters!away.!It!was!
not!mostly!dark,!i.e.!"things!can!be!seen"!(p.!16,!tsn,!Oct.!28,!1991).!
A!witness!for!the!plaintiff,!Rogelio!Rodriguez,!testified!that!after!plaintiff!alighted!from!her!car!and!opened!the!trunk!compartment,!defendant's!car!
came!approaching!very!fast!ten!meters!from!the!scene;!the!car!was!"zigzagging".!The!rear!left!side!of!plaintiff's!car!was!bumped!by!the!front!right!
portion!of!defendant's!car;!as!a!consequence,!the!plaintiff's!car!swerved!to!the!right!and!hit!the!parked!car!on!the!sidewalk.!Plaintiff!was!thrown!to!
the!windshield!of!defendant's!car,!which!was!destroyed,!and!landed!under!the!car.!He!stated!that!defendant!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor!as!
he!could!"smell!it!very!well"!(pp.!43,!79,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!
After!trial,!the!lower!court!sustained!the!plaintiff's!submissions!and!found!defendant!Richard!Li!guilty!of!gross!negligence!and!liable!for!damages!
under!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code.!The!trial!court!likewise!held!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.,!Li's!employer,!jointly!and!severally!liable!for!damages!
pursuant!to!Article!2180.!It!ordered!the!defendants!to!jointly!and!severally!pay!the!following!amounts:!
1.!P41,840.00,!as!actual!damages,!representing!the!miscellaneous!expenses!of!the!plaintiff!as!a!result!of!her!severed!left!leg;!
2.!The!sums!of!(a)!P37,500.00,!for!the!unrealized!profits!because!of!the!stoppage!of!plaintiff's!Bistro!La!Conga!restaurant!three!(3)!weeks!after!the!
accident!on!June!24,!1990;!(b)!P20,000.00,!a!month,!as!unrealized!profits!of!the!plaintiff!in!her!Bistro!La!Conga!restaurant,!from!August,!1990!until!
the!date!of!this!judgment!and!(c)!P30,000.00,!a!month!for!unrealized!profits!in!plaintiff's!two!(2)!beauty!salons!from!July,!1990!until!the!date!of!this!
decision;!
3.!P1,000,000.00,!in!moral!damages;!

4.!P50,000.00,!as!exemplary!damages;5.!P60,000.00,!as!reasonable!attorney's!fees;!and!
6.!Costs.!
As!a!result!of!the!trial!court's!decision,!defendants!filed!an!Omnibus!Motion!for!New!Trial!and!for!Reconsideration,!citing!testimony!in!Criminal!Case!
O.C.!No.!804367!(People!vs.!Richard!Li),!tending!to!show!that!the!point!of!impact,!as!depicted!by!the!pieces!of!glass/debris!from!the!parties'!cars,!
appeared!to!be!at!the!center!of!the!right!lane!of!Aurora!Blvd.!The!trial!court!denied!the!motion.!Defendants!forthwith!filed!an!appeal!with!the!
respondent!Court!of!Appeals.!In!a!Decision!rendered!March!30,!1994,!the!Court!of!Appeals!found!that!there!was!"ample!basis!from!the!evidence!of!
record!for!the!trial!court's!finding!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!properly!parked!at!the!right,!beside!the!sidewalk!when!it!was!bumped!by!defendant's!
car."1!Dismissing!the!defendants'!argument!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!improperly!parked,!almost!at!the!center!of!the!road,!the!respondent!court!
noted!that!evidence!which!was!supposed!to!prove!that!the!car!was!at!or!near!center!of!the!right!lane!was!never!presented!during!the!trial!of!the!
case.2!The!respondent!court!furthermore!observed!that:!
Defendant!Li's!testimony!that!he!was!driving!at!a!safe!speed!of!55!km./hour!is!self!serving;!it!was!not!corroborated.!It!was!in!fact!contradicted!by!
eyewitness!Rodriguez!who!stated!that!he!was!outside!his!beerhouse!located!at!Aurora!Boulevard!after!A.!Lake!Street,!at!or!about!2:00!a.m.!of!June!
24,!1990!when!his!attention!was!caught!by!a!beautiful!lady!(referring!to!the!plaintiff)!alighting!from!her!car!and!opening!the!trunk!compartment;!he!
noticed!the!car!of!Richard!Li!"approaching!very!fast!ten!(10)!meters!away!from!the!scene";!defendant's!car!was!zigzagging",!although!there!were!no!
holes!and!hazards!on!the!street,!and!"bumped!the!leg!of!the!plaintiff"!who!was!thrown!against!the!windshield!of!defendant's!care,!causing!its!
destruction.!He!came!to!the!rescue!of!the!plaintiff,!who!was!pulled!out!from!under!defendant's!car!and!was!able!to!say!"hurting!words"!to!Richard!
Li!because!he!noticed!that!the!latter!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor,!because!he!"could!smell!it!very!well"!(p.!36,!et.!seq.,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!He!
knew!that!plaintiff!owned!a!beerhouse!in!Sta.!Mesa!in!the!1970's,!but!did!not!know!either!plaintiff!or!defendant!Li!before!the!accident.!
In!agreeing!with!the!trial!court!that!the!defendant!Li!was!liable!for!the!injuries!sustained!by!the!plaintiff,!the!Court!of!Appeals,!in!its!decision,!
however,!absolved!the!Li's!employer,!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!from!any!liability!towards!petitioner!Lourdes!Valenzuela!and!reduced!the!amount!
of!moral!damages!to!P500,000.00.!Finding!justification!for!exemplary!damages,!the!respondent!court!allowed!an!award!of!P50,000.00!for!the!same,!
in!addition!to!costs,!attorney's!fees!and!the!other!damages.!The!Court!of!Appeals,!likewise,!dismissed!the!defendants'!counterclaims.3!
Consequently,!both!parties!assail!the!respondent!court's!decision!by!filing!two!separate!petitions!before!this!Court.!Richard!Li,!in!G.R.!No.!117944,!
contends!that!he!should!not!be!held!liable!for!damages!because!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!was!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela's!own!negligence.!
Alternatively,!he!argues!that!in!the!event!that!this!Court!finds!him!negligent,!such!negligence!ought!to!be!mitigated!by!the!contributory!negligence!
of!Valenzuela.!
On!the!other!hand,!in!G.R.!No.!115024,!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!assails!the!respondent!court's!decision!insofar!as!it!absolves!Alexander!Commercial,!
Inc.!from!liability!as!the!owner!of!the!car!driven!by!Richard!Li!and!insofar!as!it!reduces!the!amount!of!the!actual!and!moral!damages!awarded!by!the!
trial!court.4!
As!the!issues!are!intimately!related,!both!petitions!are!hereby!consolidated.!

It!is!plainly!evident!that!the!petition!for!review!in!G.R.!No.!117944!raises!no!substantial!questions!of!law.!What!it,!in!effect,!attempts!to!have!this!
Court!review!are!factual!findings!of!the!trial!court,!as!sustained!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!finding!Richard!Li!grossly!negligent!in!driving!the!Mitsubishi!
Lancer!provided!by!his!company!in!the!early!morning!hours!of!June!24,!1990.!This!we!will!not!do.!As!a!general!rule,!findings!of!fact!of!the!Court!of!
Appeals!are!binding!and!conclusive!upon!us,!and!this!Court!will!not!normally!disturb!such!factual!findings!unless!the!findings!of!fact!of!the!said!
court!are!palpably!unsupported!by!the!evidence!on!record!or!unless!the!judgment!itself!is!based!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts.5!
In!the!first!place,!Valenzuela's!version!of!the!incident!was!fully!corroborated!by!an!uninterested!witness,!Rogelio!Rodriguez,!the!owner/operator!of!
an!establishment!located!just!across!the!scene!of!the!accident.!On!trial,!he!testified!that!he!observed!a!car!being!driven!at!a!"very!fast"!speed,!
racing!towards!the!general!direction!of!Araneta!Avenue.6!Rodriguez!further!added!that!he!was!standing!in!front!of!his!establishment,!just!ten!to!
twenty!feet!away!from!the!scene!of!the!accident,!when!he!saw!the!car!hit!Valenzuela,!hurtling!her!against!the!windshield!of!the!defendant's!
Mitsubishi!Lancer,!from!where!she!eventually!fell!under!the!defendant's!car.!Spontaneously!reacting!to!the!incident,!he!crossed!the!street,!noting!
that!a!man!reeking!with!the!smell!of!liquor!had!alighted!from!the!offending!vehicle!in!order!to!survey!the!incident.7!Equally!important,!Rodriguez!
declared!that!he!observed!Valenzuela's!car!parked!parallel!and!very!near!the!sidewalk,8!contrary!to!Li's!allegation!that!Valenzuela's!car!was!close!to!
the!center!of!the!right!lane.!We!agree!that!as!between!Li's!"self/serving"!asseverations!and!the!observations!of!a!witness!who!did!not!even!know!
the!accident!victim!personally!and!who!immediately!gave!a!statement!of!the!incident!similar!to!his!testimony!to!the!investigator!immediately!after!
the!incident,!the!latter's!testimony!deserves!greater!weight.!As!the!court!emphasized:!
The!issue!is!one!of!credibility!and!from!Our!own!examination!of!the!transcript,!We!are!not!prepared!to!set!aside!the!trial!court's!reliance!on!the!
testimony!of!Rodriguez!negating!defendant's!assertion!that!he!was!driving!at!a!safe!speed.!While!Rodriguez!drives!only!a!motorcycle,!his!
perception!of!speed!is!not!necessarily!impaired.!He!was!subjected!to!cross/examination!and!no!attempt!was!made!to!question!.his!competence!or!
the!accuracy!of!his!statement!that!defendant!was!driving!"very!fast".!This!was!the!same!statement!he!gave!to!the!police!investigator!after!the!
incident,!as!told!to!a!newspaper!report!(Exh.!"P").!We!see!no!compelling!basis!for!disregarding!his!testimony.!
The!alleged!inconsistencies!in!Rodriguez'!testimony!are!not!borne!out!by!an!examination!of!the!testimony.!Rodriguez!testified!that!the!scene!of!the!
accident!was!across!the!street!where!his!beerhouse!is!located!about!ten!to!twenty!feet!away!(pp.!35/36,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!He!did!not!state!that!
the!accident!transpired!immediately!in!front!of!his!establishment.!The!ownership!of!the!Lambingan!se!Kambingan!is!not!material;!the!business!is!
registered!in!the!name!of!his!mother,!but!he!explained!that!he!owns!the!establishment!(p.!5,!tsn,!June!20,!1991).!Moreover,!the!testimony!that!the!
streetlights!on!his!side!of!Aurora!Boulevard!were!on!the!night!the!accident!transpired!(p.!8)!is!not!necessarily!contradictory!to!the!testimony!of!Pfc.!
Ramos!that!there!was!a!streetlight!at!the!corner!of!Aurora!Boulevard!and!F.!Roman!Street!(p.!45,!tsn,!Oct.!20,!1991).!
With!respect!to!the!weather!condition,!Rodriguez!testified!that!there!was!only!a!drizzle,!not!a!heavy!rain!and!the!rain!has!stopped!and!he!was!
outside!his!establishment!at!the!time!the!accident!transpired!(pp.!64/65,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!This!was!consistent!with!plaintiff's!testimony!that!it!
was!no!longer!raining!when!she!left!Bistro!La!Conga!(pp.!10/11,!tsn,!April!29,!1991).!It!was!defendant!Li!who!stated!that!it!was!raining!all!the!way!in!
an!attempt!to!explain!why!he!was!travelling!at!only!50/55!kph.!(p.!11,!tsn,!Oct.!14,!1991).!As!to!the!testimony!of!Pfc.!Ramos!that!it!was!raining,!he!
arrived!at!the!scene!only!in!response!to!a!telephone!call!after!the!accident!had!transpired!(pp.!9/10,!tsn,!Oct.!28,!1991).!We!find!no!substantial!
inconsistencies!in!Rodriguez's!testimony!that!would!impair!the!essential!integrity!of!his!testimony!or!reflect!on!his!honesty.!We!are!compelled!to!
affirm!the!trial!court's!acceptance!of!the!testimony!of!said!eyewitness.!

Against!the!unassailable!testimony!of!witness!Rodriguez!we!note!that!Li's!testimony!was!peppered!with!so!many!inconsistencies!leading!us!to!
conclude!that!his!version!of!the!accident!was!merely!adroitly!crafted!to!provide!a!version,!obviously!self/serving,!which!would!exculpate!him!from!
any!and!all!liability!in!the!incident.!Against!Valenzuela's!corroborated!claims,!his!allegations!were!neither!backed!up!by!other!witnesses!nor!by!the!
circumstances!proven!in!the!course!of!trial.!He!claimed!that!he!was!driving!merely!at!a!speed!of!55!kph.!when!"out!of!nowhere!he!saw!a!dark!
maroon!lancer!right!in!front!of!him,!which!was!(the)!plaintiff's!car".!He!alleged!that!upon!seeing!this!sudden!"apparition"!he!put!on!his!brakes!to!no!
avail!as!the!road!was!slippery.9!
One!will!have!to!suspend!disbelief!in!order!to!give!credence!to!Li's!disingenuous!and!patently!self/serving!asseverations.!The!average!motorist!alert+
to+road+conditions+will!have!no!difficulty!applying!the!brakes!to!a!car!traveling!at!the!speed!claimed!by!Li.!Given!a!light!rainfall,!the!visibility!of!the!
street,!and!the!road!conditions!on!a!principal!metropolitan!thoroughfare!like!Aurora!Boulevard,!Li!would!have!had!ample!time!to!react!to!the!
changing!conditions!of!the!road!if!he!were!alert!/!as!every!driver!should!be!/!to!those!conditions.!Driving!exacts!a!more!than!usual!toll!on!the!
senses.!Physiological!"fight!or!flight"!10!mechanisms!are!at!work,!provided!such!mechanisms!were!not!dulled!by!drugs,!alcohol,!exhaustion,!
drowsiness,!etc.11!Li's!failure!to!react!in!a!manner!which!would!have!avoided!the!accident!could!therefore!have!been!only!due!to!either!or!both!of!
the!two!factors:!1)!that!he!was!driving!at!a!"very!fast"!speed!as!testified!by!Rodriguez;!and!2)!that!he!was!under!the!influence!of!alcohol.12!Either!
factor!working!independently!would!have!diminished!his!responsiveness!to!road!conditions,!since!normally!he!would!have!slowed!down!prior!to!
reaching!Valenzuela's!car,!rather!than!be!in!a!situation!forcing!him!to!suddenly!apply!his!brakes.!As!the!trial!court!noted!(quoted!with!approval!by!
respondent!court):!
Secondly,!as!narrated!by!defendant!Richard!Li!to!the!San!Juan!Police!immediately!after!the!incident,!he!said!that!while!driving!along!Aurora!Blvd.,!
out!of!nowhere!he!saw!a!dark!maroon!lancer!right!in!front!of!him!which!was!plaintiff's!car,!indicating,!again,!thereby!that,!indeed,!he!was!driving!
very!fast,!oblivious!of!his!surroundings!and!the!road!ahead!of!him,!because!if!he!was!not,!then!he!could!not!have!missed!noticing!at!a!still!far!
distance!the!parked!car!of!the!plaintiff!at!the!right!side!near!the!sidewalk!which!had!its!emergency!lights!on,!thereby!avoiding!forcefully!bumping!at!
the!plaintiff!who!was!then!standing!at!the!left!rear!edge!of!her!car.!
Since,!according!to!him,!in!his!narration!to!the!San!Juan!Police,!he!put!on!his!brakes!when!he!saw!the!plaintiff's!car!in!front!of!him,!but!that!it!failed!
as!the!road!was!wet!and!slippery,!this!goes!to!show!again,!that,!contrary!to!his!claim,!he!was,!indeed,!running!very!fast.!For,!were!it!otherwise,!he!
could!have!easily!completely!stopped!his!car,!thereby!avoiding!the!bumping!of!the!plaintiff,!notwithstanding!that!the!road!was!wet!and!slippery.!
Verily,!since,!if,!indeed,!he!was!running!slow,!as!he!claimed,!at!only!about!55!kilometers!per!hour,!then,!inspite!of!the!wet!and!slippery!road,!he!
could!have!avoided!hitting!the!plaintiff!by!the!mere!expedient!or!applying!his!brakes!at!the!proper!time!and!distance.!
It!could!not!be!true,!therefore,!as!he!now!claims!during!his!testimony,!which!is!contrary!to!what!he!told!the!police!immediately!after!the!accident!
and!is,!therefore,!more!believable,!that!he!did!not!actually!step!on!his!brakes!but!simply!swerved!a!little!to!the!right!when!he!saw!the!on/coming!
car!with!glaring!headlights,!from!the!opposite!direction,!in!order!to!avoid!it.!
For,!had!this!been!what!he!did,!he!would!not!have!bumped!the!car!of!the!plaintiff!which!was!properly!parked!at!the!right!beside!the!sidewalk.!And,!
it!was!not!even!necessary!for!him!to!swerve!a!little!to!the!right!in!order!to!safely!avoid!a!collision!with!the!on/coming!car,!considering!that!Aurora!

Blvd.!is!a!double!lane!avenue!separated!at!the!center!by!a!dotted!white!paint,!and!there!is!plenty!of!space!for!both!cars,!since!her!car!was!running!
at!the!right!lane!going!towards!Manila!on!the!on/coming!car!was!also!on!its!right!lane!going!to!Cubao.13!
Having!come!to!the!conclusion!that!Li!was!negligent!in!driving!his!company/issued!Mitsubishi!Lancer,!the!next!question!for!us!to!determine!is!
whether!or!not!Valenzuela!was!likewise!guilty!of!contributory!negligence!in!parking!her!car!alongside!Aurora!Boulevard,!which!entire!area!Li!points!
out,!is!a!no!parking!zone.!
We!agree!with!the!respondent!court!that!Valenzuela!was!not!guilty!of!contributory!negligence.!
Contributory!negligence!is!conduct!on!the!part!of!the!injured!party,!contributing!as!a!legal!cause!to!the!harm!he!has!suffered,!which!falls!below!the!
standard!to!which!he!is!required!to!conform!for!his!own!protection.14!Based!on!the!foregoing!definition,!the!standard!or!act!to!which,!according!to!
petitioner!Li,!Valenzuela!ought!to!have!conformed!for!her!own!protection!was!not!to!park!at!all!at!any!point!of!Aurora!Boulevard,!a!no!parking!
zone.!We!cannot!agree.!
Courts!have!traditionally!been!compelled!to!recognize!that!an!actor!who!is!confronted!with!an!emergency!is!not!to!be!held!up!to!the!standard!of!
conduct!normally!applied!to!an!individual!who!is!in!no!such!situation.!The!law!takes!stock!of!impulses!of!humanity!when!placed!in!threatening!or!
dangerous!situations!and!does!not!require!the!same!standard!of!thoughtful!and!reflective!care!from!persons!confronted!by!unusual!and!oftentimes!
threatening!conditions.15!
Under!the!"emergency!rule"!adopted!by!this!Court!in!Gan+vs.!Court+of+Appeals,16!an!individual!who!suddenly!finds!himself!in!a!situation!of!danger!
and!is!required!to!act!without!much!time!to!consider!the!best!means!that!may!be!adopted!to!avoid!the!impending!danger,!is!not!guilty!of!
negligence!if!he!fails!to!undertake!what!subsequently!and!upon!reflection!may!appear!to!be!a!better!solution,!unless!the!emergency!was!brought!
by!his!own!negligence.17!
Applying!this!principle!to!a!case!in!which!the!victims!in!a!vehicular!accident!swerved!to!the!wrong!lane!to!avoid!hitting!two!children!suddenly!
darting!into!the!street,!we!held,!in!Mc+Kee+vs.!Intermediate+Appellate+Court,18!that!the!driver!therein,!Jose!Koh,!"adopted!the!best!means!possible!in!
the!given!situation"!to!avoid!hitting!the!children.!Using!the!"emergency!rule"!the!Court!concluded!that!Koh,!in!spite!of!the!fact!that!he!was!in!the!
wrong!lane!when!the!collision!with!an!oncoming!truck!occurred,!was!not!guilty!of!negligence.19!
While!the!emergency!rule!applies!to!those!cases!in!which!reflective!thought,!or!the!opportunity!to!adequately!weigh!a!threatening!situation!is!
absent,!the!conduct!which!is!required!of!an!individual!in!such!cases!is!dictated!not!exclusively!by!the!suddenness!of!the!event!which!absolutely!
negates!thoroughful!care,!but!by!the!over/all!nature!of!the!circumstances.!A!woman!driving!a!vehicle!suddenly!crippled!by!a!flat!tire!on!a!rainy!
night!will!not!be!faulted!for!stopping!at!a!point!which!is!both!convenient!for!her!to!do!so!and!which!is!not!a!hazard!to!other!motorists.!She!is!not!
expected!to!run!the!entire!boulevard!in!search!for!a!parking!zone!or!turn!on!a!dark!street!or!alley!where!she!would!likely!find!no!one!to!help!her.!It!
would!be!hazardous!for!her!not!to!stop!and!assess!the!emergency!(simply!because!the!entire!length!of!Aurora!Boulevard!is!a!no/parking!zone)!
because!the!hobbling!vehicle!would!be!both!a!threat!to!her!safety!and!to!other!motorists.!In!the!instant!case,!Valenzuela,!upon!reaching!that!
portion!of!Aurora!Boulevard!close!to!A.!Lake!St.,!noticed!that!she!had!a!flat!tire.!To!avoid!putting!herself!and!other!motorists!in!danger,!she!did!

what!was!best!under!the!situation.!As!narrated!by!respondent!court:!"She!stopped!at!a!lighted!place!where!there!were!people,!to!verify!whether!
she!had!a!flat!tire!and!to!solicit!help!if!needed.!Having!been!told!by!the!people!present!that!her!rear!right!tire!was!flat!and!that!she!cannot!reach!
her!home!she!parked!along!the!sidewalk,!about!1!1/2!feet!away,!behind!a!Toyota!Corona!Car."20!In!fact,!respondent!court!noted,!Pfc.!Felix!Ramos,!
the!investigator!on!the!scene!of!the!accident!confirmed!that!Valenzuela's!car!was!parked!very!close!to!the!sidewalk.21!The!sketch!which!he!
prepared!after!the!incident!showed!Valenzuela's!car!partly!straddling!the!sidewalk,!clear!and!at!a!convenient!distance!from!motorists!passing!the!
right!lane!of!Aurora!Boulevard.!This!fact!was!itself!corroborated!by!the!testimony!of!witness!Rodriguez.22!
Under!the!circumstances!described,!Valenzuela!did!exercise!the!standard!reasonably!dictated!by!the!emergency!and!could!not!be!considered!to!
have!contributed!to!the!unfortunate!circumstances!which!eventually!led!to!the!amputation!of!one!of!her!lower!extremities.!The!emergency!which!
led!her!to!park!her!car!on!a!sidewalk!in!Aurora!Boulevard!was!not!of!her!own!making,!and!it!was!evident!that!she!had!taken!all!reasonable!
precautions.!
Obviously!in!the!case!at!bench,!the!only!negligence!ascribable!was!the!negligence!of!Li!on!the!night!of!the!accident.!"Negligence,!as!it!is!commonly!
understood!is!conduct!which!creates!an!undue!risk!of!harm!to!others."23It!is!the!failure!to!observe!that!degree!of!care,!precaution,!and!vigilance!
which!the!circumstances!justly!demand,!whereby!such!other!person!suffers!injury.24!We!stressed,!in!Corliss+vs.!Manila+Railroad+Company,25!that!
negligence!is!the!want!of!care!required!by!the!circumstances.!
The!circumstances!established!by!the!evidence!adduced!in!the!court!below!plainly!demonstrate!that!Li!was!grossly!negligent!in!driving!his!
Mitsubishi!Lancer.!It!bears!emphasis!that!he!was!driving!at!a!fast!speed!at!about!2:00!A.M.!after!a!heavy!downpour!had!settled!into!a!drizzle!
rendering!the!street!slippery.!There!is!ample!testimonial!evidence!on!record!to!show!that!he!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor.!Under!these!
conditions,!his!chances!of!effectively!dealing!with!changing!conditions!on!the!road!were!significantly!lessened.!As!Presser!and!Keaton!emphasize:!
[U]nder!present!day!traffic!conditions,!any!driver!of!an!automobile!must!be!prepared!for!the!sudden!appearance!of!obstacles!and!persons!on!the!
highway,!and!of!other!vehicles!at!intersections,!such!as!one!who!sees!a!child!on!the!curb!may!be!required!to!anticipate!its!sudden!dash!into!the!
street,!and!his!failure!to!act!properly!when!they!appear!may!be!found!to!amount!to!negligence.26!
Li's!obvious!unpreparedness!to!cope!with!the!situation!confronting!him!on!the!night!of!the!accident!was!clearly!of!his!own!making.!
We!now!come!to!the!question!of!the!liability!of!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!Li's!employer.!In!denying!liability!on!the!part!of!Alexander!Commercial,!
the!respondent!court!held!that:!
There!is!no!evidence,!not!even!defendant!Li's!testimony,!that!the!visit!was!in!connection!with!official!matters.!His!functions!as!assistant!manager!
sometimes!required!him!to!perform!work!outside!the!office!as!he!has!to!visit!buyers!and!company!clients,!but!he!admitted!that!on!the!night!of!the!
accident!he!came!from!BF!Homes!Paranaque!he!did!not!have!"business!from!the!company"!(pp.!25/26,!ten,!Sept.!23,!1991).!The!use!of!the!
company!car!was!partly!required!by!the!nature!of!his!work,!but!the!privilege!of!using!it!for!non/official!business!is!a!"benefit",!apparently!referring!
to!the!fringe!benefits!attaching!to!his!position.!

Under!the!civil!law,!an!employer!is!liable!for!the!negligence!of!his!employees!in!the!discharge!of!their!respective!duties,!the!basis!of!which!liability!is!
not!respondeat+superior,!but!the!relationship!of+pater+familias,!which!theory!bases!the!liability!of!the!master!ultimately!on!his!own!negligence!and!
not!on!that!of!his!servant!(Cuison!v.!Norton!and!Harrison!Co.,!55!Phil.!18).!Before!an!employer!may!be!held!liable!for!the!negligence!of!his!
employee,!the!act!or!omission!which!caused!damage!must!have!occurred!while!an!employee!was!in!the!actual!performance!of!his!assigned!tasks!or!
duties!(Francis!High!School!vs.!Court!of!Appeals,!194!SCRA!341).!In!defining!an!employer's!liability!for!the!acts!done!within!the!scope!of!the!
employee's!assigned!tasks,!the!Supreme!Court!has!held!that!this!includes!any!act!done!by!an!employee,!in!furtherance!of!the!interests!of!the!
employer!or!for!the!account!of!the!employer!at!the!time!of!the!infliction!of!the!injury!or!damage!(Filamer!Christian!Institute!vs.!Intermediate!
Appellate!Court,!212!SCRA!637).!An!employer!is!expected!to!impose!upon!its!employees!the!necessary!discipline!called!for!in!the!performance!of!
any!act!"indispensable!to!the!business!and!beneficial!to!their!employer"!(at!p.!645).!
In!light!of!the!foregoing,!We!are!unable!to!sustain!the!trial!court's!finding!that!since!defendant!Li!was!authorized!by!the!company!to!use!the!
company!car!"either!officially!or!socially!or!even!bring!it!home",!he!can!be!considered!as!using!the!company!car!in!the!service!of!his!employer!or!on!
the!occasion!of!his!functions.!Driving!the!company!car!was!not!among!his!functions!as!assistant!manager;!using!it!for!non/official!purposes!would!
appear!to!be!a!fringe!benefit,!one!of!the!perks!attached!to!his!position.!But!to!impose!liability!upon!the!employer!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!
Code,!earlier!quoted,!there!must!be!a!showing!that!the!damage!was!caused!by!their!employees!in!the!service!of!the!employer!or!on!the!occasion!of!
their!functions.!There!is!no!evidence!that!Richard!Li!was!at!the!time!of!the!accident!performing!any!act!in!furtherance!of!the!company's!business!or!
its!interests,!or!at!least!for!its!benefit.!The!imposition!of!solidary!liability!against!defendant!Alexander!Commercial!Corporation!must!therefore!
fail.27!
We!agree!with!the!respondent!court!that!the!relationship!in!question!is!not!based!on!the!principle!of!respondeat+superior,!which!holds!the!master!
liable!for!acts!of!the!servant,!but!that!of+pater+familias,!in!which!the!liability!ultimately!falls!upon!the!employer,!for!his!failure!to!exercise!the!
diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!his!employees.!It!is!up!to!this!point,!however,!that!our!agreement!with!
the!respondent!court!ends.!Utilizing!the!bonus+pater+familias!standard!expressed!in!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code,!28!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!Li's!
employer,!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!is!jointly!and!solidarily!liable!for!the!damage!caused!by!the!accident!of!June!24,!1990.!
First,!the!case!of!St.!Francis+High+School+vs.!Court+of+Appeals29!upon!which!respondent!court!has!placed!undue!reliance,!dealt!with!the!subject!of!a!
school!and!its!teacher's!supervision!of!students!during!an!extracurricular!activity.!These!cases!now!fall!under!the!provision!on!special!parental!
authority!found!in!Art.!218!of!the!Family!Code!which!generally!encompasses!all!authorized!school!activities,!whether!inside!or!outside!school!
premises.!
Second,!the!employer's!primary!liability!under!the!concept!of+pater+familias!embodied!by!Art!2180!(in!relation!to!Art.!2176)!of!the!Civil!Code!is!
quasi/delictual!or!tortious!in!character.!His!liability!is!relieved!on!a!showing!that!he!exercised!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!in!the!
selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.!Once!evidence!is!introduced!showing!that!the!employer!exercised!the!required!amount!of!care!in!
selecting!its!employees,!half!of!the!employer's!burden!is!overcome.!The!question!of!diligent!supervision,!however,!depends!on!the!circumstances!of!
employment.!

Ordinarily,!evidence!demonstrating!that!the!employer!has!exercised!diligent!supervision!of!its!employee!during!the!performance!of!the!latter's!
assigned!tasks!would!be!enough!to!relieve!him!of!the!liability!imposed!by!Article!2180!in!relation!to!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code.!The!employer!is!
not!expected!to!exercise!supervision!over!either!the!employee's!private!activities!or!during!the!performance!of!tasks!either!unsanctioned!by!the!
former!or!unrelated!to!the!employee's!tasks.!The!case!at!bench!presents!a!situation!of!a!different!character,!involving!a!practice!utilized!by!large!
companies!with!either!their!employees!of!managerial!rank!or!their!representatives.!
It!is!customary!for!large!companies!to!provide!certain!classes!of!their!employees!with!courtesy!vehicles.!These!company!cars!are!either!wholly!
owned!and!maintained!by!the!company!itself!or!are!subject!to!various!plans!through!which!employees!eventually!acquire!their!vehicles!after!a!
given!period!of!service,!or!after!paying!a!token!amount.!Many!companies!provide!liberal!"car!plans"!to!enable!their!managerial!or!other!employees!
of!rank!to!purchase!cars,!which,!given!the!cost!of!vehicles!these!days,!they!would!not!otherwise!be!able!to!purchase!on!their!own.!
Under!the!first!example,!the!company!actually!owns!and!maintains!the!car!up!to!the!point!of!turnover!of!ownership!to!the!employee;!in!the!second!
example,!the!car!is!really!owned!and!maintained!by!the!employee!himself.!In!furnishing!vehicles!to!such!employees,!are!companies!totally!absolved!
of!responsibility!when!an!accident!involving!a!company/issued!car!occurs!during!private!use!after!normal!office!hours?!
Most!pharmaceutical!companies,!for!instance,!which!provide!cars!under!the!first!plan,!require!rigorous!tests!of!road!worthiness!from!their!agents!
prior!to!turning!over!the!car!(subject!of!company!maintenance)!to!their!representatives.!In!other!words,!like!a!good!father!of!a!family,!they!entrust!
the!company!vehicle!only!after!they!are!satisfied!that!the!employee!to!whom!the!car!has!been!given!full!use!of!the!said!company!car!for!company!
or!private!purposes!will!not!be!a!threat!or!menace!to!himself,!the!company!or!to!others.!When!a!company!gives!full!use!and!enjoyment!of!a!
company!car!to!its!employee,!it!in!effect!guarantees!that!it!is,!like!every!good!father,!satisfied!that!its!employee!will!use!the!privilege!reasonably!
and!responsively.!
In!the!ordinary!course!of!business,!not!all!company!employees!are!given!the!privilege!of!using!a!company/issued!car.!For!large!companies!other!
than!those!cited!in!the!example!of!the!preceding!paragraph,!the!privilege!serves!important!business!purposes!either!related!to!the!image!of!
success!an!entity!intends!to!present!to!its!clients!and!to!the!public!in!general,!or!/!for!practical!and!utilitarian!reasons!/!to!enable!its!managerial!and!
other!employees!of!rank!or!its!sales!agents!to!reach!clients!conveniently.!In!most!cases,!providing!a!company!car!serves!both!purposes.!Since!
important!business!transactions!and!decisions!may!occur!at!all!hours!in!all!sorts!of!situations!and!under!all!kinds!of!guises,!the!provision!for!the!
unlimited!use!of!a!company!car!therefore!principally+serves!the!business!and!goodwill!of!a!company!and!only+incidentally!the!private!purposes!of!
the!individual!who!actually!uses!the!car,!the!managerial!employee!or!company!sales!agent.!As!such,!in!providing!for!a!company!car!for!business!use!
and/or!for!the!purpose!of!furthering!the!company's!image,!a!company!owes!a!responsibility!to!the!public!to!see!to!it!that!the!managerial!or!other!
employees!to!whom!it!entrusts!virtually!unlimited!use!of!a!company!issued!car!are!able!to!use!the!company!issue!capably!and!responsibly.!
In!the!instant!case,!Li!was!an!Assistant!Manager!of!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!In!his!testimony!before!the!trial!court,!he!admitted!that!his!functions!
as!Assistant!Manager!did!not!require!him!to!scrupulously!keep!normal!office!hours!as!he!was!required!quite!often!to!perform!work!outside!the!
office,!visiting!prospective!buyers!and!contacting!and!meeting!with!company!clients.!30!These!meetings,!clearly,!were!not!strictly!confined!to!
routine!hours!because,!as!a!managerial!employee!tasked!with!the!job!of!representing!his!company!with!its!clients,!meetings!with!clients!were!both!
social!as!well!as!work/related!functions.!The!service!car!assigned!to!Li!by!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!therefore!enabled!both!Li!/!as!well!as!the!

corporation!/!to!put!up!the!front!of!a!highly!successful!entity,!increasing!the!latter's!goodwill!before!its!clientele.!It!also!facilitated!meeting!between!
Li!and!its!clients!by!providing!the!former!with!a!convenient!mode!of!travel.!
Moreover,!Li's!claim!that!he!happened!to!be!on!the!road!on!the!night!of!the!accident!because!he!was!coming!from!a!social!visit!with!an!officemate!
in!Paranaque!was!a!bare!allegation!which!was!never!corroborated!in!the!court!below.!It!was!obviously!self/serving.!Assuming!he!really!came!from!
his!officemate's!place,!the!same!could!give!rise!to!speculation!that!he!and!his!officemate!had!just!been!from!a!work/related!function,!or!they!were!
together!to!discuss!sales!and!other!work!related!strategies.!
In!fine,!Alexander!Commercial,!inc.!has!not!demonstrated,!to!our!satisfaction,!that!it!exercised!the!care!and!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!
in!entrusting!its!company!car!to!Li.!No!allegations!were!made!as!to!whether!or!not!the!company!took!the!steps!necessary!to!determine!or!ascertain!
the!driving!proficiency!and!history!of!Li,!to!whom!it!gave!full!and!unlimited!use!of!a!company!car.31!Not!having!been!able!to!overcome!the!burden!
of!demonstrating!that!it!should!be!absolved!of!liability!for!entrusting!its!company!car!to!Li,!said!company,!based!on!the!principle!of!bonus+pater+
familias,!ought!to!be!jointly!and!severally!liable!with!the!former!for!the!injuries!sustained!by!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!during!the!accident.!
Finally,!we!find!no!reason!to!overturn!the!amount!of!damages!awarded!by!the!respondent!court,!except!as!to!the!amount!of!moral!damages.!In!the!
case!of!moral!damages,!while!the!said!damages!are!not!intended!to!enrich!the!plaintiff!at!the!expense!of!a!defendant,!the!award!should!
nonetheless!be!commensurate!to!the!suffering!inflicted.!In!the!instant!case!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!reduction!in!moral!damages!from!an!
amount!of!P1,000,000.00!to!P800,000,00!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!was!not!justified!considering!the!nature!of!the!resulting!damage!and!the!
predictable!sequelae!of!the!injury.!
As!a!result!of!the!accident,!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!underwent!a!traumatic!amputation!of!her!left!lower!extremity!at!the!distal!left!thigh!just!above!
the!knee.!Because!of!this,!Valenzuela!will!forever!be!deprived!of!the!full!ambulatory!functions!of!her!left!extremity,!even!with!the!use!of!state!of!
the!art!prosthetic!technology.!Well!beyond!the!period!of!hospitalization!(which!was!paid!for!by!Li),!she!will!be!required!to!undergo!adjustments!in!
her!prosthetic!devise!due!to!the!shrinkage!of!the!stump!from!the!process!of!healing.!
These!adjustments!entail!costs,!prosthetic!replacements!and!months!of!physical!and!occupational!rehabilitation!and!therapy.!During!her!lifetime,!
the!prosthetic!devise!will!have!to!be!replaced!and!re/adjusted!to!changes!in!the!size!of!her!lower!limb!effected!by!the!biological!changes!of!middle/
age,!menopause!and!aging.!Assuming!she!reaches!menopause,!for!example,!the!prosthetic!will!have!to!be!adjusted!to!respond!to!the!changes!in!
bone!resulting!from!a!precipitate!decrease!in!calcium!levels!observed!in!the!bones!of!all!post/menopausal!women.!In!other!words,!the!damage!
done!to!her!would!not!only!be!permanent!and!lasting,!it!would!also!be!permanently!changing!and!adjusting!to!the!physiologic!changes!which!her!
body!would!normally!undergo!through!the!years.!The!replacements,!changes,!and!adjustments!will!require!corresponding!adjustive!physical!and!
occupational!therapy.!All!of!these!adjustments,!it!has!been!documented,!are!painful.!
The!foregoing!discussion!does!not!even!scratch!the!surface!of!the!nature!of!the!resulting!damage!because!it!would!be!highly!speculative!to!
estimate!the!amount!of!psychological!pain,!damage!and!injury!which!goes!with!the!sudden!severing!of!a!vital!portion!of!the!human!body.!A!
prosthetic!device,!however!technologically!advanced,!will!only!allow!a!reasonable!amount!of!functional!restoration!of!the!motor!functions!of!the!

lower!limb.!The!sensory!functions!are!forever!lost.!The!resultant!anxiety,!sleeplessness,!psychological!injury,!mental!and!physical!pain!are!
inestimable.!
As!the!amount!of!moral!damages!are!subject!to!this!Court's!discretion,!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!amount!of!P1,000,000.00!granted!by!the!trial!
court!is!in!greater!accord!with!the!extent!and!nature!of!the!injury!/!physical!and!psychological!/!suffered!by!Valenzuela!as!a!result!of!Li's!grossly!
negligent!driving!of!his!Mitsubishi!Lancer!in!the!early!morning!hours!of!the!accident.!
WHEREFORE,!PREMISES!CONSIDERED,!the!decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!is!modified!with!the!effect!of!REINSTATING!the!judgment!of!the!
Regional!Trial!Court.!
SO!ORDERED!
$

G.R.$No.$156034$$$$$$$$$$$$$October$1,$2003!
DELSAN$TRANSPORT$LINES,$INC.,!petitioner,!!
vs.!
C$&$A$construction,$inc.,!respondent.!
D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
YNARESRSANTIAGO,$J.:!
Assailed!in!this!petition!for!review!under!Rule!45!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Court!are!the!June!14,!2002!decision1!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!CA/G.R.!CV!
No.!59034,!which!reversed!the!decision2!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Manila,!Branch!46,!in!Civil!Case!No.!95/75565,!and!its!November!7,!2002!
resolution3!denying!petitioners!motion!for!reconsideration.!
The!undisputed!facts!reveal!that!respondent!C!&!A!Construction,!Inc.!was!engaged!by!the!National!Housing!Authority!(NHA)!to!construct!a!deflector!
wall!at!the!Vitas!Reclamation!Area!in!Vitas,!Tondo,!Manila.4!The!project!was!completed!in!1994!but!it!was!not!formally!turned!over!to!NHA.!
On!October!9,!1994,!M/V!Delsan!Express,!a!ship!owned!and!operated!by!petitioner!Delsan!Transport!Lines,!Inc.,!anchored!at!the!Navotas!Fish!Port!
for!the!purpose!of!installing!a!cargo!pump!and!clearing!the!cargo!oil!tank.!At!around!12:00!midnight!of!October!20,!1994,!Captain!Demetrio!T.!Jusep!
of!M/V!Delsan!Express!received!a!report!from!his!radio!head!operator!in!Japan5!that!a!typhoon!was!going!to!hit!Manila6!in!about!eight!(8)!hours.7!At!
approximately!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994,!Capt.!Jusep!tried!to!seek!shelter!at!the!North!Harbor!but!could!not!enter!the!area!because!
it!was!already!congested.8!At!10:00!a.m.,!Capt.!Jusep!decided!to!drop!anchor!at!the!vicinity!of!Vitas!mouth,!4!miles!away!from!a!Napocor!power!
barge.!At!that!time,!the!waves!were!already!reaching!8!to!10!feet!high.!Capt.!Jusep!ordered!his!crew!to!go!full!ahead!to!counter!the!wind!which!was!
dragging!the!ship!towards!the!Napocor!power!barge.!To!avoid!collision,!Capt.!Jusep!ordered!a!full!stop!of!the!vessel.9!He!succeeded!in!avoiding!the!
power!barge,!but!when!the!engine!was!re/started!and!the!ship!was!maneuvered!full!astern,!it!hit!the!deflector!wall!constructed!by!
respondent.10!The!damage!caused!by!the!incident!amounted!to!P456,198.24.11!
Respondent!demanded!payment!of!the!damage!from!petitioner!but!the!latter!refused!to!pay.!Consequently,!respondent!filed!a!complaint!for!
damages!with!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Manila,!Branch!46,!which!was!docketed!as!Civil!Case!No.!95/75565.!In!its!answer,!petitioner!claimed!that!
the!damage!was!caused!by!a!fortuitous!event.12!
On!February!13,!1998,!the!complaint!filed!by!respondent!was!dismissed.!The!trial!court!ruled!that!petitioner!was!not!guilty!of!negligence!because!it!
had!taken!all!the!necessary!precautions!to!avoid!the!accident.!Applying!the!"emergency!rule",!it!absolved!petitioner!of!liability!because!the!latter!
had!no!opportunity!to!adequately!weigh!the!best!solution!to!a!threatening!situation.!It!further!held!that!even!if!the!maneuver!chosen!by!petitioner!
was!a!wrong!move,!it!cannot!be!held!liable!as!the!cause!of!the!damage!sustained!by!respondent!was!typhoon!"Katring",!which!is!an!act!of!God.13!

On!appeal!to!the!Court!of!Appeals,!the!decision!of!the!trial!court!was!reversed!and!set!aside.14!It!found!Capt.!Jusep!guilty!of!negligence!in!deciding!
to!transfer!the!vessel!to!the!North!Harbor!only!at!8:35!a.m.!of!October!21,!1994!and!thus!held!petitioner!liable!for!damages.!
Hence,!petitioner!filed!the!instant!petition!contending!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!not!negligent!in!waiting!until!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994!
before!transferring!the!vessel!to!the!North!Harbor!inasmuch!as!it!was!not!shown!that!had!the!transfer!been!made!earlier,!the!vessel!could!have!
sought!shelter.15!It!further!claimed!that!it!cannot!be!held!vicariously!liable!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!because!respondent!failed!to!allege!
in!the!complaint!that!petitioner!was!negligent!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.16!Granting!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!indeed!guilty!of!
negligence,!petitioner!is!not!liable!because!it!exercised!due!diligence!in!the!selection!of!Capt.!Jusep!who!is!a!duly!licensed!and!competent!Master!
Mariner.17!
The!issues!to!be!resolved!in!this!petition!are!as!follows!!(1)!Whether!or!not!Capt.!Jusep!was!negligent;!(2)!If!yes,!whether!or!not!petitioner!is!
solidarily!liable!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!for!the!quasiAdelict!committed!by!Capt.!Jusep?!
Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code!provides!that!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!quasiAdelict.!The!test!
for!determining!the!existence!of!negligence!in!a!particular!case!may!be!stated!as!follows:!Did!the!defendant!in!doing!the!alleged!negligent!act!use!
the!reasonable!care!and!caution!which!an!ordinary!prudent!person!would!have!used!in!the!same!situation?!If!not,!then!he!is!guilty!of!negligence.18!
In!the!case!at!bar,!the!Court!of!Appeals!was!correct!in!holding!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!negligent!in!deciding!to!transfer!the!vessel!only!at!8:35!in!the!
morning!of!October!21,!1994.!As!early!as!12:00!midnight!of!October!20,!1994,!he!received!a!report!from!his!radio!head!operator!in!Japan19!that!a!
typhoon!was!going!to!hit!Manila20!after!8!hours.21!This,!notwithstanding,!he!did!nothing,!until!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994,!when!he!
decided!to!seek!shelter!at!the!North!Harbor,!which!unfortunately!was!already!congested.!The!finding!of!negligence!cannot!be!rebutted!upon!proof!
that!the!ship!could!not!have!sought!refuge!at!the!North!Harbor!even!if!the!transfer!was!done!earlier.!It!is!not!the!speculative!success!or!failure!of!a!
decision!that!determines!the!existence!of!negligence!in!the!present!case,!but!the!failure!to!take!immediate!and!appropriate!action!under!the!
circumstances.!Capt.!Jusep,!despite!knowledge!that!the!typhoon!was!to!hit!Manila!in!8!hours,!complacently!waited!for!the!lapse!of!more!than!8!
hours!thinking!that!the!typhoon!might!change!direction.22!He!cannot!claim!that!he!waited!for!the!sun!to!rise!instead!of!moving!the!vessel!at!
midnight!immediately!after!receiving!the!report!because!of!the!difficulty!of!traveling!at!night.!The!hour!of!8:35!a.m.!is!way!past!sunrise.!
Furthermore,!he!did!not!transfer!as!soon!as!the!sun!rose!because,!according!to!him,!it!was!not!very!cloudy23!and!there!was!no!weather!disturbance!
yet.24!
When!he!ignored!the!weather!report!notwithstanding!reasonable!foresight!of!harm,!Capt.!Jusep!showed!an!inexcusable!lack!of!care!and!caution!
which!an!ordinary!prudent!person!would!have!observed!in!the!same!situation.25!Had!he!moved!the!vessel!earlier,!he!could!have!had!greater!
chances!of!finding!a!space!at!the!North!Harbor!considering!that!the!Navotas!Port!where!they!docked!was!very!near!North!Harbor.26!Even!if!the!
latter!was!already!congested,!he!would!still!have!time!to!seek!refuge!in!other!ports.!
The!trial!court!erred!in!applying!the!emergency!rule.!Under!this!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!danger!in!which!he!finds!himself!is!brought!about!by!his!
own!negligence.27!Clearly,!the!emergency!rule!is!not!applicable!to!the!instant!case!because!the!danger!where!Capt.!Jusep!found!himself!was!caused!
by!his!own!negligence.!
Anent!the!second!issue,!we!find!petitioner!vicariously!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!Capt.!Jusep.1awphi1.nt!Under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!an!
employer!may!be!held!solidarily!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!his!employee.!Thus!!
Art.!2180.!The!obligation!imposed!in!Article!2176!is!demandable!not!only!for!ones!own!acts!or!omissions,!but!also!for!those!of!persons!for!whom!
one!is!responsible.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!
Employers!shall!be!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!their!employees!and!household!helpers!acting!within!the!scope!of!their!assigned!tasks,!even!
though!the!former!are!not!engaged!in!any!business!or!industry.!
x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!
The!responsibility!treated!of!in!this!article!shall!cease!when!the!persons!herein!mentioned!prove!that!they!observed!all!the!diligence!of!a!good!
father!of!a!family!to!prevent!damage.!
Whenever!an!employees!negligence!causes!damage!or!injury!to!another,!there!instantly!arises!a!presumptionjuris+tantum!that!the!employer!failed!
to!exercise!diligentissimi+patris+families!in!the!selection!(culpa+in+eligiendo)!or!supervision!(culpa+in+vigilando)!of!its!employees.!To!avoid!liability!for!
a!quasiAdelict!committed!by!his!employee,!an!employer!must!overcome!the!presumption!by!presenting!convincing!proof!that!he!exercised!the!care!
and!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!family!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!his!employee.!28!
There!is!no!question!that!petitioner,!who!is!the!owner/operator!of!M/V!Delsan!Express,!is!also!the!employer!of!Capt.!Jusep!who!at!the!time!of!the!
incident!acted!within!the!scope!of!his!duty.!The!defense!raised!by!petitioner!was!that!it!exercised!due!diligence!in!the!selection!of!Capt.!Jusep!
because!the!latter!is!a!licensed!and!competent!Master!Mariner.!It!should!be!stressed,!however,!that!the!required!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!
family!pertains!not!only!to!the!selection,!but!also!to!the!supervision!of!employees.!It!is!not!enough!that!the!employees!chosen!be!competent!and!
qualified,!inasmuch!as!the!employer!is!still!required!to!exercise!due!diligence!in!supervising!its!employees.!
In!Fabre,+Jr.+v.+Court+of+Appeals,29!it!was!held!that!due!diligence!in!supervision!requires!the!formulation!of!rules!and!regulations!for!the!guidance!of!
employees!and!the!issuance!of!proper!instructions!as!well!as!actual!implementation!and!monitoring!of!consistent!compliance!with!the!rules.!
Corollarily,!in!Ramos+v.+Court+of+Appeals,30!the!Court!stressed!that!once!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!employees!is!shown,!the!burden!of!proving!
that!he!observed!the!diligence!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees!shifts!to!the!employer.!

In!the!case!at!bar,!however,!petitioner!presented!no!evidence!that!it!formulated!rules/guidelines!for!the!proper!performance!of!functions!of!its!
employees!and!that!it!strictly!implemented!and!monitored!compliance!therewith.!Failing!to!discharge!the!burden,!petitioner!should!therefore!be!
held!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!Capt.!Jusep.!
So!also,!petitioner!cannot!disclaim!liability!on!the!basis!of!respondents!failure!to!allege!in!its!complaint!that!the!former!did!not!exercise!due!
diligence!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.!In!Viron+Transportation+Co.,+Inc.+v.+Delos+Santos,31!it!was!held!that!it!is!not!necessary!to!
state!that!petitioner!was!negligent!in!the!supervision!or!selection!of!its!employees,!inasmuch!as!its!negligence!is!presumed!by!operation!of!law.!
Allegations!of!negligence!against!the!employee!and!that!of!an!employer/employee!relation!in!the!complaint!are!enough!to!make!out!a!case!
of!quasiAdelict!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code.32!
Considering!that!petitioner!did!not!assail!the!damages!awarded!by!the!trial!court,!we!find!no!reason!to!alter!the!same.!The!interest!imposed!
should,!however,!be!modified.!In!Eastern+Shipping+Lines,+Inc.+v.+Court+of+Appeals,33it!was!held!that!the!rate!of!interest!on!obligations!not!
constituting!a!loan!or!forbearance!of!money!is!six!percent!(6%)!per!annum.!If!the!purchase!price!can!be!established!with!certainty!at!the!time!of!the!
filing!of!the!complaint,!the!six!percent!(6%)!interest!should!be!computed!from!the!date!the!complaint!was!filed!until!finality!of!the!decision.!After!
the!judgment!becomes!final!and!executory!until!the!obligation!is!satisfied,!the!amount!due!shall!earn!interest!at!12%!per!year,!the!interim!period!
being!deemed!equivalent!to!a!forbearance!of!credit.34!
Accordingly,!the!amount!of!P456,198.27!due!the!respondent!shall!earn!6%!interest!per!annum!from!October!3,!1995!until!the!finality!of!this!
decision.!If!the!adjudged!principal!and!the!interest!(or!any!part!thereof)!remain!unpaid!thereafter,!the!interest!rate!shall!be!twelve!percent!(12%)!
per!annum!computed!from!the!time!the!judgment!becomes!final!and!executory!until!it!is!fully!satisfied.!
WHEREFORE,!in!view!of!all!the!foregoing,!the!instant!petition!is!DENIED.1awphi1.nt!The!June!14,!2002!decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!CA/G.R.!
CV!No.!59034!ordering!petitioner!Delsan!Transport!Lines,!Inc.,!to!pay!respondent!C!&!A!Construction,!Inc.,!damages!in!the!amount!of!P456,198.27,!
plus!P30,000.00!as!attorneys!fees,!is!AFFIRMED!with!the!MODIFICATION!that!the!award!of!P456,198.27!shall!earn!interest!at!the!rate!of!6%!per!
annum!from!October!3,!1995,!until!finality!of!this!decision,!and!12%!per!annum!thereafter!on!the!principal!and!interest!(or!any!part!thereof)!until!
full!payment.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!

G.R.$No.$LR5691$December$27,$1910$
S.$D.$MARTINEZ$and$his$wife,$CARMEN$ONG$DE$MARTINEZ,!plaintiffs/appellees,!!
vs.!
WILLIAM$VAN$BUSKIRK,!defendant/appellant.!
Lionel+D.+Hargis+for+appellant.+
Sanz+and+Oppisso+for+appellee.!
!!
MORELAND,$J.:!
The!facts!found!by!the!trial!court!are!undisputed!by!either!party!in!this!case.!They!are!!
That!on!the!11th!day!of!September,!1908,!the!plaintiff,!Carmen!Ong!de!Martinez,!was!riding!in!a!carromata!on!Calle!Real,!district!of!Ermita,!city!of!
Manila,!P.I.,!along!the!left/hand!side!of!the!street!as!she!was!going,!when!a!delivery!wagon!belonging!to!the!defendant!used!for!the!purpose!of!
transportation!of!fodder!by!the!defendant,!and!to!which!was!attached!a!pair!of!horses,!came!along!the!street!in!the!opposite!direction!to!that!the!
in!which!said!plaintiff!was!proceeding,!and!that!thereupon!the!driver!of!the!said!plaintiff's!carromata,!observing!that!the!delivery!wagon!of!the!
defendant!was!coming!at!great!speed,!crowded!close!to!the!sidewalk!on!the!left/hand!side!of!the!street!and!stopped,!in!order!to!give!defendant's!
delivery!wagon!an!opportunity!to!pass!by,!but!that!instead!of!passing!by!the!defendant's!wagon!and!horses!ran!into!the!carromata!occupied!by!said!
plaintiff!with!her!child!and!overturned!it,!severely!wounding!said!plaintiff!by!making!a!serious!cut!upon!her!head,!and!also!injuring!the!carromata!
itself!and!the!harness!upon!the!horse!which!was!drawing!it.!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!
These!facts!are!not!dispute,!but!the!defendant!presented!evidence!to!the!effect!that!the!cochero,!who!was!driving!his!delivery!wagon!at!the!time!
the!accident!occurred,!was!a!good!servant!and!was!considered!a!safe!and!reliable!cochero;!that!the!delivery!wagon!had!sent!to!deliver!some!forage!
at!Paco!Livery!Stable!on!Calle!Herran,!and!that!for!the!purpose!of!delivery!thereof!the!cochero!driving!the!team!as!defendant's!employee!tied!the!
driving!lines!of!the!horses!to!the!front!end!of!the!delivery!wagon!and!then!went!back!inside!of!the!wagon!for!the!purpose!of!unloading!the!forage!
to!be!delivered;!that!while!unloading!the!forage!and!in!the!act!of!carrying!some!of!it!out,!another!vehicle!drove!by,!the!driver!of!which!cracked!a!
whip!and!made!some!other!noises,!which!frightened!the!horses!attached!to!the!delivery!wagon!and!they!ran!away,!and!the!driver!was!thrown!from!
the!inside!of!the!wagon!out!through!the!rear!upon!the!ground!and!was!unable!to!stop!the!horses;!that!the!horses!then!ran!up!and!on!which!street!
they!came!into!collision!with!the!carromata!in!which!the!plaintiff,!Carmen!Ong!de!Martinez,!was!riding.!
The!defendant!himself!was!not!with!the!vehicle!on!the!day!in!question.!

Upon!these!facts!the!court!below!found!the!defendant!guilty!of!negligence!and!gave!judgment!against!him!for!P442.50,!with!interest!thereon!at!the!
rate!of!6!per!cent!per!annum!from!the!17th!day!of!October,!1908,!and!for!the!costs!of!the!action.!The!case!is!before!us!on!an!appeal!from!that!
judgment.!
There!is!no!general!law!of!negligence!in!the!Philippine!Islands!except!that!embodied!in!the!Civil!Code.!The!provisions!of!that!code!pertinent!to!this!
case!are!!
Art.!1902.!A!person!who!by!an!act!or!omission!causes!damage!to!another!when!there!is!fault!or!negligence!shall!be!obliged!to!repair!the!damage!so!
done.!
Art.!1903.!The!obligation!imposed!by!preceding!article!is!demandable,!not!only!for!personal!acts!and!omissions,!but!also!for!those!of!the!persons!
for!whom!they!should!be!responsible.!
The!father,!and!on!his!death!or!incapacity!the!mother,!is!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!the!minors!who!live!with!them.!
Guardians!are!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!minors!or!incapacitated!persons!who!are!under!their!authority!and!live!with!them.!
Owners!of!directors!of!an!establishment!or!enterprise!are!equally!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!the!employees!in!the!service!of!the!branches!in!
which!the!latter!may!be!employed!or!on!account!of!their!duties.!
The!State!is!liable!in!this!sense!when!it!acts!through!a!special!agent,!but!not!when!the!damages!should!have!been!caused!by!the!official!to!whom!
properly!it!pertained!to!do!the!act!performed,!in!which!case!the!provisions!of!the!preceding!article!shall!be!applicable.!
Finally,!masters!or!directors!of!arts!and!trades!are!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!their!pupils!or!apprentices!while!they!are!under!their!custody.!
The!liability!referred!to!in!this!article!shall!cease!when!the!persons!mentioned!therein!prove!that!they!employed!all!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!
of!a!family!to!avoid!the!damage.!
Passing!the!question!whether!or!not!an!employer!who!has!furnished!a!gentle!and!tractable!team!and!a!trusty!and!capable!driver!is,!under!the!last!
paragraph!of!the!above!provisions,!liable!for!the!negligence!of!such!driver!in!handling!the!team,!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!judgment!must!be!
reversed!upon!the!ground!that!the!evidence!does!not!disclose!that!the!cochero!was!negligent.!
While!the!law!relating!to!negligence!in!this!jurisdiction!may!possibly!be!some!what!different!from!that!in!Anglo/Saxon!countries,!a!question!we!do!
not!now!discuss,!the!rules!under!which!the!fact!of!negligence!is!determined!are,!nevertheless,!generally!the!same.!That!is!to!say,!while!the!law!
designating!the+person+responsible!for!a!negligent!act!may!not!be!the!same!here!as!in!many!jurisdictions,!the!law!determining!
what!is+a!negligent+act!is!the!same!here,!generally!speaking,!as!elsewhere.!(Supreme!court!of!Spain,!4!December,!1903;!16!May,!1893;!27!June,!

1894;!9!April,!1896;!14!March,!1901;!2!March,!1904;!7!February,!1905;!16!June,!1905;!23!June,!1905;!13!April,!1903;!7!March,!1902;!12!June,!1900;!
2!March,!1907;!18!March,!1898;!3!June,!1901.)!
It!appears!from!the!undisputed!evidence!that!the!horses!which!caused!the!damage!were!gentle!and!tractable;!that!the!cochero!was!experienced!
and!capable;!that!he!had!driven!one!of!the!horses!several!years!and!the!other!five!or!six!months;!that!he!had!been!in!the!habit,!during!all!that!time,!
of!leaving!them!in!the!condition!in!which!they!were!left!on!the!day!of!the!accident;!that!they!had!never!run!away!up!to!that!time!and!there!had!
been,!therefore,!no!accident!due!to!such!practice;!that!to!leave!the!horses!and!assist!in!unloading!the!merchandise!in!the!manner!described!on!the!
day!of!the!accident!was!the!custom!of!all!cochero!who!delivered!merchandise!of!the!character!of!that!which!was!being!delivered!by!the!cochero!of!
the!defendant!on!the!day!in!question,!which!custom!was!sanctioned!by!their!employers.!
In!our!judgment,!the!cochero!of!the!defendant!was!not!negligent!in!leaving!the!horses!in!the!manner!described!by!the!evidence!in!this!case,!either!
under!Spanish!or!American!jurisprudence.!(Lynch!vs.!Nurdin,!1!Q.!B.,!422;!Rumsey!vs.!Nelson,!58!Vt.,!590;!Drake!vs.!Mount,!33!N.!J.!L.,!442;!
Hoboken!Land!and!Improvement!Co.!vs.!Lally,!48!N.!J.!L.,!604;!Wasmer!vs.!D.!L.!&!W.!R.!R.!Co.,!80!N.!Y.,!212.)!lawphi1.net!
In!the!case!of!Hayman+vs.+Hewitt!(Peake!N.!P.!Cas.,!pt.!2,!p.!170),!Lord!Kenyon!said:!
He!was!performing!his!duty!while!removing!the!goods!into!the!house,!and,!if!every!person!who!suffered!a!cart!to!remain!in!the!street!while!he!took!
goods!out!of!it!was!obliged!to!employ!another!to!look!after!the!horses,!it!would!be!impossible!for!the!business!of!the!metropolis!to!go!on.!
In!the!case!of!Griggs+vs.+Fleckenstein+(14!Minn.,!81),!the!court!said:!
The!degree!of!care!required!of!the!plaintiff,!or!those!in!charged!of!his!horse,!at!the!time!of!the!injury,!is!that!which!would!be!exercised!by!a!person!
of!ordinary!care!and!prudence!under!like!circumstances.!It!can!not!be!said!that!the!fact!of!leaving!the!horse!unhitched!is!in!itself!negligence.!
Whether!it!is!negligence!to!leave!a!horse!unhitched!must!be!depend!upon!the!disposition!of!the!horse;!whether!he!was!under!the!observation!and!
control!of!some!person!all!the!time,!and!many!other!circumstances;!and!is!a!question!to!be!determined!by!the!jury!from!the!facts!of!each!case.!
In!the!case!of!Belles+vs.+Kellner+(67!N.!J.!L.,!255),!it!was!held!that!it!was!error!on!the!part!of!the!trial!court!to!refuse!to!charge!that!"it!is!not!
negligence!for!the!driver!of!a!quite,!gentle!horse!to!leave!him!unhitched!and!otherwise!unattended!on!the!side!of!a!public!highways!while!the!
driver!is!upon!the!sidewalk!loading!goods!on!the!wagon."!The!said!court!closed!its!opinion!with!these!words:!
There!was!evidence!which!could!have!fully!justified!the!jury!in!finding!that!the!horse!was!quite!and!gentle,!and!that!the!driver!was!upon!the!
sidewalk!loading!goods!on!the!wagon,!at!time!of!the!alleged!injury,!and!that!the!horse!had!been!used!for!years!in!that!way!without!accident.!The!
refusal!of!the!trial!court!to!charge!as!requested!left!the!jury!free!to!find!was!verdict!against!the!defendant,!although!the!jury!was!convinced!that!
these!facts!were!proven.lawphil.net!
In!the!case!of!Southworth+vs.+Ry.+Co.+(105!Mass.,!342),!it!was!held:!

That!evidence!that!a!servant,!whom!traders!employed!to!deliver!goods,!upon!stopping!with!his!horse!and!wagon!to!deliver!a!parcel!at!a!house!from!
fifty!to!a!hundred!rods!from!a!railroad!crossing,!left!the!horse!unfastened!for!four!or!five!minutes!while!he!was!in!the!house,!knowing!that!it!was!
not!afraid!of!cars,!and!having!used!it!for!three!or!four!months!without!ever!hitching!it!or!knowing!it!to!start,!is!not!conclusive,!as!a!matter!of!law,!of!
a!want!of!due!care!on!his!part.!
The!duty,!a!violation!of!which!is!claimed!to!be!negligence!in!the!respect!in!question,!is!to!exercise!reasonable!care!and!prudence.!Where!reasonable!
care!is!employed!in!doing!an!act!not!itself!illegal!or!inherently!likely!to!produce!damage!to!others,!there!will!be!no!liability,!although!damage!in!fact!
ensues.!(Milwaukee!Ry.!Co.!vs.Arms,!91!U.!S.,!489;!Parrott!vs.!Wells,!15!Wall.,!524;!Brown!vs.!Kendall,!6!Cushing,!292;!Jackson!Architectural!Iron!
Works!vs.!Hurlbut,!158!N.!Y.,!34!Westerfield!vs.!Levis,!43!La.!An.,!63;!Niosi!vs.!Empire!Steam!Laundry,!117!Cal.,!257.)!
The!act!of!defendant's!driver!in!leaving!the!horses!in!the!manner!proved!was!not!unreasonable!or!imprudent.!Acts!the!performance!of!which!has!
not!proved!destructive!or!injurious!and!which!have,!therefore,!been!acquiesced!in!by!society!for!so!long!a!time!that!they!have!ripened!into!custom,!
can!not!be!held!to!be!themselves!unreasonable!or!imprudent.!Indeed!the!very!reason!why!they!have!been!permitted!by!society!is!that!they!
beneficial!rather!than!prejudicial.itcAalf!Accidents!sometimes!happen!and!injuries!result!from!the!most!ordinary!acts!of!life.!But!such!are!not!their!
natural!or!customary!results.!To!hold!that,!because!such!an!act!once!resulted!in!accident!or!injury,!the!actor!is!necessarily!negligent,!is!to!go!far.!
The!fact!that!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+is!sometimes!successfully!invoked!in!such!a!case,!does!not!in!any!sense!militate!against!the!reasoning!
presented.!That!maxim!at!most!only!creates!a+prima+facie+case,!and!that!only!in!the!absence!of!proof!of!the!circumstances!under!which!the!act!
complained!of!was!performed.!It!is!something!invoked!in!favor!of!the!plaintiff!before!defendant's!case!showing!the!conditions!and!circumstances!
under!which!the!injury!occurred,!the!creative!reason!for!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+disappears.!This!is!demonstrated!by!the!case!of!Inland+and+
Seaboard+Costing+Co.+vs.+Tolson+(139!U.S.,!551),!where!the!court!said!(p.!554):!
.!.!.!The!whole!effect!of!the!instruction!in!question,!as!applied!to!the!case!before!the!jury,!was!that!if!the!steamboat,!on!a!calm!day!and!in!smooth!
water,!was!thrown!with!such!force!against!a!wharf!properly!built,!as!to!tear!up!some!of!the!planks!of!the!flooring,!this!would!be+prima+
facie+evidence!of!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!defendant's!agent!in!making!the!landing,!unless!upon!the!whole!evidence!in!the!case!this+prima+
facie+evidence!was!rebutted.!As!such!damage!to!a!wharf!is!not!ordinarily!done!by!a!steamboat!under!control!of!her!officers!and!carefully!managed!
by!them,!evidence!that!such!damage!was!done!in!this!case!was+prima+facie,+and,!if!unexplained,!sufficient!evidence!of!negligence!on!their!part,!and!
the!jury!might!properly!be!so!instructed.!
There!was!presented!in!this!case,!and!by!the!plaintiffs!themselves,!not!only!the!fact!of!the!runway!and!the!accident!resulting!therefrom,!but!also!
the!conditions!under!which!the!runaway!occurred.!Those!conditions!showing!of!themselves!that!the!defendant's!cochero!was!not!negligent!in!the!
management!of!the!horse,!the+prima+facie+case!in!plaintiffs'!favor,!if!any,!was!destroyed!as!soon!as!made.!
It!is!a!matter!of!common!knowledge!as!well!as!proof!that!it!is!the!universal!practice!of!merchants!to!deliver!merchandise!of!the!kind!of!that!being!
delivered!at!the!time!of!the!injury,!in!the!manner!in!which!that!was!then!being!delivered;!and!that!it!is!the!universal!practice!to!leave!the!horses!in!
the!manner!in!which!they!were!left!at!the!time!of!the!accident.!This!is!the!custom!in!all!cities.!It!has!not!been!productive!of!accidents!or!injuries.!
The!public,!finding!itself!unprejudiced!by!such!practice,!has!acquiesced!for!years!without!objection.!Ought!the!public!now,!through!the!courts,!

without!prior!objection!or!notice,!to!be!permitted!to!reverse!the!practice!of!decades!and!thereby!make!culpable!and!guilty!one!who!had!every!
reason!and!assurance!to!believe!that!he!was!acting!under!the!sanction!of!the!strongest!of!all!civil!forces,!the!custom!of!a!people?!We!think!not.!
The!judgement!is!reversed,!without!special!finding!as!to!costs.!So!ordered.!
Arellano,+C.+J.,+Mapa,+Johnson,+Carson+and+Trent,+JJ.,+concur.!
!

G.R.$No.$173180$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$August$24,$2011!
ALBERT$TISON$and$CLAUDIO$L.$JABON,!Petitioners,!!
vs.!
SPS.$GREGORIO$POMASIN$and$CONSORCIA$PONCE$POMASIN,$DIANNE$POMASIN$PAGUNSAN,$CYNTHIA$POMASIN,$SONIA$PEROL,$ANTONIO$
SESISTA,$GINA$SESISTA,$and$REYNALDO$SESISTA,!Respondents.!
D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
PEREZ,$J.:!
Two!vehicles,!a!tractor/trailer!and!a!jitney,1!figured!in!a!vehicular!mishap!along!Maharlika!Highway!in!Barangay!Agos,!Polangui,!Albay!last!12!August!
1994.!Laarni!Pomasin!(Laarni)!was!driving!the!jitney!towards!the!direction!of!Legaspi!City!while!the!tractor/trailer,!driven!by!Claudio!Jabon!(Jabon),!
was!traversing!the!opposite!lane!going!towards!Naga!City.2!
The!opposing!parties!gave!two!different!versions!of!the!incident.!
Gregorio!Pomasin!(Gregorio),!Laarnis!father,!was!on!board!the!jitney!and!seated!on!the!passengers!side.!He!testified!that!while!the!jitney!was!
passing!through!a!curve!going!downward,!he!saw!a!tractor/trailer!coming!from!the!opposite!direction!and!encroaching!on!the!jitneys!lane.!The!
jitney!was!hit!by!the!tractor/trailer!and!it!was!dragged!further!causing!death!and!injuries!to!its!passengers.3!
On!the!other!hand,!Jabon!recounted!that!while!he!was!driving!the!tractor/trailer,!he!noticed!a!jitney!on!the!opposite!lane!falling!off!the!shoulder!of!
the!road.!Thereafter,!it!began!running!in!a!zigzag!manner!and!heading!towards!the!direction!of!the!truck.!To!avoid!collision,!Jabon!immediately!
swerved!the!tractor/trailer!to!the!right!where!it!hit!a!tree!and!sacks!of!palay.!Unfortunately,!the!jitney!still!hit!the!left!fender!of!the!tractor/trailer!
before!it!was!thrown!a!few!meters!away.!The!tractor/trailer!was!likewise!damaged.4!
Multiple!death!and!injuries!to!those!in!the!jitney!resulted.!
Gregorio!was!injured!and!brought!to!the!Albay!Provincial!Hospital!in!Legaspi!City.!His!daughter,!Andrea!Pomasin!Pagunsan,!sister!Narcisa!Pomasin!
Roncales!and!Abraham!Dionisio!Perol!died!on!the!spot.!His!other!daughter!Laarni,!the!jitney!driver,!and!granddaughter!Annie!Jane!Pomasin!
Pagunsan!expired!at!the!hospital.!His!wife,!Consorcia!Pomasin,!another!granddaughter!Dianne!Pomasin!Pagunsan,!Ricky!Ponce,!Vicente!Pomasin,!
Gina!Sesista,!Reynaldo!Sesista,!Antonio!Sesista!and!Sonia!Perol!sustained!injuries.5!On!the!other!hand,!Jabon!and!one!of!the!passengers!in!the!
tractor/trailer!were!injured.6!
Albert!Tison!(Tison),!the!owner!of!the!truck,!extended!financial!assistance!to!respondents!by!giving!themP1,000.00!each!immediately!after!the!
accident!and!P200,000.00!to!Cynthia!Pomasin!(Cynthia),!one!of!Gregorios!daughters.!Cynthia,!in!turn,!executed!an!Affidavit!of!Desistance.!

On!14!November!1994,!respondents!filed!a!complaint!for!damages!against!petitioners!before!the!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Antipolo.!They!
alleged!that!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!was!the!negligence,!imprudence!and!carelessness!of!petitioners.!Respondents!prayed!for!
indemnification!for!the!heirs!of!those!who!perished!in!the!accident!at!P50,000.00!each;!P500,000.00!for!hospitalization,!medical!and!burial!
expenses;!P350,000.00!for!continuous!hospitalization!and!medical!expenses!of!Spouses!Pomasin;!P1,000,000.00!as!moral!damages;P250,000.00!as!
exemplary!damages;!P30,000.00!for!loss!of!income!of!Cynthia;!P100,000.00!as!attorneys!fees!plus!P1,000.00!per!court!appearance;!P50,000.00!for!
litigation!expenses;!and!cost!of!suit.7!
In!their!Answer,!petitioners!countered!that!it!was!Laarnis!negligence!which!proximately!caused!the!accident.!They!further!claimed!that!Cynthia!
was!authorized!by!Spouses!Pomasin!to!enter!into!an!amicable!settlement!by!executing!an!Affidavit!of!Desistance.!Notwithstanding!the!affidavit,!
petitioners!complained!that!respondents!filed!the!instant!complaint!to!harass!them!and!profit!from!the!recklessness!of!Laarni.!Petitioners!
counterclaimed!for!damages.!
Petitioners!subsequently!filed!a!motion!to!dismiss!the!complaint!in!view!of!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!executed!by!Cynthia.!The!motion!was!denied!
for!lack!of!merit.8!
On!7!February!2000,!the!Regional!Trial!Court!rendered!judgment!in!favor!of!petitioners!dismissing!the!complaint!for!damages,!the!dispositive!
portion!of!which!reads:!
WHEREFORE,!judgment!is!hereby!rendered!in!favor!of!the!defendants!and!against!plaintiffs!hereby!DISMISSING!the!instant!complaint!considering!
that!plaintiffs!have!authorized!Cynthia!Pomasin!to!settle!the!case!amicably!forP200,000.00;!and!that!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!did!not!
arise!from!the!fault!or!negligence!of!defendants!driver/employee!but!from!plaintiffs!driver.9!
The!trial!court!considered!the!testimony!of!Jabon!regarding!the!incident!more!convincing!and!reliable!than!that!of!Gregorios,!a!mere!passenger,!
whose!observation!and!attention!to!the!road!is!not!as!focused!as!that!of!the!driver.!The!trial!court!concluded!that!Laarni!caused!the!collision!of!the!
jitney!and!the!tractor/trailer.!The!trial!court!likewise!upheld!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!as!having!been!executed!with!the!tacit!consent!of!
respondents.!
The!Court!of!Appeals!disagreed!with!the!trial!court!and!ruled!that!the!reckless!driving!of!Jabon!caused!the!vehicular!collision.!In!support!of!such!
finding,!the!Court!of!Appeals!relied!heavily!on!Gregorios!testimony!that!Jabon!was!driving!the!tractor/trailer!downward!too!fast!and!it!encroached!
the!lane!of!the!jitney.!Based!on!the!gravity!of!the!impact!and!the!damage!caused!to!the!jitney!resulting!in!the!death!of!some!passengers,!the!Court!
of!Appeals!inferred!that!Jabon!must!be!speeding.!The!appellate!court!noted!that!the!restriction!in!Jabons!drivers!license!was!violated,!thus,!giving!
rise!to!the!presumption!that!he!was!negligent!at!the!time!of!the!accident.!Tison!was!likewise!held!liable!for!damages!for!his!failure!to!prove!due!
diligence!in!supervising!Jabon!after!he!was!hired!as!driver!of!the!truck.!Finally,!the!appellate!court!disregarded!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!executed!
by!Cynthia!because!the!latter!had!no!written!power!of!attorney!from!respondents!and!that!she!was!so!confused!at!the!time!when!she!signed!the!
affidavit!that!she!did!not!read!its!content.!
The!dispositive!portion!of!the!assailed!Decision!states:!

WHEREFORE,!the!present!appeal!is!granted,!and!the!trial!courts!Decision!dated!February!7,!2003!is!set!aside.!Defendants/appellees!are!ordered!to!
pay!plaintiffs/appellants!or!their!heirs!the!following:!
a)!Actual!damages!of!P136,000.00!as!above!computed,!to!be!offset!with!the!P200,000.00!received!by!plaintiff/appellant!Cynthia!Pomasin;!
b)!Civil!indemnity!of!P50,000.00!for!the!death!of!each!victim,!to!be!offset!with!the!balance!of!P64,000.00!from!the!aforementioned!P200,000.00!of!
civil!indemnity!received!by!plaintiff/appellant!Cynthia!Pomasin.!Hence,!the!net!amount!is!computed!at!P37,200.00!each,!as!follows:!
Narcisa!Pomasin!P37,200.00!
Laarni!Pomasin!P37,200.00!
Andrea!P.!Pagunsan!P37,200.00!
Dionisio!Perol!P37,200.00!
Annie!Jane!P.!Pagunsan!P37,200.00!
c)!Moral!damages!of!P50,000.00!to!each!of!the!victims;!and!
d)!Attorneys!fees!of!10%!of!the!total!award.10!
Petitioners!filed!a!Motion!for!Reconsideration,!which!was,!however,!denied!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!a!Resolution11!dated!19!July!2006.!
The!petition!for!review!raises!mixed!questions!of!fact!and!law!which!lead!back!to!the!very!issue!litigated!by!the!trial!court:!Who!is!the!negligent!
party!or!the!party!at!fault?!
The!issue!of!negligence!is!factual!in!nature.12!And!the!rule,!and!the!exceptions,!is!that!factual!findings!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!generally!
conclusive!but!may!be!reviewed!when:!(1)!the!factual!findings!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!and!the!trial!court!are!contradictory;!(2)!the!findings!are!
grounded!entirely!on!speculation,!surmises!or!conjectures;!(3)!the!inference!made!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!from!its!findings!of!fact!is!manifestly!
mistaken,!absurd!or!impossible;!(4)!there!is!grave!abuse!of!discretion!in!the!appreciation!of!facts;!(5)!the!appellate!court,!in!making!its!findings,!
goes!beyond!the!issues!of!the!case!and!such!findings!are!contrary!to!the!admissions!of!both!appellant!and!appellee;!(6)!the!judgment!of!the!Court!
of!Appeals!is!premised!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts;!(7)!the!Court!of!Appeals!fails!to!notice!certain!relevant!facts!which,!if!properly!considered,!
will!justify!a!different!conclusion;!and!(8)!the!findings!of!fact!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!contrary!to!those!of!the!trial!court!or!are!mere!conclusions!
without!citation!of!specific!evidence,!or!where!the!facts!set!forth!by!the!petitioner!are!not!disputed!by!respondent,!or!where!the!findings!of!fact!of!
the!Court!of!Appeals!are!premised!on!the!absence!of!evidence!but!are!contradicted!by!the!evidence!on!record.13!

The!exceptions!to!the!rule!underscore!the!substance!and!weight!of!the!findings!of!the!trial!court.!They!render!inconclusive!contrary!findings!by!the!
appellate!court.!The!reason!is!now!a!fundamental!principle:!
[A]ppellate!courts!do!not!disturb!the!findings!of!the!trial!courts!with!regard!to!the!assessment!of!the!credibility!of!witnesses.!The!reason!for!this!is!
that!trial!courts!have!the!unique!opportunity!to!observe!the!witneses!first!hand!and!note!their!demeanor,!conduct!and!attitude!under!grilling!
examination.!
The!exceptions!to!this!rule!are!when!the!trial!courts!findings!of!facts!and!conclusions!are!not!supported!by!the!evidence!on!record,!or!when!certain!
facts!of!substance!and!value,!likely!to!change!the!outcome!of!the!case,!have!been!overlooked!by!the!trial!court,!or!when!the!assailed!decision!is!
based!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts.14!
This!interplay!of!rules!and!exceptions!is!more!pronounced!in!this!case!of!quasi/delict!in!which,!according!to!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code,!whoever!
by!act!or!omission!causes!damage!to!another,!there!being!fault!or!negligence,!is!obliged!to!pay!for!the!damage!done.!To!sustain!a!claim!based!on!
quasi/delict,!the!following!requisites!must!concur:!(a)!damage!suffered!by!the!plaintiff;!(b)!fault!or!negligence!of!defendant;!and!(c)!connection!of!
cause!and!effect!between!the!fault!or!negligence!of!defendant!and!the!damage!incurred!by!the!plaintiff.15!These!requisites!must!be!proved!by!a!
preponderance!of!evidence.16!The!claimants,!respondents!in!this!case,!must,!therefore,!establish!their!claim!or!cause!of!action!by!preponderance!of!
evidence,!evidence!which!is!of!greater!weight,!or!more!convincing!than!that!which!is!offered!in!opposition!to!it.17!
The!trial!court!found!that!the!jitney!driver!was!negligent.!We!give!weight!to!this!finding!greater!than!the!opposite!conclusion!reached!by!the!
appellate!court!that!the!driver!of!the!tractor/trailer!caused!the!vehicular!collision.!
One!reason!why!the!trial!court!found!credible!the!version!of!Jabon!was!because!his!concentration!as!driver!is!more!focused!than!that!of!a!mere!
passenger.!The!trial!court!expounded,!thus:!
In!the!appreciation!of!the!testimony!of!eye/witnesses,!one!overriding!consideration!is!their!opportunity!for!observation!in!getting!to!know!or!
actually!seeing!or!observing!the!matter!they!testify!to.!This!most!particularly!holds!true!in!vehicular!collision!or!accident!cases!which!oftentimes!
happen!merely!momentarily!or!in!the!split!of!a!second.!In!the!case!of!a!running!or!travelling!vehicle,!especially!in!highway!travel!which!doubtless!
involves!faster!speed!than!in!ordinary!roads,!the!driver!is!concentrated!on!his!driving!continuously!from!moment!to!moment!even!in!long!trips.!
While!in!the!case!of!a!mere!passenger,!he!does!not!have!to!direct!his!attention!to!the!safe!conduct!of!the!travelling!vehicle,!as!in!fact!he!may!
converse!with!other!passengers!and!pay!no!attention!to!the!driving!or!safe!conduct!of!the!travelling!vehicle,!as!he!may!even!doze!off!to!sleep!if!he!
wants!to,!rendering!his!opportunity!for!observation!on!the!precise!cause!of!the!accident!or!collision!or!immediately!preceding!thereto!not!as!much!
as!that!of!the!driver!whose!attention!is!continuously!focused!on!his!driving.!So!that!as!between!the!respective!versions!of!the!plaintiffs!thru!their!
passenger!and!that!of!the!defendants!thru!their!driver!as!to!the!cause!or!antecedent!causes!that!led!to!the!vehicular!collision!in!this!case,!the!
version!of!the!driver!of!defendant!should!ordinarily!be!more!reliable!than!the!version!of!a!mere!passenger!of!Plaintiffs!vehicle,!simply!because!the!
attention!of!the!passenger!is!not!as!much!concentrated!on!the!driving!as!that!of!the!driver,!consequently!the!capacity!for!observation!of!the!latter!
of!the!latter!on!the!matter!testified!to!which!is!the!precise!point!of!inquiry!///!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!///!is!more!reasonably!reliable.!
Moreover,!the!passengers!vision!is!not!as!good!as!that!of!the!driver!from!the!vantage!point!of!the!drivers!seat!especially!in!nighttime,!thus!

rendering!a!passengers!opportunity!for!observation!on!the!antecedent!causes!of!the!collision!lesser!than!that!of!the!driver.!This!being!so,!this!
Court!is!more!inclined!to!believe!the!story!of!defendants!driver!Claudio!Jabon!that!the!jitney!driven!by!Laarni!Pomasin!fell!off!the!shoulder!of!the!
curved!road!causing!it!to!run!thereafter!in!a!zigzag!manner!and!in!the!process!the!two!vehicles!approaching!each!other!from!opposite!directions!at!
highway!speed!came!in!contact!with!each!other,!the!zigzagging!jeep!hitting!the!left!fender!of!the!truck!all!the!way!to!the!fuel!tank,!the!violent!
impact!resulting!in!the!lighter!vehicle,!the!jitney,!being!thrown!away!due!to!the!disparate!size!of!the!truck.18!
The!appellate!court!labelled!the!trial!courts!rationalization!as!a!"sweeping!conjecture"19!and!countered!that!Gregorio!was!actually!occupying!the!
front!seat!of!the!jitney!and!had!actually!a!clear!view!of!the!incident!despite!the!fact!that!he!was!not!driving.!
While!it!is!logical!that!a!drivers!attention!to!the!road!travelled!is!keener!than!that!of!a!mere!passenger,!it!should!also!be!considered!that!the!logic!
will!hold!only!if!the!two!are!similarly!circumstanced,!and!only!as!a!general!rule,!so!that,!it!does!not!necessarily!follow!that!between!the!opposing!
testimonies!of!a!driver!and!a!passenger,!the!former!is!more!credible.!The!factual!setting!of!the!event!testified!on!must!certainly!be!considered.!
The!trial!court!did!just!that!in!the!instant!case.!Contrary!to!the!observation!of!the!Court!of!Appeals,!the!relative!positions!of!a!driver!and!a!
passenger!in!a!vehicle!was!not!the!only!basis!of!analysis!of!the!trial!court.!Notably,!aside!from!Jabons!alleged!vantage!point!to!clearly!observe!the!
incident,!the!trial!court!also!took!into!consideration!Gregorios!admission!that!prior!to!the!accident,!the!jitney!was!running!on!the!"curving!and!
downward"!portion!of!the!highway.!The!appellate!court,!however,!took!into!account!the!other!and!opposite!testimony!of!Gregorio!that!it!was!their!
jitney!that!was!going!uphill!and!when!it!was!about!to!reach!a!curve,!he!saw!the!incoming!truck!running!very!fast!and!encroaching!the!jitneys!lane.!
We!perused!the!transcript!of!stenographic!notes!and!found!that!the!truck!was!actually!ascending!the!highway!when!it!collided!with!the!descending!
jitney.!
During!the!direct!examination,!Jabon!narrated!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!ascending!at!a!speed!of!35!to!40!kilometers!per!hour!when!he!saw!the!
jitney!on!the!opposite!lane!running!in!a!zigzag!manner,!thus:!
Q:!Now,!when!you!passed!by!the!municipality!of!Polangui,!Albay!at!about!5:00!of!August!12,!1994,!could!you!tell!the!Court!if!there!was!any!
untoward!incident!that!happened?!
A:!There!was!sir.!
Q:!Could!you!please!tell!the!Court?!
A:!While!on!my!way!to!Liboro!coming!from!Sorsogon,!I!met!on!my!way!a!vehicle!going!on!a!zigzag!direction!and!it!even!fell!on!the!shoulder!and!
proceeded!going!on!its!way!on!a!zigzag!direction.!
Q:!Could!you!describe!to!the!Court!what!was!the!kind!of!vehicle!you!saw!running!in!zigzag!direction?!

A:!A!Toyota/jitney!loaded!with!passengers!with!top/load.!
Q:!You!said!that!the!top[/]load!of!the!jeep!is!loaded?!
A:!Yes,!sir.!
Q:!Could!you!please!tell!the!Court!what!was!your!speed!at!the!time!when!you!saw!that!jeepney!with!top[/]load!running!on!a!zigzag!manner?!
A:!I!was!running!35!to!40!kilometers!per!hour!because!I!was!ascending!plain.!(Emphasis!supplied).20!
In!that!same!direct!examination,!Jabon!confirmed!that!he!was!ascending,!viz:!
Q:!Could!you!please!describe!the!condition!in!the!area!at!the!time!of!the!incident,!was!it!dark!or!day!time?!
A:!It!was!still!bright.!
COURT:!But!it!was!not!approaching!sunset?!
A:!Yes,!sir.!
Q:!Was!there!any!rain!at!that!time?!
A:!None!sir.!
Q:!So!the!road!was!dry?!
A:!Yes!sir.!
Q:!You!said!you!were!ascending!towards!the!direction!of!Liboro,!Camarines!Sur,!is!that!correct!at!the!time!the!incident!happened?!
A:!Yes!sir.21!(Emphasis!supplied).!
Upon!the!other!hand,!Gregorio,!during!his!direct!examination!described!the!road!condition!where!the!collision!took!place!as!"curving!and!
downward,"!thus:!
Q:!Could!you!please!describe!the!place!where!the!incident!happened!in!so!far!as!the!road!condition!is!concerned?!

A:!The!road!was!curving!and!downward.!
Q:!And!the!road!was!of!course!clear!from!traffic,!is!that!correct?!
A:!Yes!sir.!
Q:!And!practically,!your!jitney!was!the!only!car!running!at!that!time?!
A:!Yes!sir.22!(Emphasis!supplied).!
Significantly,!this!is!a!confirmation!of!the!testimony!of!Jabon.!
However,!on!rebuttal,!Gregorio!turned!around!and!stated!that!the!jitney!was!going!uphill!when!he!saw!the!tractor/trailer!running!down!very!fact!
and!encroaching!on!their!lane,!to!wit:!
Q:!Mr.!Claudio!Jabon,!the!driver!of!the!trailer!truck!that!collided!with!your!owner!jeepney!that!you!were!riding!testified!in!open!Court!on!July!24,!
1997!which!I!quote,!while!on!my!way!to!Liboro!coming!to!Sorsogon!I!met!a!vehicle!going!on!a!zig/zag!direction!and!it!even!fell!on!the!shoulder!and!
proceeded!going!on!its!way!on!zig/zag!direction,!what!can!you!say!about!this!statement!of!this!witness?!
A:!We!were!no[t]!zigzagging!but!because!we!were!going!uphill!and!about!to!reach!a!curved!(sic)!we!saw!the!on/coming!vehicle!going!down!very!fast!
and!encroaching!on!our!lane!so!our!driver!swerved!our!vehicle!to!the!right!but!still!we!were!hit!by!the!on/coming!vehicle.23!(Emphasis!supplied).!
The!declaration!of!Jabon!with!respect!to!the!road!condition!was!straightforward!and!consistent.1awp+The+recollection+of+Gregorio+veered+from+
"curving+and+downward"+to+uphill.24+On+this+point,+Jabon+and+his+testimony+is+more+credible.!
The!fact!that!the!jitney!easily!fell!into!the!road!shoulder,!an!undebated!fact,!supports!the!trial!courts!conclusion!that!the!jitney!was!indeed!going!
downhill!which,!it!may!be!repeated,!was!the!original!testimony!of!Gregorio!that!the!road!was!"curving!and!downward."25!It!is!this!conclusion,!
prodded!by!the!inconsistency!of!Gregorios!testimony,!that!gives!credence!to!the!further!testimony!of!Jabon!that!the!herein!respondents!jitney,!
"loaded!with!passengers!with!top/load"!"was!running!in!a!zigzag!manner."26!
Going!downward,!the!jitney!had!the!tendency!to!accelerate.!The!fall!into!the!shoulder!of!the!road!can!result!in!the!loss!of!control!of!the!jitney,!
which!explains!why!it!was!running!in!a!zigzag!manner!before!it!hit!the!tractor/trailer.!
There!was!no!showing!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!speeding.!There!is!a!preponderance!of!evidence!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!in!fact!ascending.!
Considering!its!size!and!the!weight!of!the!tractor/trailer,!its!speed!could!not!be!more!than!that!of!a!fully!loaded!jitney!which!was!running!downhill!
in!a!zigzagging!manner.!

Neither!can!it!be!inferred!that!Jabon!was!negligent.!In!hindsight,!it!can!be!argued!that!Jabon!should!have!swerved!to!the!right!upon!seeing!the!
jitney!zigzagging!before!it!collided!with!the!tractor/trailer.!Accidents,!though,!happen!in!an!instant,!and,!understandably!in!this!case,!leaving!the!
driver!without!sufficient!time!and!space!to!maneuver!a!vehicle!the!size!of!a!tractor/trailer!uphill!and!away!from!collision!with!the!jitney!oncoming!
downhill.!
Clearly,!the!negligence!of!Gregorios!daughter,!Laarni!was!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident.!
We!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.28!Likewise!controlling!
is!our!ruling!in!Aonuevo!v.!Court!of!Appeals29!where!we!reiterated!that!negligence!per+se,!arising!from!the!mere!violation!of!a!traffic!statute,!need!
not!be!sufficient!in!itself!in!establishing!liability!for!damages.!In!said!case,!Aonuevo,!who!was!driving!a!car,!did!not!attempt!"to!establish!a!causal!
connection!between!the!safety!violations!imputed!to!the!injured!cyclist,!and!the!accident!itself.!Instead,!he!relied!on!a!putative!presumption!that!
these!violations!in!themselves!sufficiently!established!negligence!appreciable!against!the!cyclist.!Since!the!onus!on!Aonuevo!is!to!conclusively!
prove!the!link!between!the!violations!and!the!accident,!we!can!deem!him!as!having!failed!to!discharge!his!necessary!burden!of!proving!the!cyclists!
own!liability."30!We!took!the!occasion!to!state!that:!
The!rule!on!negligence!per+se!must!admit!qualifications!that!may!arise!from!the!logical!consequences!of!the!facts!leading!to!the!mishap.!The!
doctrine!(and!Article!2185,!for!that!matter)!is!undeniably!useful!as!a!judicial!guide!in!adjudging!liability,!for!it!seeks!to!impute!culpability!arising!
from!the!failure!of!the!actor!to!perform!up!to!a!standard!established!by!a!legal!fiat.!But!the!doctrine!should!not!be!rendered!inflexible!so!as!to!deny!
relief!when!in!fact!there!is!no!causal!relation!between!the!statutory!violation!and!the!injury!sustained.!Presumptions!in!law,!while!convenient,!are!
not!intractable!so!as!to!forbid!rebuttal!rooted!in!fact.!After!all,!tort!law!is!remunerative!in!spirit,!aiming!to!provide!compensation!for!the!harm!
suffered!by!those!whose!interests!have!been!invaded!owing!to!the!conduct!of!other.31!
In!the!instant!case,!no!causal!connection!was!established!between!the!tractor/trailer!drivers!restrictions!on!his!license!to!the!vehicular!collision.!
Furthermore,!Jabon!was!able!to!sufficiently!explain!that!the!Land!Transportation!Office!merely!erred!in!not!including!restriction!code!8!in!his!
license.!
Petitioners!presented!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!executed!by!Cynthia!to!exonerate!them!from!any!liability.!An!affidavit!of!desistance!is!usually!
frowned!upon!by!courts.!Little!or!no!persuasive!value!is!often!attached!to!a!desistance.32!The!subject!affidavit!does!not!deserve!a!second!look!more!

so!that!it!appears!that!Cynthia!was!not!armed!with!a!special!power!of!attorney!to!enter!into!a!settlement!with!petitioners.!At!any!rate,!it!is!an!
exercise!of!futility!to!delve!into!the!effects!of!the!affidavit!of!desistance!executed!by!one!of!the!respondents!since!it!has!already!been!established!
that!petitioners!are!not!negligent.!
WHEREFORE,!the!petition!is!GRANTED.!The!challenged!Decision!and!Resolution!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!REVERSED!and!SET!ASIDE.!Civil!Case!No.!
94/3418!lodged!before!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Antipolo!City,!Branch!74,!is!DISMISSED!for!lack!of!merit.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!

G.R.$No.$194320$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$1,$2012!
MALAYAN$INSURANCE$CO.,$INC.,$Petitioner,!!
vs.!
RODELIO$ALBERTO$and$ENRICO$ALBERTO$REYES,!Respondents.!
D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
VELASCO,$JR.,$J.:!
The$Case!
Before!Us!is!a!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari!under!Rule!45,!seeking!to!reverse!and!set!aside!the!July!28,!2010!Decision1!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!
(CA)!and!its!October!29,!2010!Resolution2!denying!the!motion!for!reconsideration!filed!by!petitioner!Malayan!Insurance!Co.,!Inc.!(Malayan!
Insurance).!The!July!28,!2010!CA!Decision!reversed!and!set!aside!the!Decision3!dated!February!2,!2009!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court,!Branch!51!in!
Manila.!
The$Facts!
At!around!5!oclock!in!the!morning!of!December!17,!1995,!an!accident!occurred!at!the!corner!of!EDSA!and!Ayala!Avenue,!Makati!City,!involving!four!
(4)!vehicles,!to!wit:!(1)!a!Nissan!Bus!operated!by!Aladdin!Transit!with!plate!number!NYS!381;!(2)!an!Isuzu!Tanker!with!plate!number!PLR!684;!(3)!a!
Fuzo!Cargo!Truck!with!plate!number!PDL!297;!and!(4)!a!Mitsubishi!Galant!with!plate!number!TLM!732.4!
Based!on!the!Police!Report!issued!by!the!on/the/spot!investigator,!Senior!Police!Officer!1!Alfredo!M.!Dungga!(SPO1!Dungga),!the!Isuzu!Tanker!was!
in!front!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant!with!the!Nissan!Bus!on!their!right!side!shortly!before!the!vehicular!incident.!All!three!(3)!vehicles!were!at!a!halt!
along!EDSA!facing!the!south!direction!when!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck!simultaneously!bumped!the!rear!portion!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant!and!the!rear!
left!portion!of!the!Nissan!Bus.!Due!to!the!strong!impact,!these!two!vehicles!were!shoved!forward!and!the!front!left!portion!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant!
rammed!into!the!rear!right!portion!of!the!Isuzu!Tanker.5!
Previously,!particularly!on!December!15,!1994,!Malayan!Insurance!issued!Car!Insurance!Policy!No.!PV/025/00220!in!favor!of!First!Malayan!Leasing!
and!Finance!Corporation!(the!assured),!insuring!the!aforementioned!Mitsubishi!Galant!against!third!party!liability,!own!damage!and!theft,!among!
others.!Having!insured!the!vehicle!against!such!risks,!Malayan!Insurance!claimed!in!its!Complaint!dated!October!18,!1999!that!it!paid!the!damages!
sustained!by!the!assured!amounting!to!PhP!700,000.6!
Maintaining!that!it!has!been!subrogated!to!the!rights!and!interests!of!the!assured!by!operation!of!law!upon!its!payment!to!the!latter,!Malayan!
Insurance!sent!several!demand!letters!to!respondents!Rodelio!Alberto!(Alberto)!and!Enrico!Alberto!Reyes!(Reyes),!the!registered!owner!and!the!

driver,!respectively,!of!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck,!requiring!them!to!pay!the!amount!it!had!paid!to!the!assured.!When!respondents!refused!to!settle!
their!liability,!Malayan!Insurance!was!constrained!to!file!a!complaint!for!damages!for!gross!negligence!against!respondents.7!
In!their!Answer,!respondents!asserted!that!they!cannot!be!held!liable!for!the!vehicular!accident,!since!its!proximate!cause!was!the!reckless!driving!
of!the!Nissan!Bus!driver.!They!alleged!that!the!speeding!bus,!coming!from!the!service!road!of!EDSA,!maneuvered!its!way!towards!the!middle!lane!
without!due!regard!to!Reyes!right!of!way.!When!the!Nissan!Bus!abruptly!stopped,!Reyes!stepped!hard!on!the!brakes!but!the!braking!action!could!
not!cope!with!the!inertia!and!failed!to!gain!sufficient!traction.!As!a!consequence,!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck!hit!the!rear!end!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant,!
which,!in!turn,!hit!the!rear!end!of!the!vehicle!in!front!of!it.!The!Nissan!Bus,!on!the!other!hand,!sideswiped!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck,!causing!damage!to!
the!latter!in!the!amount!of!PhP!20,000.!Respondents!also!controverted!the!results!of!the!Police!Report,!asserting!that!it!was!based!solely!on!the!
biased!narration!of!the!Nissan!Bus!driver.8!
After!the!termination!of!the!pre/trial!proceedings,!trial!ensued.!Malayan!Insurance!presented!the!testimony!of!its!lone!witness,!a!motor!car!claim!
adjuster,!who!attested!that!he!processed!the!insurance!claim!of!the!assured!and!verified!the!documents!submitted!to!him.!Respondents,!on!the!
other!hand,!failed!to!present!any!evidence.!
In!its!Decision!dated!February!2,!2009,!the!trial!court,!in!Civil!Case!No.!99/95885,!ruled!in!favor!of!Malayan!Insurance!and!declared!respondents!
liable!for!damages.!The!dispositive!portion!reads:!
WHEREFORE,!judgment!is!hereby!rendered!in!favor!of!the!plaintiff!against!defendants!jointly!and!severally!to!pay!plaintiff!the!following:!
1.!The!amount!of!P700,000.00!with!legal!interest!from!the!time!of!the!filing!of!the!complaint;!
2.!Attorneys!fees!of!P10,000.00!and;!
3.!Cost!of!suit.!
SO!ORDERED.9!
Dissatisfied,!respondents!filed!an!appeal!with!the!CA,!docketed!as!CA/G.R.!CV!No.!93112.!In!its!Decision!dated!July!28,!2010,!the!CA!reversed!and!
set!aside!the!Decision!of!the!trial!court!and!ruled!in!favor!of!respondents,!disposing:!
WHEREFORE,!the!foregoing!considered,!the!instant!appeal!is!hereby!GRANTED!and!the!assailed!Decision!dated!2!February!2009!REVERSED!and!SET!
ASIDE.!The!Complaint!dated!18!October!1999!is!hereby!DISMISSED!for!lack!of!merit.!No!costs.!
SO!ORDERED.10!

The!CA!held!that!the!evidence!on!record!has!failed!to!establish!not!only!negligence!on!the!part!of!respondents,!but!also!compliance!with!the!other!
requisites!and!the!consequent!right!of!Malayan!Insurance!to!subrogation.11!It!noted!that!the!police!report,!which!has!been!made!part!of!the!
records!of!the!trial!court,!was!not!properly!identified!by!the!police!officer!who!conducted!the!on/the/spot!investigation!of!the!subject!collision.!It,!
thus,!held!that!an!appellate!court,!as!a!reviewing!body,!cannot!rightly!appreciate!firsthand!the!genuineness!of!an!unverified!and!unidentified!
document,!much!less!accord!it!evidentiary!value.12!
Subsequently,!Malayan!Insurance!filed!its!Motion!for!Reconsideration,!arguing!that!a!police!report!is!a!prima!facie!evidence!of!the!facts!stated!in!it.!
And!inasmuch!as!they!never!questioned!the!presentation!of!the!report!in!evidence,!respondents!are!deemed!to!have!waived!their!right!to!question!
its!authenticity!and!due!execution.13!
In!its!Resolution!dated!October!29,!2010,!the!CA!denied!the!motion!for!reconsideration.!Hence,!Malayan!Insurance!filed!the!instant!petition.!
The$Issues!
In!its!Memorandum14!dated!June!27,!2011,!Malayan!Insurance!raises!the!following!issues!for!Our!consideration:!
I!
WHETHER!THE!CA!ERRED!IN!REFUSING!ADMISSIBILITY!OF!THE!POLICE!REPORT!SINCE!THE!POLICE!INVESTIGATOR!WHO!PREPARED!THE!SAME!
DID!NOT!ACTUALLY!TESTIFY!IN!COURT!THEREON.!
II!
WHETHER!THE!SUBROGATION!OF!MALAYAN!INSURANCE!IS!IMPAIRED!AND/OR!DEFICIENT.!
On!the!other!hand,!respondents!submit!the!following!issues!in!its!Memorandum15!dated!July!7,!2011:!
I!
WHETHER!THE!CA!IS!CORRECT!IN!DISMISSING!THE!COMPLAINT!FOR!FAILURE!OF!MALAYAN!INSURANCE!TO!OVERCOME!THE!BURDEN!OF!
PROOF!REQUIRED!TO!ESTABLISH!THE!NEGLIGENCE!OF!RESPONDENTS.!
II!
WHETHER!THE!PIECES!OF!EVIDENCE!PRESENTED!BY!MALAYAN!INSURANCE!ARE!SUFFICIENT!TO!CLAIM!FOR!THE!AMOUNT!OF!DAMAGES.!
III!

WHETHER!THE!SUBROGATION!OF!MALAYAN!INSURANCE!HAS!PASSED!COMPLIANCE!AND!REQUISITES!AS!PROVIDED!UNDER!PERTINENT!
LAWS.!
Essentially,!the!issues!boil!down!to!the!following:!(1)!the!admissibility!of!the!police!report;!(2)!the!sufficiency!of!the!evidence!to!support!a!claim!for!
gross!negligence;!and!(3)!the!validity!of!subrogation!in!the!instant!case.!
Our$Ruling!
The!petition!has!merit.!
Admissibility$of$the$Police$Report!
Malayan!Insurance!contends!that,!even!without!the!presentation!of!the!police!investigator!who!prepared!the!police!report,!said!report!is!still!
admissible!in!evidence,!especially!since!respondents!failed!to!make!a!timely!objection!to!its!presentation!in!evidence.16!Respondents!counter!that!
since!the!police!report!was!never!confirmed!by!the!investigating!police!officer,!it!cannot!be!considered!as!part!of!the!evidence!on!record.17!
Indeed,!under!the!rules!of!evidence,!a!witness!can!testify!only!to!those!facts!which!the!witness!knows!of!his!or!her!personal!knowledge,!that!is,!
which!are!derived!from!the!witness!own!perception.18!Concomitantly,!a!witness!may!not!testify!on!matters!which!he!or!she!merely!learned!from!
others!either!because!said!witness!was!told!or!read!or!heard!those!matters.19!Such!testimony!is!considered!hearsay!and!may!not!be!received!as!
proof!of!the!truth!of!what!the!witness!has!learned.!This!is!known!as!the!hearsay!rule.20!
As!discussed!in!D.M.!Consunji,!Inc.!v.!CA,21!"Hearsay!is!not!limited!to!oral!testimony!or!statements;!the!general!rule!that!excludes!hearsay!as!
evidence!applies!to!written,!as!well!as!oral!statements."!
There!are!several!exceptions!to!the!hearsay!rule!under!the!Rules!of!Court,!among!which!are!entries!in!official!records.22!Section!44,!Rule!130!
provides:!
Entries!in!official!records!made!in!the!performance!of!his!duty!by!a!public!officer!of!the!Philippines,!or!by!a!person!in!the!performance!of!a!duty!
specially!enjoined!by!law!are!prima!facie!evidence!of!the!facts!therein!stated.!
In!Alvarez!v.!PICOP!Resources,23!this!Court!reiterated!the!requisites!for!the!admissibility!in!evidence,!as!an!exception!to!the!hearsay!rule!of!entries!
in!official!records,!thus:!(a)!that!the!entry!was!made!by!a!public!officer!or!by!another!person!specially!enjoined!by!law!to!do!so;!(b)!that!it!was!made!
by!the!public!officer!in!the!performance!of!his!or!her!duties,!or!by!such!other!person!in!the!performance!of!a!duty!specially!enjoined!by!law;!and!(c)!
that!the!public!officer!or!other!person!had!sufficient!knowledge!of!the!facts!by!him!or!her!stated,!which!must!have!been!acquired!by!the!public!
officer!or!other!person!personally!or!through!official!information.!

Notably,!the!presentation!of!the!police!report!itself!is!admissible!as!an!exception!to!the!hearsay!rule!even!if!the!police!investigator!who!prepared!it!
was!not!presented!in!court,!as!long!as!the!above!requisites!could!be!adequately!proved.24!
Here,!there!is!no!dispute!that!SPO1!Dungga,!the!on/the/spot!investigator,!prepared!the!report,!and!he!did!so!in!the!performance!of!his!duty.!
However,!what!is!not!clear!is!whether!SPO1!Dungga!had!sufficient!personal!knowledge!of!the!facts!contained!in!his!report.!Thus,!the!third!requisite!
is!lacking.!
Respondents!failed!to!make!a!timely!objection!to!the!police!reports!presentation!in!evidence;!thus,!they!are!deemed!to!have!waived!their!right!to!
do!so.25!As!a!result,!the!police!report!is!still!admissible!in!evidence.!
Sufficiency$of$Evidence!
Malayan!Insurance!contends!that!since!Reyes,!the!driver!of!the!Fuzo!Cargo!truck,!bumped!the!rear!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant,!he!is!presumed!to!be!
negligent!unless!proved!otherwise.!It!further!contends!that!respondents!failed!to!present!any!evidence!to!overturn!the!presumption!of!
negligence.26!Contrarily,!respondents!claim!that!since!Malayan!Insurance!did!not!present!any!witness!who!shall!affirm!any!negligent!act!of!Reyes!in!
driving!the!Fuzo!Cargo!truck!before!and!after!the!incident,!there!is!no!evidence!which!would!show!negligence!on!the!part!of!respondents.27!
We!agree!with!Malayan!Insurance.!Even!if!We!consider!the!inadmissibility!of!the!police!report!in!evidence,!still,!respondents!cannot!evade!liability!
by!virtue!of!the!res!ipsa!loquitur!doctrine.!The!D.M.!Consunji,!Inc.!case!is!quite!elucidating:!
Petitioners!contention,!however,!loses!relevance!in!the!face!of!the!application!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!by!the!CA.!The!effect!of!the!doctrine!is!to!
warrant!a!presumption!or!inference!that!the!mere!fall!of!the!elevator!was!a!result!of!the!person!having!charge!of!the!instrumentality!was!negligent.!
As!a!rule!of!evidence,!the!doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!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.!
The!concept!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!has!been!explained!in!this!wise:!
While!negligence!is!not!ordinarily!inferred!or!presumed,!and!while!the!mere!happening!of!an!accident!or!injury!will!not!generally!give!rise!to!an!
inference!or!presumption!that!it!was!due!to!negligence!on!defendants!part,!under!the!doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur,!which!means,!literally,!the!
thing!or!transaction!speaks!for!itself,!or!in!one!jurisdiction,!that!the!thing!or!instrumentality!speaks!for!itself,!the!facts!or!circumstances!
accompanying!an!injury!may!be!such!as!to!raise!a!presumption,!or!at!least!permit!an!inference!of!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!defendant,!or!some!
other!person!who!is!charged!with!negligence.!
x!x!x!where!it!is!shown!that!the!thing!or!instrumentality!which!caused!the!injury!complained!of!was!under!the!control!or!management!of!the!
defendant,!and!that!the!occurrence!resulting!in!the!injury!was!such!as!in!the!ordinary!course!of!things!would!not!happen!if!those!who!had!its!
control!or!management!used!proper!care,!there!is!sufficient!evidence,!or,!as!sometimes!stated,!reasonable!evidence,!in!the!absence!of!explanation!
by!the!defendant,!that!the!injury!arose!from!or!was!caused!by!the!defendants!want!of!care.!

One!of!the!theoretical!bases!for!the!doctrine!is!its!necessity,!i.e.,!that!necessary!evidence!is!absent!or!not!available.!
The!res!ipsa!loquitur!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.!Accordingly,!some!courts!add!to!the!three!prerequisites!for!the!application!
of!the!res!ipsa!loquitur!doctrine!the!further!requirement!that!for!the!res!ipsa!loquitur!doctrine!to!apply,!it!must!appear!that!the!injured!party!had!
no!knowledge!or!means!of!knowledge!as!to!the!cause!of!the!accident,!or!that!the!party!to!be!charged!with!negligence!has!superior!knowledge!or!
opportunity!for!explanation!of!the!accident.!
The!CA!held!that!all!the!requisites!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!are!present!in!the!case!at!bar:!
There!is!no!dispute!that!appellees!husband!fell!down!from!the!14th!floor!of!a!building!to!the!basement!while!he!was!working!with!appellants!
construction!project,!resulting!to!his!death.!The!construction!site!is!within!the!exclusive!control!and!management!of!appellant.!It!has!a!safety!
engineer,!a!project!superintendent,!a!carpenter!leadman!and!others!who!are!in!complete!control!of!the!situation!therein.!The!circumstances!of!any!
accident!that!would!occur!therein!are!peculiarly!within!the!knowledge!of!the!appellant!or!its!employees.!On!the!other!hand,!the!appellee!is!not!in!a!
position!to!know!what!caused!the!accident.!Res!ipsa!loquitur!is!a!rule!of!necessity!and!it!applies!where!evidence!is!absent!or!not!readily!available,!
provided!the!following!requisites!are!present:!(1)!the!accident!was!of!a!kind!which!does!not!ordinarily!occur!unless!someone!is!negligent;!(2)!the!
instrumentality!or!agency!which!caused!the!injury!was!under!the!exclusive!control!of!the!person!charged!with!negligence;!and!(3)!the!injury!
suffered!must!not!have!been!due!to!any!voluntary!action!or!contribution!on!the!part!of!the!person!injured.!x!x!x.!
No!worker!is!going!to!fall!from!the!14th!floor!of!a!building!to!the!basement!while!performing!work!in!a!construction!site!unless!someone!is!
negligent[;]!thus,!the!first!requisite!for!the!application!of!the!rule!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!is!present.!As!explained!earlier,!the!construction!site!with!all!
its!paraphernalia!and!human!resources!that!likely!caused!the!injury!is!under!the!exclusive!control!and!management!of!appellant[;]!thus[,]!the!
second!requisite!is!also!present.!No!contributory!negligence!was!attributed!to!the!appellees!deceased!husband[;]!thus[,]!the!last!requisite!is!also!
present.!All!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!rule!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!are!present,!thus!a!reasonable!presumption!or!inference!of!appellants!
negligence!arises.!x!x!x.!
Petitioner!does!not!dispute!the!existence!of!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!res!ipsa!loquitur,!but!argues!that!the!presumption!or!inference!that!
it!was!negligent!did!not!arise!since!it!"proved!that!it!exercised!due!care!to!avoid!the!accident!which!befell!respondents!husband."!

Petitioner!apparently!misapprehends!the!procedural!effect!of!the!doctrine.!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!a!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.28!
In!the!case!at!bar,!aside!from!the!statement!in!the!police!report,!none!of!the!parties!disputes!the!fact!that!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck!hit!the!rear!end!of!
the!Mitsubishi!Galant,!which,!in!turn,!hit!the!rear!end!of!the!vehicle!in!front!of!it.!Respondents,!however,!point!to!the!reckless!driving!of!the!Nissan!
Bus!driver!as!the!proximate!cause!of!the!collision,!which!allegation!is!totally!unsupported!by!any!evidence!on!record.!And!assuming!that!this!
allegation!is,!indeed,!true,!it!is!astonishing!that!respondents!never!even!bothered!to!file!a!cross/claim!against!the!owner!or!driver!of!the!Nissan!Bus.!
What!is!at!once!evident!from!the!instant!case,!however,!is!the!presence!of!all!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!rule!of!res!ipsa!loquitur.!To!
reiterate,!res!ipsa!loquitur!is!a!rule!of!necessity!which!applies!where!evidence!is!absent!or!not!readily!available.!As!explained!in!D.M.!Consunji,!Inc.,!
it!is!partly!based!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.!
As!mentioned!above,!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!res!ipsa!loquitur!rule!are!the!following:!(1)!the!accident!was!of!a!kind!which!does!not!
ordinarily!occur!unless!someone!is!negligent;!(2)!the!instrumentality!or!agency!which!caused!the!injury!was!under!the!exclusive!control!of!the!
person!charged!with!negligence;!and!(3)!the!injury!suffered!must!not!have!been!due!to!any!voluntary!action!or!contribution!on!the!part!of!the!
person!injured.29!
In!the!instant!case,!the!Fuzo!Cargo!Truck!would!not!have!had!hit!the!rear!end!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant!unless!someone!is!negligent.!Also,!the!Fuzo!
Cargo!Truck!was!under!the!exclusive!control!of!its!driver,!Reyes.!Even!if!respondents!avert!liability!by!putting!the!blame!on!the!Nissan!Bus!driver,!
still,!this!allegation!was!self/serving!and!totally!unfounded.!Finally,!no!contributory!negligence!was!attributed!to!the!driver!of!the!Mitsubishi!Galant.!
Consequently,!all!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!are!present,!thereby!creating!a!reasonable!presumption!of!
negligence!on!the!part!of!respondents.!
It!is!worth!mentioning!that!just!like!any!other!disputable!presumptions!or!inferences,!the!presumption!of!negligence!may!be!rebutted!or!overcome!
by!other!evidence!to!the!contrary.!It!is!unfortunate,!however,!that!respondents!failed!to!present!any!evidence!before!the!trial!court.!Thus,!the!
presumption!of!negligence!remains.!Consequently,!the!CA!erred!in!dismissing!the!complaint!for!Malayan!Insurances!adverted!failure!to!prove!
negligence!on!the!part!of!respondents.!
Validity$of$Subrogation!

Malayan!Insurance!contends!that!there!was!a!valid!subrogation!in!the!instant!case,!as!evidenced!by!the!claim!check!voucher30!and!the!Release!of!
Claim!and!Subrogation!Receipt31!presented!by!it!before!the!trial!court.!Respondents,!however,!claim!that!the!documents!presented!by!Malayan!
Insurance!do!not!indicate!certain!important!details!that!would!show!proper!subrogation.!
As!noted!by!Malayan!Insurance,!respondents!had!all!the!opportunity,!but!failed!to!object!to!the!presentation!of!its!evidence.!Thus,!and!as!We!have!
mentioned!earlier,!respondents!are!deemed!to!have!waived!their!right!to!make!an!objection.!As!this!Court!held!in!Asian!Construction!and!
Development!Corporation!v.!COMFAC!Corporation:!
The$rule$is$that$failure$to$object$to$the$offered$evidence$renders$it$admissible,$and$the$court$cannot,$on$its$own,$disregard$such$evidence.!We!
note!that!ASIAKONSTRUCTs!counsel!of!record!before!the!trial!court,!Atty.!Bernard!Dy,!who!actively!participated!in!the!initial!stages!of!the!case!
stopped!attending!the!hearings!when!COMFAC!was!about!to!end!its!presentation.!Thus,!ASIAKONSTRUCT!could!not!object!to!COMFACs!offer!of!
evidence!nor!present!evidence!in!its!defense;!ASIAKONSTRUCT!was!deemed!by!the!trial!court!to!have!waived!its!chance!to!do!so.!
Note$also$that$when$a$party$desires$the$court$to$reject$the$evidence$offered,$it$must$so$state$in$the$form$of$a$timely$objection$and$it$cannot$raise$
the$objection$to$the$evidence$for$the$first$time$on$appeal.$Because$of$a$partys$failure$to$timely$object,$the$evidence$becomes$part$of$the$
evidence$in$the$case.$Thereafter,$all$the$parties$are$considered$bound$by$any$outcome$arising$from$the$offer$of$evidence$properly$
presented.32!(Emphasis!supplied.)!
Bearing!in!mind!that!the!claim!check!voucher!and!the!Release!of!Claim!and!Subrogation!Receipt!presented!by!Malayan!Insurance!are!already!part!
of!the!evidence!on!record,!and!since!it!is!not!disputed!that!the!insurance!company,!indeed,!paid!PhP!700,000!to!the!assured,!then!there!is!a!valid!
subrogation!in!the!case!at!bar.!As!explained!in!Keppel!Cebu!Shipyard,!Inc.!v.!Pioneer!Insurance!and!Surety!Corporation:!
Subrogation!is!the!substitution!of!one!person!by!another!with!reference!to!a!lawful!claim!or!right,!so!that!he!who!is!substituted!succeeds!to!the!
rights!of!the!other!in!relation!to!a!debt!or!claim,!including!its!remedies!or!securities.!The!principle!covers!a!situation!wherein!an!insurer!has!paid!a!
loss!under!an!insurance!policy!is!entitled!to!all!the!rights!and!remedies!belonging!to!the!insured!against!a!third!party!with!respect!to!any!loss!
covered!by!the!policy.!It!contemplates!full!substitution!such!that!it!places!the!party!subrogated!in!the!shoes!of!the!creditor,!and!he!may!use!all!
means!that!the!creditor!could!employ!to!enforce!payment.1wphi1!
We!have!held!that!payment!by!the!insurer!to!the!insured!operates!as!an!equitable!assignment!to!the!insurer!of!all!the!remedies!that!the!insured!
may!have!against!the!third!party!whose!negligence!or!wrongful!act!caused!the!loss.!The!right!of!subrogation!is!not!dependent!upon,!nor!does!it!
grow!out!of,!any!privity!of!contract.!It!accrues!simply!upon!payment!by!the!insurance!company!of!the!insurance!claim.!The!doctrine!of!subrogation!
has!its!roots!in!equity.!It!is!designed!to!promote!and!to!accomplish!justice;!and!is!the!mode!that!equity!adopts!to!compel!the!ultimate!payment!of!a!
debt!by!one!who,!in!justice,!equity,!and!good!conscience,!ought!to!pay.33!
Considering!the!above!ruling,!it!is!only!but!proper!that!Malayan!Insurance!be!subrogated!to!the!rights!of!the!assured.!

WHEREFORE,!the!petition!is!hereby!GRANTED.!The!CAs!July!28,!2010!Decision!and!October!29,!2010!Resolution!in!CA/G.R.!CV!No.!93112!are!hereby!
REVERSED!and!SET!ASIDE.!The!Decision!dated!February!2,!2009!issued!by!the!trial!court!in!Civil!Case!No.!99/95885!is!hereby!REINSTATED.!
No!pronouncement!as!to!cost.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!

G.R.$No.$137873$$$$$$$April$20,$2001$
D.$M.$CONSUNJI,$INC.,$petitioner,!!
vs.!
COURT$OF$APPEALS$and$MARIA$J.$JUEGO,$respondents.!
KAPUNAN,$J.:!
At!around!1:30!p.m.,!November!2,!1990,!Jose!Juego,!a!construction!worker!of!D.!M.!Consunji,!Inc.,!fell!14!floors!from!the!Renaissance!Tower,!Pasig!
City!to!his!death.!
PO3!Rogelio!Villanueva!of!the!Eastern!Police!District!investigated!the!tragedy!and!filed!a!report!dated!November!25,!1990,!stating!that:!
x!x!x.![The]![v]ictim!was!rushed!to![the]!Rizal!Medical!Center!in!Pasig,!Metro!Manila!where!he!was!pronounced!dead!on!arrival!(DOA)!by!the!
attending!physician,!Dr.!Errol!de!Yzo[,]!at!around!2:15!p.m.!of!the!same!date.!
Investigation!disclosed!that!at!the!given!time,!date!and!place,!while!victim!Jose!A.!Juego!together!with!Jessie!Jaluag!and!Delso!Destajo![were]!
performing!their!work!as!carpenter[s]!at!the!elevator!core!of!the!14th!floor!of!the!Tower!D,!Renaissance!Tower!Building!on!board!a![p]latform!made!
of!channel!beam!(steel)!measuring!4.8!meters!by!2!meters!wide!with!pinulid!plywood!flooring!and!cable!wires!attached!to!its!four!corners!and!
hooked!at!the!5!ton!chain!block,!when!suddenly,!the!bolt!or!pin!which!was!merely!inserted!to!connect!the!chain!block!with!the![p]latform,!got!loose!
xxx!causing!the!whole![p]latform!assembly!and!the!victim!to!fall!down!to!the!basement!of!the!elevator!core,!Tower!D!of!the!building!under!
construction!thereby!crushing!the!victim!of!death,!save!his!two!(2)!companions!who!luckily!jumped!out!for!safety.!
It!is!thus!manifest!that!Jose!A.!Juego!was!crushed!to!death!when!the![p]latform!he!was!then!on!board!and!performing!work,!fell.!And!the!falling!of!
the![p]latform!was!due!to!the!removal!or!getting!loose!of!the!pin!which!was!merely!inserted!to!the!connecting!points!of!the!chain!block!and!
[p]latform!but!without!a!safety!lock.1!
On!May!9,!1991,!Jose!Juegos!widow,!Maria,!filed!in!the!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Pasig!a!complaint!for!damages!against!the!deceaseds!
employer,!D.M.!Consunji,!Inc.!The!employer!raised,!among!other!defenses,!the!widows!prior!availment!of!the!benefits!from!the!State!Insurance!
Fund.!
After!trial,!the!RTC!rendered!a!decision!in!favor!of!the!widow!Maria!Juego.!The!dispositive!portion!of!the!RTC!decision!reads:!
WHEREFORE,!judgment!is!hereby!rendered!ordering!defendant!to!pay!plaintiff,!as!follows:!
1.!P50,000.00!for!the!death!of!Jose!A.!Juego.!

2.!P10,000.00!as!actual!and!compensatory!damages.!
3.!P464,000.00!for!the!loss!of!Jose!A.!Juegos!earning!capacity.!
4.!P100,000.00!as!moral!damages.!
5.!P20,000.00!as!attorneys!fees,!plus!the!costs!of!suit.!
SO!ORDERED.2!
On!appeal!by!D.!M.!Consunji,!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA)!affirmed!the!decision!of!the!RTC!in+toto.!
D.!M.!Consunji!now!seeks!the!reversal!of!the!CA!decision!on!the!following!grounds:!

THE!APPELLATE!COURT!ERRED!IN!HOLDING!THAT!THE!POLICE!REPORT!WAS!ADMISSIBLE!EVIDENCE!OF!THE!ALLEGED!NEGLIGENCE!OF!
PETITIONER.!

THE!APPELLATE!COURT!ERRED!IN!HOLDING!THAT!THE!DOCTRINE!OF!RES+IPSA+LOQUITOR[sic]!IS!APPLICABLE!TO!PROVE!NEGLIGENCE!
ON!THE!PART!OF!PETITIONER.!

THE!APPELLATE!COURT!ERRED!IN!HOLDING!THAT!PETITIONER!IS!PRESUMED!NEGLIGENT!UNDER!ARTICLE!2180!OF!THE!CIVIL!CODE,!
AND!

THE!APPELLATE!COURT!ERRED!IN!HOLDING!THAT!RESPONDENT!IS!NOT!PRECLUDED!FROM!RECOVERING!DAMAGES!UNDER!THE!CIVIL!
CODE.3!

Petitioner!maintains!that!the!police!report!reproduced!above!is!hearsay!and,!therefore,!inadmissible.!The!CA!ruled!otherwise.!It!held!that!said!
report,!being!an!entry!in!official!records,!is!an!exception!to!the!hearsay!rule.!
The!Rules!of!Court!provide!that!a!witness!can!testify!only!to!those!facts!which!he!knows!of!his!personal!knowledge,!that!is,!which!are!derived!from!
his!perception.4!A!witness,!therefore,!may!not!testify!as!what!he!merely!learned!from!others!either!because!he!was!told!or!read!or!heard!the!same.!
Such!testimony!is!considered!hearsay!and!may!not!be!received!as!proof!of!the!truth!of!what!he!has!learned.5!This!is!known!as!the!hearsay!rule.!
Hearsay!is!not!limited!to!oral!testimony!or!statements;!the!general!rule!that!excludes!hearsay!as!evidence!applies!to!written,!as!well!as!oral!
statements.6!

The!theory!of!the!hearsay!rule!is!that!the!many!possible!deficiencies,!suppressions,!sources!of!error!and!untrustworthiness,!which!lie!underneath!
the!bare!untested!assertion!of!a!witness,!may!be!best!brought!to!light!and!exposed!by!the!test!of!cross/examiantion.7!The!hearsay!rule,!therefore,!
excludes!evidence!that!cannot!be!tested!by!cross/examination.8!
The!Rules!of!Court!allow!several!exceptions!to!the!rule,9!among!which!are!entries!in!official!records.!Section!44,!Rule!130!provides:!
Entries!in!official!records!made!in!the!performance!of!his!duty!made!in!the!performance!of!his!duty!by!a!public!officer!of!the!Philippines,!or!by!a!
person!in!the!performance!of!a!duty!specially!enjoined!by!law!areprima+facie!evidence!of!the!facts!therein!stated.!
In!Africa,+et+al.+vs.+Caltex+(Phil.),+Inc.,+et+al.,10!this!Court,!citing!the!work!of!Chief!Justice!Moran,!enumerated!the!requisites!for!admissibility!under!
the!above!rule:!
(a)!that!the!entry!was!made!by!a!public!officer!or!by!another!person!specially!enjoined!by!law!to!do!so;!
(b)!that!it!was!made!by!the!public!officer!in!the!performance!of!his!duties,!or!by!such!other!person!in!the!performance!of!a!duty!specially!enjoined!
by!law;!and!
(c)!that!the!public!officer!or!other!person!had!sufficient!knowledge!of!the!facts!by!him!stated,!which!must!have!been!acquired!by!him!personally!or!
through!official!information.!
The!CA!held!that!the!police!report!meets!all!these!requisites.!Petitioner!contends!that!the!last!requisite!is!not!present.!
The!Court!notes!that!PO3!Villanueva,!who!signed!the!report!in!question,!also!testified!before!the!trial!court.!InRodriguez+vs.+Court+of+
Appeals,11!which!involved!a!Fire!Investigation!Report,!the!officer!who!signed!the!fire!report!also!testified!before!the!trial!court.!This!Court!held!that!
the!report!was!inadmissible!for!the!purpose!of!proving!the!truth!of!the!statements!contained!in!the!report!but!admissible!insofar!as!it!constitutes!
part!of!the!testimony!of!the!officer!who!executed!the!report.!
x!x!x.!Since!Major!Enriquez!himself!took!the!witness!stand!and!was!available!for!cross/examination,!the!portions!of!the!report!which!were!of!his!
personal!knowledge!or!which!consisted!of!his!perceptions!and!conclusions!were!not!hearsay.!The!rest!of!the!report,!such!as!the!summary!of!the!
statements!of!the!parties!based!on!their!sworn!statements!(which!were!annexed!to!the!Report)!as!well!as!the!latter,!having!been!included!in!the!
first!purpose!of!the!offer![as!part!of!the!testimony!of!Major!Enriquez],!may!then!be!considered!as!independently+relevant+statements!which!were!
gathered!in!the!course!of!the!investigation!and!may!thus!be!admitted!as!such,!but!not!necessarily!to!prove!the!truth!thereof.!It!has!been!said!that:!
"Where!regardless!of!the!truth!or!falsity!of!a!statement,!the!fact!that!it!has!been!made!is!relevant,!the!hearsay!rule!does!not!apply,!but!the!
statement!may!be!shown.!Evidence!as!to!the!making!of!such!statement!is!not!secondary!but!primary,!for!the!statement!itself!may!constitute!a!fact!
in!issue,!or!be!circumstantially!relevant!as!to!the!existence!of!such!a!fact."!

When!Major!Enriquez!took!the!witness!stand,!testified!for!petitioners!on!his!Report!and!made!himself!available!for!cross/examination!by!the!
adverse!party,!the!Report,!insofar!as!it!proved!that!certain!utterances!were!made!(but!not!their!truth),!was!effectively!removed!from!the!ambit!of!
the!aforementioned!Section!44!of!Rule!130.!Properly!understood,!this!section!does!away!with!the!testimony!in!open!court!of!the!officer!who!made!
the!official!record,!considers!the!matter!as!an!exception!to!the!hearsay!rule!and!makes!the!entries!in!said!official!record!admissible!in!evidence!
as!prima+facie!evidence!of!the!facts!therein!stated.!The!underlying!reasons!for!this!exceptionary!rule!are!necessity!and!trustworthiness,!as!
explained!in!Antillon+v.+Barcelon.!
The!litigation!is!unlimited!in!which!testimony!by!officials!is!daily!needed;!the!occasions!in!which!the!officials!would!be!summoned!from!his!ordinary!
duties!to!declare!as!a!witness!are!numberless.!The!public!officers!are!few!in!whose!daily!work!something!is!not!done!in!which!testimony!is!not!
needed!from!official!sources.!Were!there!no!exception!for!official!statements,!hosts!of!officials!would!be!found!devoting!the!greater!part!of!their!
time!to!attending!as!witnesses!in!court!or!delivering!deposition!before!an!officer.!The!work!of!administration!of!government!and!the!interest!of!the!
public!having!business!with!officials!would!alike!suffer!in!consequence.!For!these!reasons,!and!for!many!others,!a!certain!verity!is!accorded!such!
documents,!which!is!not!extended!to!private!documents.!(3!Wigmore!on!Evidence,!Sec.!1631).!
The!law!reposes!a!particular!confidence!in!public!officers!that!it!presumes!they!will!discharge!their!several!trusts!with!accuracy!and!fidelity;!and,!
therefore,!whatever!acts!they!do!in!discharge!of!their!duty!may!be!given!in!evidence!and!shall!be!taken!to!be!true!under!such!a!degree!of!caution!
as!to!the!nature!and!circumstances!of!each!case!may!appear!to!require.!
It!would!have!been!an!entirely!different!matter!if!Major!Enriquez!was!not!presented!to!testify!on!his!report.!In!that!case!the!applicability!of!Section!
44!of!Rule!143!would!have!been!ripe!for!determination,!and!this!Court!would!have!agreed!with!the!Court!of!Appeals!that!said!report!was!
inadmissible!since!the!aforementioned!third!requisite!was!not!satisfied.!The!statements!given!by!the!sources!of!information!of!Major!Enriquez!
failed!to!qualify!as!"official!information,"!there!being!no!showing!that,!at!the!very!least,!they!were!under!a!duty!to!give!the!statements!for!record.!
Similarly,!the!police!report!in!this!case!is!inadmissible!for!the!purpose!of!proving!the!truth!of!the!statements!contained!therein!but!is!admissible!
insofar!as!it!constitutes!part!of!the!testimony!of!PO3!Villanueva.!
In!any!case,!the!Court!holds!that!portions!of!PO3!Villanuevas!testimony!which!were!of!his!personal!knowledge!suffice!to!prove!that!Jose!Juego!
indeed!died!as!a!result!of!the!elevator!crash.!PO3!Villanueva!had!seen!Juegos!remains!at!the!morgue,12!making!the!latters!death!beyond!dispute.!
PO3!Villanueva!also!conducted!an!ocular!inspection!of!the!premises!of!the!building!the!day!after!the!incident13!and!saw!the!platform!for!
himself.14!He!observed!that!the!platform!was!crushed15!and!that!it!was!totally!damaged.16!PO3!Villanueva!also!required!Garcia!and!Fabro!to!bring!
the!chain!block!to!the!police!headquarters.!Upon!inspection,!he!noticed!that!the!chain!was!detached!from!the!lifting!machine,!without!any!pin!or!
bolt.17!
What!petitioner!takes!particular!exception!to!is!PO3!Villanuevas!testimony!that!the!cause!of!the!fall!of!the!platform!was!the!loosening!of!the!bolt!
from!the!chain!block.!It!is!claimed!that!such!portion!of!the!testimony!is!mere!opinion.!Subject!to!certain!exceptions,18!the!opinion!of!a!witness!is!
generally!not!admissible.19!

Petitioners!contention,!however,!loses!relevance!in!the!face!of!the!application!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!by!the!CA.!The!effect!of!the!doctrine!is!to!
warrant!a!presumption!or!inference!that!the!mere!fall!of!the!elevator!was!a!result!of!the!person!having!charge!of!the!instrumentality!was!negligent.!
As!a!rule!of!evidence,!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquituris!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.20!
The!concept!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+has!been!explained!in!this!wise:!
While!negligence!is!not!ordinarily!inferred!or!presumed,!and!while!the!mere!happening!of!an!accident!or!injury!will!not!generally!give!rise!to!an!
inference!or!presumption!that!it!was!due!to!negligence!on!defendants!part,!under!the!doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur,!which!means,!literally,!the!
thing!or!transaction!speaks!for!itself,!or!in!one!jurisdiction,!that!the!thing!or!instrumentality!speaks!for!itself,!the!facts!or!circumstances!
accompanying!an!injury!may!be!such!as!to!raise!a!presumption,!or!at!least!permit!an!inference!of!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!defendant,!or!some!
other!person!who!is!charged!with!negligence.!
x!x!x!where!it!is!shown!that!the!thing!or!instrumentality!which!caused!the!injury!complained!of!was!under!the!control!or!management!of!the!
defendant,!and!that!the!occurrence!resulting!in!the!injury!was!such!as!in!the!ordinary!course!of!things!would!not!happen!if!those!who!had!its!
control!or!management!used!proper!care,!there!is!sufficient!evidence,!or,!as!sometimes!stated,!reasonable!evidence,!in!the!absence!of!explanation!
by!the!defendant,!that!the!injury!arose!from!or!was!caused!by!the!defendants!want!of!care.21!
One!of!the!theoretical!based!for!the!doctrine!is!its!necessity,!i.e.,!that!necessary!evidence!is!absent!or!not!available.22!
The!res!ipsa!loquitur!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.!Accordingly,!some!court!add!to!the!three!prerequisites!for!the!application!of!
the!res!ipsa!loquitur!doctrine!the!further!requirement!that!for!the!res!ipsa!loquitur!doctrine!to!apply,!it!must!appear!that!the!injured!party!had!no!
knowledge!or!means!of!knowledge!as!to!the!cause!of!the!accident,!or!that!the!party!to!be!charged!with!negligence!has!superior!knowledge!or!
opportunity!for!explanation!of!the!accident.23!
The!CA!held!that!all!the!requisites!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!are!present!in!the!case!at!bar:!

There!is!no!dispute!that!appellees!husband!fell!down!from!the!14th!floor!of!a!building!to!the!basement!while!he!was!working!with!appellants!
construction!project,!resulting!to!his!death.!The!construction!site!is!within!the!exclusive!control!and!management!of!appellant.!It!has!a!safety!
engineer,!a!project!superintendent,!a!carpenter!leadman!and!others!who!are!in!complete!control!of!the!situation!therein.!The!circumstances!of!any!
accident!that!would!occur!therein!are!peculiarly!within!the!knowledge!of!the!appellant!or!its!employees.!On!the!other!hand,!the!appellee!is!not!in!a!
position!to!know!what!caused!the!accident.!Res+ipsa+loquitur!is!a!rule!of!necessity!and!it!applies!where!evidence!is!absent!or!not!readily!available,!
provided!the!following!requisites!are!present:!(1)!the!accident!was!of!a!kind!which!does!not!ordinarily!occur!unless!someone!is!negligent;!(2)!the!
instrumentality!or!agency!which!caused!the!injury!was!under!the!exclusive!control!of!the!person!charged!with!negligence;!and!(3)!the!injury!
suffered!must!not!have!been!due!to!any!voluntary!action!or!contribution!on!the!part!of!the!person!injured.!x!x!x.!
No!worker!is!going!to!fall!from!the!14th!floor!of!a!building!to!the!basement!while!performing!work!in!a!construction!site!unless!someone!is!
negligent[;]!thus,!the!first!requisite!for!the!application!of!the!rule!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+is!present.!As!explained!earlier,!the!construction!site!with!all!
its!paraphernalia!and!human!resources!that!likely!caused!the!injury!is!under!the!exclusive!control!and!management!of!appellant[;]!thus[,]!the!
second!requisite!is!also!present.!No!contributory!negligence!was!attributed!to!the!appellees!deceased!husband[;]!thus[,]!the!last!requisite!is!also!
present.!All!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!rule!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!are!present,!thus!a!reasonable!presumption!or!inference!of!appellants!
negligence!arises.!x!x!x.24!
Petitioner!does!not!dispute!the!existence!of!the!requisites!for!the!application!of!res+ipsa+loquitur,!but!argues!that!the!presumption!or!inference!that!
it!was!negligent!did!not!arise!since!it!"proved!that!it!exercised!due!care!to!avoid!the!accident!which!befell!respondents!husband."!
Petitioner!apparently!misapprehends!the!procedural!effect!of!the!doctrine.!As!stated!earlier,!the!defendants!negligence!is!presumed!or!
inferred25!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.26!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.27!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.1wphi1.nt!
In!any!case,!petitioner!cites!the!sworn!statement!of!its!leadman!Ferdinand!Fabro!executed!before!the!police!investigator!as!evidence!of!its!due!
care.!According!to!Fabros!sworn!statement,!the!company!enacted!rules!and!regulations!for!the!safety!and!security!of!its!workers.!Moreover,!the!
leadman!and!the!bodegero!inspect!the!chain!block!before!allowing!its!use.!
It!is!ironic!that!petitioner!relies!on!Fabros!sworn!statement!as!proof!of!its!due!care!but,!in!arguing!that!private!respondent!failed!to!prove!
negligence!on!the!part!of!petitioners!employees,!also!assails!the!same!statement!for!being!hearsay.!
Petitioner!is!correct.!Fabros!sworn!statement!is!hearsay!and!inadmissible.!Affidavits!are!inadmissible!as!evidence!under!the!hearsay!rule,!unless!
the!affiant!is!placed!on!the!witness!stand!to!testify!thereon.28!The!inadmissibility!of!this!sort!of!evidence!is!based!not!only!on!the!lack!of!
opportunity!on!the!part!of!the!adverse!party!to!cross/examine!the!affiant,!but!also!on!the!commonly!known!fact!that,!generally,!an!affidavit!is!not!
prepared!by!the!affiant!himself!but!by!another!who!uses!his!own!language!in!writing!the!affiants!statements!which!may!either!be!omitted!or!

misunderstood!by!the!one!writing!them.29!Petitioner,!therefore,!cannot!use!said!statement!as!proof!of!its!due!care!any!more!than!private!
respondent!can!use!it!to!prove!the!cause!of!her!husbands!death.!Regrettably,!petitioner!does!not!cite!any!other!evidence!to!rebut!the!inference!or!
presumption!of!negligence!arising!from!the!application!of!res+ipsa+loquitur,!or!to!establish!any!defense!relating!to!the!incident.!
Next,!petitioner!argues!that!private!respondent!had!previously!availed!of!the!death!benefits!provided!under!the!Labor!Code!and!is,!therefore,!
precluded!from!claiming!from!the!deceaseds!employer!damages!under!the!Civil!Code.!
Article!173!of!the!Labor!Code!states:!
Article!173.!Extent!of!liability.!!Unless!otherwise!provided,!the!liability!of!the!State!Insurance!Fund!under!this!Title!shall!be!exclusive!and!in!place!of!
all!other!liabilities!of!the!employer!to!the!employee,!his!dependents!or!anyone!otherwise!entitled!to!receive!damages!on!behalf!of!the!employee!or!
his!dependents.!The!payment!of!compensation!under!this!Title!shall!not!bar!the!recovery!of!benefits!as!provided!for!in!Section!699!of!the!Revised!
Administrative!Code,!Republic!Act!Numbered!Eleven!hundred!sixty/one,!as!amended,!Republic!Act!Numbered!Six!hundred!ten,!as!amended,!
Republic!Act!Numbered!Forty/eight!hundred!sixty/four!as!amended,!and!other!laws!whose!benefits!are!administered!by!the!System!or!by!other!
agencies!of!the!government.!
The!precursor!of!Article!173!of!the!Labor!Code,!Section!5!of!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act,!provided!that:!
Section!5.!Exclusive+right+to+compensation.!!The!rights!and!remedies!granted!by!this!Act!to!an!employee!by!reason!of!a!personal!injury!entitling!
him!to!compensation!shall!exclude!all!other!rights!and!remedies!accruing!to!the!employee,!his!personal!representatives,!dependents!or!nearest!of!
kin!against!the!employer!under!the!Civil!Code!and!other!laws!because!of!said!injury!x!x!x.!
Whether!Section!5!of!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!allowed!recovery!under!said!Act!as!well!as!under!the!Civil!Code!used!to!be!the!subject!of!
conflicting!decisions.!The!Court!finally!settled!the!matter!in!Floresca+vs.Philex+Mining+Corporation,30!which!involved!a!cave/in!resulting!in!the!death!
of!the!employees!of!the!Philex!Mining!Corporation.!Alleging!that!the!mining!corporation,!in!violation!of!government!rules!and!regulations,!failed!to!
take!the!required!precautions!for!the!protection!of!the!employees,!the!heirs!of!the!deceased!employees!filed!a!complaint!against!Philex!Mining!in!
the!Court!of!First!Instance!(CFI).!Upon!motion!of!Philex!Mining,!the!CFI!dismissed!the!complaint!for!lack!of!jurisdiction.!The!heirs!sought!relief!from!
this!Court.!
Addressing!the!issue!of!whether!the!heirs!had!a!choice!of!remedies,!majority!of!the!Court!En+Banc,31!following!the!rule!in!Pacaa+vs.+Cebu+Autobus+
Company,!held!in!the!affirmative.!
WE!now!come!to!the!query!as!to!whether!or!not!the!injured!employee!or!his!heirs!in!case!of!death!have!a!right!of!selection!or!choice!of!action!
between!availing!themselves!of!the!workers!right!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!and!suing!in!the!regular!courts!under!the!Civil!Code!for!
higher!damages!(actual,!moral!and!exemplary)!from!the!employers!by!virtue!of!the!negligence!or!fault!of!the!employers!or!whether!they!may!avail!
themselves!cumulatively!of!both!actions,!i.e.,!collect!the!limited!compensation!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!and!sue!in!addition!for!
damages!in!the!regular!courts.!

In!disposing!of!a!similar!issue,!this!Court!in!Pacaa!vs.!Cebu!Autobus!Company,!32!SCRA!442,!ruled!thatan!injured!worker!has!a!choice!of!either!to!
recover!from!the!employer!the!fixed!amounts!set!by!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!or!to!prosecute!an!ordinary!civil!action!against!the!
tortfeasor!for!higher!damages!but!he!cannot!pursue!both!courses!of!action!simultaneously.![Underscoring!supplied.]!
Nevertheless,!the!Court!allowed!some!of!the!petitioners!in!said!case!to!proceed!with!their!suit!under!the!Civil!Code!despite!having!availed!of!the!
benefits!provided!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act.!The!Court!reasoned:!
With!regard!to!the!other!petitioners,!it!was!alleged!by!Philex!in!its!motion!to!dismiss!dated!May!14,!1968!before!the!court!a+quo,!that!the!heirs!of!
the!deceased!employees,!namely!Emerito!Obra,!Larry!Villar,!Jr.,!Aurelio!Lanuza,!Lorenzo!Isla!and!Saturnino!submitted!notices!and!claims!for!
compensation!to!the!Regional!Office!No.!1!of!the!then!Department!of!Labor!and!all!of!them!have!been!paid!in!full!as!of!August!25,!1967,!except!
Saturnino!Martinez!whose!heirs!decided!that!they!be!paid!in!installments!x!x!x.!Such!allegation!was!admitted!by!herein!petitioners!in!their!
opposition!to!the!motion!to!dismiss!dated!may!27,!1968!x!x!x!in!the!lower!court,!but!they!set!up!the!defense!that!the!claims!were!filed!under!the!
Workmens!Compensation!Act!before!they!learned!of!the!official!report!of!the!committee!created!to!investigate!the!accident!which!established!the!
criminal!negligence!and!violation!of!law!by!Philex,!and!which!report!was!forwarded!by!the!Director!of!Mines!to!then!Executive!Secretary!Rafael!
Salas!in!a!letter!dated!October!19,!1967!only!x!x!x.!
WE!hold!that!although!the!other!petitioners!had!received!the!benefits!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act,!such!my!not!preclude!them!from!
bringing!an!action!before!the!regular!court!because!they!became!cognizant!of!the!fact!that!Philex!has!been!remiss!in!its!contractual!obligations!with!
the!deceased!miners!only!after!receiving!compensation!under!the!Act.!Had!petitioners!been!aware!of!said!violation!of!government!rules!and!
regulations!by!Philex,!and!of!its!negligence,!they!would!not!have!sought!redress!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Commission!which!awarded!a!
lesser!amount!for!compensation.!The!choice!of!the!first!remedy!was!based!on!ignorance!or!a!mistake!of!fact,!which!nullifies!the!choice!as!it!was!not!
an!intelligent!choice.!The!case!should!therefore!be!remanded!to!the!lower!court!for!further!proceedings.!However,!should!the!petitioners!be!
successful!in!their!bid!before!the!lower!court,!the!payments!made!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!should!be!deducted!from!the!damages!
that!may!be!decreed!in!their!favor.![Underscoring!supplied.]!
The!ruling!in!Floresca!providing!the!claimant!a!choice!of!remedies!was!reiterated!in!Ysmael+Maritime+Corporation+vs.+Avelino,32!Vda.+De+Severo+vs.+
FelicianoAGo,33!and!Marcopper+Mining+Corp.+vs.+Abeleda.34!In!the!last!case,!the!Court!again!recognized!that!a!claimant!who!had!been!paid!under!the!
Act!could!still!sue!under!the!Civil!Code.!The!Court!said:!
In!the!Robles!case,!it!was!held!that!claims!for!damages!sustained!by!workers!in!the!course!of!their!employment!could!be!filed!only!under!the!
Workmens!Compensation!Law,!to!the!exclusion!of!all!further!claims!under!other!laws.!In!Floresca,!this!doctrine!was!abrogated!in!favor!of!the!new!
rule!that!the!claimants!may!invoke!either!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!or!the!provisions!of!the!Civil!Code,!subject!to!the!consequence!that!the!
choice!of!one!remedy!will!exclude!the!other!and!that!the!acceptance!of!compensation!under!the!remedy!chosen!will!preclude!a!claim!for!additional!
benefits!under!the!other!remedy.!The!exception!is!where!a!claimant!who!has!already!been!paid!under!the!Workmens!Compensation!Act!may!still!
sue!for!damages!under!the!Civil!Code!on!the!basis!of!supervening!facts!or!developments!occurring!after!he!opted!for!the!first!remedy.!
(Underscoring!supplied.)!

Here,!the!CA!held!that!private!respondents!case!came!under!the!exception!because!private!respondent!was!unaware!of!petitioners!negligence!
when!she!filed!her!claim!for!death!benefits!from!the!State!Insurance!Fund.!Private!respondent!filed!the!civil!complaint!for!damages!after!she!
received!a!copy!of!the!police!investigation!report!and!the!Prosecutors!Memorandum!dismissing!the!criminal!complaint!against!petitioners!
personnel.!While!stating!that!there!was!no!negligence!attributable!to!the!respondents!in!the!complaint,!the!prosecutor!nevertheless!noted!in!the!
Memorandum!that,!"if!at!all,"!the!"case!is!civil!in!nature."!The!CA!thus!applied!the!exception!in!Floresca:!
x!x!x!We!do!not!agree!that!appellee!hasknowledge!of!the!alleged!negligence!of!appellant!as!early!as!November!25,!1990,!the!date!of!the!police!
investigators!report.!The!appellee!merely!executed!her!sworn!statement!before!the!police!investigator!concerning!her!personal!circumstances,!her!
relation!to!the!victim,!and!her!knowledge!of!the!accident.!She!did!not!file!the!complaint!for!"Simple!Negligence!Resulting!to!Homicide"!against!
appellants!employees.!It!was!the!investigator!who!recommended!the!filing!of!said!case!and!his!supervisor!referred!the!same!to!the!prosecutors!
office.!This!is!a!standard!operating!procedure!for!police!investigators!which!appellee!may!not!have!even!known.!This!may!explain!why!no!
complainant!is!mentioned!in!the!preliminary!statement!of!the!public!prosecutor!in!her!memorandum!dated!February!6,!1991,!to!wit:!"Respondent!
Ferdinand!Fabro!x!x!x!are!being!charged!by!complainant!of!"Simple!Negligence!Resulting!to!Homicide."!It!is!also!possible!that!the!appellee!did!not!
have!a!chance!to!appear!before!the!public!prosecutor!as!can!be!inferred!from!the!following!statement!in!said!memorandum:!"Respondents!who!
were!notified!pursuant!to!Law!waived!their!rights!to!present!controverting!evidence,"!thus!there!was!no!reason!for!the!public!prosecutor!to!
summon!the!appellee.!Hence,!notice!of!appellants!negligence!cannot!be!imputed!on!appellee!before!she!applied!for!death!benefits!under!ECC!or!
before!she!received!the!first!payment!therefrom.!Her!using!the!police!investigation!report!to!support!her!complaint!filed!on!May!9,!1991!may!just!
be!an!afterthought!after!receiving!a!copy!of!the!February!6,!1991!Memorandum!of!the!Prosecutors!Office!dismissing!the!criminal!complaint!for!
insufficiency!of!evidence,!stating!therein!that:!"The!death!of!the!victim!is!not!attributable!to!any!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!respondents.!If!at!all!
and!as!shown!by!the!records!this!case!is!civil!in!nature."!(Underscoring!supplied.)!Considering!the!foregoing,!We!are!more!inclined!to!believe!
appellees!allegation!that!she!learned!about!appellants!negligence!only!after!she!applied!for!and!received!the!benefits!under!ECC.!This!is!a!mistake!
of!fact!that!will!make!this!case!fall!under!the!exception!held!in!the!Floresca!ruling.35!
The!CA!further!held!that!not!only!was!private!respondent!ignorant!of!the!facts,!but!of!her!rights!as!well:!
x!x!x.!Appellee![Maria!Juego]!testified!that!she!has!reached!only!elementary!school!for!her!educational!attainment;!that!she!did!not!know!what!
damages!could!be!recovered!from!the!death!of!her!husband;!and!that!she!did!not!know!that!she!may!also!recover!more!from!the!Civil!Code!than!
from!the!ECC.!x!x!x.36!
Petitioner!impugns!the!foregoing!rulings.!It!contends!that!private!respondent!"failed!to!allege!in!her!complaint!that!her!application!and!receipt!of!
benefits!from!the!ECC!were!attended!by!ignorance!or!mistake!of!fact.!Not!being!an!issue!submitted!during!the!trial,!the!trial!court!had!no!authority!
to!hear!or!adjudicate!that!issue."!
Petitioner!also!claims!that!private!respondent!could!not!have!been!ignorant!of!the!facts!because!as!early!as!November!28,!1990,!private!
respondent!was!the!complainant!in!a!criminal!complaint!for!"Simple!Negligence!Resulting!to!Homicide"!against!petitioners!employees.!On!
February!6,!1991,!two!months!before!the!filing!of!the!action!in!the!lower!court,!Prosecutor!Lorna!Lee!issued!a!resolution!finding!that,!although!
there!was!insufficient!evidence!against!petitioners!employees,!the!case!was!"civil!in!nature."!These!purportedly!show!that!prior!to!her!receipt!of!

death!benefits!from!the!ECC!on!January!2,!1991!and!every!month!thereafter,!private!respondent!also!knew!of!the!two!choices!of!remedies!
available!to!her!and!yet!she!chose!to!claim!and!receive!the!benefits!from!the!ECC.!
When!a!party!having!knowledge!of!the!facts!makes!an!election!between!inconsistent!remedies,!the!election!is!final!and!bars!any!action,!suit,!or!
proceeding!inconsistent!with!the!elected!remedy,!in!the!absence!of!fraud!by!the!other!party.!The!first!act!of!election!acts!as!a!bar.37!Equitable!in!
nature,!the!doctrine!of!election!of!remedies!is!designed!to!mitigate!possible!unfairness!to!both!parties.!It!rests!on!the!moral!premise!that!it!is!fair!to!
hold!people!responsible!for!their!choices.!The!purpose!of!the!doctrine!is!not!to!prevent!any!recourse!to!any!remedy,!but!to!prevent!a!double!
redress!for!a!single!wrong.38!
The!choice!of!a!party!between!inconsistent!remedies!results!in!a!waiver!by!election.!Hence,!the!rule!in!Florescathat!a!claimant!cannot!
simultaneously!pursue!recovery!under!the!Labor!Code!and!prosecute!an!ordinary!course!of!action!under!the!Civil!Code.!The!claimant,!by!his!choice!
of!one!remedy,!is!deemed!to!have!waived!the!other.!
Waiver!is!the!intentional!relinquishment!of!a!known!right.39!
[It]!is!an!act!of!understanding!that!presupposes!that!a!party!has!knowledge!of!its!rights,!but!chooses!not!to!assert!them.!It!must!be!generally!shown!
by!the!party!claiming!a!waiver!that!the!person!against!whom!the!waiver!is!asserted!had!at!the!time!knowledge,!actual!or!constructive,!of!the!
existence!of!the!partys!rights!or!of!all!material!facts!upon!which!they!depended.!Where!one!lacks!knowledge!of!a!right,!there!is!no!basis!upon!
which!waiver!of!it!can!rest.!Ignorance!of!a!material!fact!negates!waiver,!and!waiver!cannot!be!established!by!a!consent!given!under!a!mistake!or!
misapprehension!of!fact.!
A!person!makes!a!knowing!and!intelligent!waiver!when!that!person!knows!that!a!right!exists!and!has!adequate!knowledge!upon!which!to!make!an!
intelligent!decision.!
Waiver!requires!a!knowledge!of!the!facts!basic!to!the!exercise!of!the!right!waived,!with!an!awareness!of!its!consequences.!That!a!waiver!is!made!
knowingly!and!intelligently!must!be!illustrated!on!the!record!or!by!the!evidence.40!
That!lack!of!knowledge!of!a!fact!that!nullifies!the!election!of!a!remedy!is!the!basis!for!the!exception!in!Floresca.!
It!is!in!light!of!the!foregoing!principles!that!we!address!petitioners!contentions.!
Waiver!is!a!defense,!and!it!was!not!incumbent!upon!private!respondent,!as!plaintiff,!to!allege!in!her!complaint!that!she!had!availed!of!benefits!from!
the!ECC.!It!is,!thus,!erroneous!for!petitioner!to!burden!private!respondent!with!raising!waiver!as!an!issue.!On!the!contrary,!it!is!the!defendant!who!
ought!to!plead!waiver,!as!petitioner!did!in!pages!2/3!of!its!Answer;41!otherwise,!the!defense!is!waived.!It!is,!therefore,!perplexing!for!petitioner!to!
now!contend!that!the!trial!court!had!no!jurisdiction!over!the!issue!when!petitioner!itself!pleaded!waiver!in!the!proceedings!before!the!trial!court.!

Does!the!evidence!show!that!private!respondent!knew!of!the!facts!that!led!to!her!husbands!death!and!the!rights!pertaining!to!a!choice!of!
remedies?!
It!bears!stressing!that!what!negates!waiver!is!lack!of!knowledge!or!a!mistake!of!fact.!In!this!case,!the!"fact"!that!served!as!a!basis!for!nullifying!the!
waiver!is!the!negligence!of!petitioners!employees,!of!which!private!respondent!purportedly!learned!only!after!the!prosecutor!issued!a!resolution!
stating!that!there!may!be!civil!liability.!InFloresca,!it!was!the!negligence!of!the!mining!corporation!and!its!violation+of+government+rules+and+
regulations.!Negligence,!or!violation!of!government!rules!and!regulations,!for!that!matter,!however,!is!not!a!fact,!but!aconclusion+of+law,!over!which!
only!the!courts!have!the!final!say.!Such!a!conclusion!binds!no!one!until!the!courts!have!decreed!so.!It!appears,!therefore,!that!the!principle!that!
ignorance!or!mistake!of!fact!nullifies!a!waiver!has!been!misapplied!in!Floresca!and!in!the!case!at!bar.!
In!any!event,!there!is!no!proof!that!private!respondent!knew!that!her!husband!died!in!the!elevator!crash!when!on!November!15,!1990!she!
accomplished!her!application!for!benefits!from!the!ECC.!The!police!investigation!report!is!dated!November!25,!1990,!10!days!after!the!
accomplishment!of!the!form.!Petitioner!filed!the!application!in!her!behalf!on!November!27,!1990.!
There!is!also!no!showing!that!private!respondent!knew!of!the!remedies!available!to!her!when!the!claim!before!the!ECC!was!filed.!On!the!contrary,!
private!respondent!testified!that!she!was!not!aware!of!her!rights.!
Petitioner,!though,!argues!that!under!Article!3!of!the!Civil!Code,!ignorance!of!the!law!excuses!no!one!from!compliance!therewith.!As!judicial!
decisions!applying!or!interpreting!the!laws!or!the!Constitution!form!part!of!the!Philippine!legal!system!(Article!8,!Civil!Code),!private!respondent!
cannot!claim!ignorance!of!this!Courts!ruling!inFloresca!allowing!a!choice!of!remedies.!
The!argument!has!no!merit.!The!application!of!Article!3!is!limited!to!mandatory!and!prohibitory!laws.42!This!may!be!deduced!from!the!language!of!
the!provision,!which,!notwithstanding!a!persons!ignorance,!does!not!excuse!his!or!her!compliance!with!the!laws.!The!rule!in!Floresca!allowing!
private!respondent!a!choice!of!remedies!is!neither!mandatory!nor!prohibitory.!Accordingly,!her!ignorance!thereof!cannot!be!held!against!her.!
Finally,!the!Court!modifies!the!affirmance!of!the!award!of!damages.!The!records!do!not!indicate!the!total!amount!private!respondent!ought!to!
receive!from!the!ECC,!although!it!appears!from!Exhibit!"K"43!that!she!received!P3,581.85!as!initial!payment!representing!the!accrued!pension!from!
November!1990!to!March!1991.!Her!initial!monthly!pension,!according!to!the!same!Exhibit!"K,"!was!P596.97!and!present!total!monthly!pension!was!
P716.40.!Whether!the!total!amount!she!will!eventually!receive!from!the!ECC!is!less!than!the!sum!of!P644,000.00!in!total!damages!awarded!by!the!
trial!court!is!subject!to!speculation,!and!the!case!is!remanded!to!the!trial!court!for!such!determination.!Should!the!trial!court!find!that!its!award!is!
greater!than!that!of!the!ECC,!payments!already!received!by!private!respondent!under!the!Labor!Code!shall!be!deducted!from!the!trial!court'!award!
of!damages.!Consistent!with!our!ruling!in!Floresca,!this!adjudication!aims!to!prevent!double!compensation.!
WHEREFORE,!the!case!is!REMANDED!to!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Pasig!City!to!determine!whether!the!award!decreed!in!its!decision!is!more!than!
that!of!the!ECC.!Should!the!award!decreed!by!the!trial!court!be!greater!than!that!awarded!by!the!ECC,!payments!already!made!to!private!
respondent!pursuant!to!the!Labor!Code!shall!be!deducted!therefrom.!In!all!other!respects,!the!Decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!is!AFFIRMED.!

SO$ORDERED.$
!

G.R.$No.$187926$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$15,$2012!
Dr.$EMMANUEL$JARCIA,$Jr.$and$Dr.$MARILOU$BASTAN,!Petitioners,!!
vs.!
PEOPLE$OF$THE$PHILIPPINES,!Respondent.!
D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!
MENDOZA,$J.:!
Even!early!on,!patients!have!consigned!their!lives!to!the!skill!of!their!doctors.!Time!and!again,!it!can!be!said!that!the!most!important!goal!of!the!
medical!profession!is!the!preservation!of!life!and!health!of!the!people.!Corollarily,!when!a!physician!departs!from!his!sacred!duty!and!endangers!
instead!the!life!of!his!patient,!he!must!be!made!liable!for!the!resulting!injury.!This!Court,!as!this!case!would!show,!cannot!and!will!not!let!the!act!go!
unpunished.1!
This!is!a!petition!for!review!under!Rule!45!of!the!Rules!of!Court!challenging!the!August!29,!2008!Decision2!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA),!and!its!May!
19,!2009!Resolution3!in!CA/G.R.!CR!No.!29559,!dismissing!the!appeal!and!affirming!in+toto!the!June!14,!2005!Decision4!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court,!
Branch!43,!Manila!(RTC),!finding!the!accused!guilty!beyond!reasonable!doubt!of!simple!imprudence!resulting!to!serious!physical!injuries.!
THE$FACTS!
Belinda!Santiago!(Mrs.+Santiago)!lodged!a!complaint!with!the!National!Bureau!of!Investigation!(NBI)!against!the!petitioners,!Dr.!Emmanuel!Jarcia,!
Jr.!(Dr.+Jarcia)!and!Dr.!Marilou!Bastan!(Dr.+Bastan),!for!their!alleged!neglect!of!professional!duty!which!caused!her!son,!Roy!Alfonso!Santiago!(Roy+
Jr.),!to!suffer!serious!physical!injuries.!Upon!investigation,!the!NBI!found!that!Roy!Jr.!was!hit!by!a!taxicab;!that!he!was!rushed!to!the!Manila!Doctors!
Hospital!for!an!emergency!medical!treatment;!that!an!X/ray!of!the!victims!ankle!was!ordered;!that!the!X/ray!result!showed!no!fracture!as!read!by!
Dr.!Jarcia;+that!Dr.!Bastan!entered!the!emergency!room!(ER)!and,!after!conducting!her!own!examination!of!the!victim,!informed!Mrs.!Santiago!that!
since!it!was!only!the!ankle!that!was!hit,!there!was!no!need!to!examine!the!upper!leg;!that!eleven!(11)!days!later,!Roy!Jr.!developed!fever,!swelling!
of!the!right!leg!and!misalignment!of!the!right!foot;!that!Mrs.!Santiago!brought!him!back!to!the!hospital;!and!that!the!X/ray!revealed!a!right!mid/
tibial!fracture!and!a!linear!hairline!fracture!in!the!shaft!of!the!bone.!
The!NBI!indorsed!the!matter!to!the!Office!of!the!City!Prosecutor!of!Manila!for!preliminary!investigation.!Probable!cause!was!found!and!a!criminal!
case!for!reckless!imprudence!resulting!to!serious!physical!injuries,!was!filed!against!Dr.!Jarcia,!Dr.!Bastan!and!Dr.!Pamittan,5!before!the!RTC,!
docketed!as!Criminal!Case!No.!01/196646.!
On!June!14,!2005,!the!RTC!found!the!petitioners!guilty!beyond!reasonable!doubt!of!the!crime!of!Simple+Imprudence+Resulting+to+Serious+Physical+
Injuries.+The!decretal!portion!of!the!RTC!decision!reads:!

WHEREFORE,!premises!considered,!the!Court!finds!accused!DR.!EMMANUEL!JARCIA,!JR.!and!DR.!MARILOU!BASTAN!GUILTY!beyond!reasonable!
doubt!of!the!crime!of!SIMPLE!IMPRUDENCE!RESULTING!TO!SERIOUS!PHYSICAL!INJURIES!and!are!hereby!sentenced!to!suffer!the!penalty!of!ONE!(1)!
MONTH!and!ONE!(1)!DAY!to!TWO!(2)!MONTHS!and!to!indemnify!MRS.!BELINDA!SANTIAGO!the!amount!of!P!3,850.00!representing!medical!
expenses!without!subsidiary!imprisonment!in!case!of!insolvency!and!to!pay!the!costs.!
It!appearing!that!Dr.!Pamittan!has!not!been!apprehended!nor!voluntarily!surrendered!despite!warrant!issued!for!her!arrest,!let!warrant!be!issued!
for!her!arrest!and!the!case!against!her!be!ARCHIVED,!to!be!reinstated!upon!her!apprehension.!
SO!ORDERED.6!
The!RTC!explained:!
After!a!thorough!and!in!depth!evaluation!of!the!evidence!adduced!by!the!prosecution!and!the!defense,!this!court!finds!that!the!evidence!of!the!
prosecution!is!the!more!credible,!concrete!and!sufficient!to!create!that!moral!certainty!in!the!mind!of!the!Court!that!accused!herein![are]!criminally!
responsible.!The!Court!believes!that!accused!are!negligent!when!both!failed!to!exercise!the!necessary!and!reasonable!prudence!in!ascertaining!the!
extent!of!injury!of!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.!
However,!the!negligence!exhibited!by!the!two!doctors!does!not!approximate!negligence!of!a!reckless!nature!but!merely!amounts!to!simple!
imprudence.!Simple!imprudence!consists!in!the!lack!of!precaution!displayed!in!those!cases!in!which!the!damage!impending!to!be!caused!is!not!the!
immediate!nor!the!danger!clearly!manifest.!The!elements!of!simple!imprudence!are!as!follows.!
1.!that!there!is!lack!of!precaution!on!the!part!of!the!offender;!and!
2.!that!the!damage!impending!to!be!caused!is!not!immediate!of!the!danger!is!not!clearly!manifest.!
Considering!all!the!evidence!on!record,!The!Court!finds!the!accused!guilty!for!simple!imprudence!resulting!to!physical!injuries.!Under!Article!365!of!
the!Revised!Penal!Code,!the!penalty!provided!for!is!arresto!mayor!in!its!minimum!period.7!
Dissatisfied,!the!petitioners!appealed!to!the!CA.!
As!earlier!stated,!the!CA!affirmed!the!RTC!decision!in+toto.!The!August!29,!2008!Decision!of!the!CA!pertinently!reads:!
This!Court!holds!concurrently!and!finds!the!foregoing!circumstances!sufficient!to!sustain!a!judgment!of!conviction!against!the!accused/appellants!
for!the!crime!of!simple!imprudence!resulting!in!serious!physical!injuries.!The!elements!of!imprudence!are:!(1)!that!the!offender!does!or!fails!to!do!
an!act;!(2)!that!the!doing!or!the!failure!to!do!that!act!is!voluntary;!(3)!that!it!be!without!malice;!(4)!that!material!damage!results!from!the!
imprudence;!and!(5)!that!there!is!inexcusable!lack!of!precaution!on!the!part!of!the!offender,!taking!into!consideration!his!employment!or!
occupation,!degree!of!intelligence,!physical!condition,!and!other!circumstances!regarding!persons,!time!and!place.!

Whether!or!not!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan!had!committed!an!"inexcusable!lack!of!precaution"!in!the!treatment!of!their!patient!is!to!be!determined!
according!to!the!standard!of!care!observed!by!other!members!of!the!profession!in!good!standing!under!similar!circumstances,!bearing!in!mind!the!
advanced!state!of!the!profession!at!the!time!of!treatment!or!the!present!state!of!medical!science.!In!the!case!of!Leonila+GarciaARueda+v.+Pascasio,!
the!Supreme!Court!stated!that,!in!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.!
In!litigations!involving!medical!negligence,!the!plaintiff!has!the!burden!of!establishing!accused/appellants!negligence,!and!for!a!reasonable!
conclusion!of!negligence,!there!must!be!proof!of!breach!of!duty!on!the!part!of!the!physician!as!well!as!a!causal!connection!of!such!breach!and!the!
resulting!injury!of!his!patient.!The!connection!between!the!negligence!and!the!injury!must!be!a!direct!and!natural!sequence!of!events,!unbroken!by!
intervening!efficient!causes.!In!other!words,!the!negligence!must!be!the!proximate!cause!of!the!injury.!Negligence,!no!matter!in!what!it!consists,!
cannot!create!a!right!of!action!unless!it!is!the!proximate!cause!of!the!injury!complained!of.!The!proximate!cause!of!an!injury!is!that!cause!which,!in!
natural!and!continuous!sequence,!unbroken!by!any!efficient!intervening!cause,!produces!the!injury!and!without!which!the!result!would!not!have!
occurred.!
In!the!case!at!bench,!the!accused/appellants!questioned!the!imputation!against!them!and!argued!that!there!is!no!causal!connection!between!their!
failure!to!diagnose!the!fracture!and!the!injury!sustained!by!Roy.!
We!are!not!convinced.!
The!prosecution!is!however!after!the!cause!which!prolonged!the!pain!and!suffering!of!Roy!and!not!on!the!failure!of!the!accused/appellants!to!
correctly!diagnose!the!extent!of!the!injury!sustained!by!Roy.!
For!a!more!logical!presentation!of!the!discussion,!we!shall!first!consider!the!applicability!of!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+to!the!instant!case.!Res+
ipsa+loquitur+is!a!Latin!phrase!which!literally!means!"the!thing!or!the!transaction!speaks!for!itself.!The!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!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!
accused/appellant!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.!
The!specific!acts!of!negligence!was!narrated!by!Mrs.!Santiago!who!accompanied!her!son!during!the!latters!ordeal!at!the!hospital.!She!testified!as!
follows:!
Fiscal!Formoso:!
Q:!Now,!he!is!an!intern!did!you!not!consult!the!doctors,!Dr.!Jarcia!or!Dra.!Pamittan!to!confirm!whether!you!should!go!home!or!not?!

A:!Dra.!Pamittan!was!inside!the!cubicle!of!the!nurses!and!I!asked!her,!you!let!us!go!home!and!you!dont!even!clean!the!wounds!of!my!son.!
Q:!And!what!did!she![tell]!you?!
A:!They!told!me!they!will!call!a!resident!doctor,!sir.!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!
Q:!Was!there!a!resident!doctor![who]!came?!
A:!Yes,!Sir.!Dra.!Bastan!arrived.!
Q:!Did!you!tell!her!what!you!want!on!you!to!be!done?!
A:!Yes,!sir.!
Q:!What!did!you![tell]!her?!
A:!I!told!her,!sir,!while!she!was!cleaning!the!wounds!of!my!son,!are!you!not!going!to!x/ray!up!to!the!knee!because!my!son!was!complaining!pain!
from!his!ankle!up!to!the!middle!part!of!the!right!leg.!
Q:!And!what!did!she!tell!you?!
A:!According!to!Dra.!Bastan,!there!is!no!need!to!x/ray!because!it!was!the!ankle!part!that!was!run!over.!
Q:!What!did!you!do!or!tell!her?!
A:!I!told!her,!sir,!why!is!it!that!they!did!not!examine[x]!the!whole!leg.!They!just!lifted!the!pants!of!my!son.!
Q:!So!you!mean!to!say!there!was!no!treatment!made!at!all?!
A:!None,!sir.!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!

A:!I!just!listened!to!them,!sir.!And!I!just!asked!if!I!will!still!return!my!son.!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!
x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!
Q:!And!you!were!present!when!they!were!called?!
A:!Yes,!sir.!
Q:!And!what!was!discussed!then!by!Sis.!Retoria?!
A:!When!they!were!there!they!admitted!that!they!have!mistakes,!sir.!
Still,!before!resort!to!the!doctrine!may!be!allowed,!the!following!requisites!must!be!satisfactorily!shown:!
1.!The!accident!is!of!a!kind!which!ordinarily!does!not!occur!in!the!absence!of!someones!negligence;!
2.!It!is!caused!by!an!instrumentality!within!the!exclusive!control!of!the!defendant!or!defendants;!and!
3.!The!possibility!of!contributing!conduct!which!would!make!the!plaintiff!responsible!is!eliminated.!
In!the!above!requisites,!the!fundamental!element!is!the!"control!of!the!instrumentality"!which!caused!the!damage.!Such!element!of!control!must!
be!shown!to!be!within!the!dominion!of!the!accused/appellants.!In!order!to!have!the!benefit!of!the!rule,!a!plaintiff,!in!addition!to!proving!injury!or!
damage,!must!show!a!situation!where!it!is!applicable!and!must!establish!that!the!essential!elements!of!the!doctrine!were!present!in!a!particular!
incident.!The!early!treatment!of!the!leg!of!Roy!would!have!lessen!his!suffering!if!not!entirely!relieve!him!from!the!fracture.!A!boy!of!tender!age!
whose!leg!was!hit!by!a!vehicle!would!engender!a!well/founded!belief!that!his!condition!may!worsen!without!proper!medical!attention.!As!junior!
residents!who!only!practice!general!surgery!and!without!specialization!with!the!case!consulted!before!them,!they!should!have!referred!the!matter!
to!a!specialist.!This!omission!alone!constitutes!simple!imprudence!on!their!part.!When!Mrs.!Santiago!insisted!on!having!another!x/ray!of!her!child!
on!the!upper!part!of!his!leg,!they!refused!to!do!so.!The!mother!would!not!have!asked!them!if!they!had!no!exclusive!control!or!prerogative!to!
request!an!x/ray!test.!Such!is!a!fact!because!a!radiologist!would!only!conduct!the!x/ray!test!upon!request!of!a!physician.!
The!testimony!of!Mrs.!Santiago!was!corroborated!by!a!bone!specialist!Dr.!Tacata.!He!further!testified!based!on!his!personal!knowledge,!and!not!as!
an!expert,!as!he!examined!himself!the!child!Roy.!He!testified!as!follows:!
Fiscal!Macapagal:!

Q:!And!was!that!the!correct!respon[se]!to!the!medical!problem!that!was!presented!to!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dra.!Bastan?!
A:!I!would!say!at!that!stage,!yes.!Because!they!have!presented!the!patient!and!the!history.!"At!sabi!nila,!nadaanan!lang!po!ito."!And!then,!
considering!their!year!of!residency!they!are!still!junior!residents,!and!they!are!not!also!orthopedic!residents!but!general!surgery!residents,!its!
entirely!different!thing.!Because!if!you!are!an!orthopedic!resident,!I!am!not!trying!to!saybut!if!I!were!an!orthopedic!resident,!there!would!be!more!
precise!and!accurate!decision!compare!to!a!general!surgery!resident!in!so!far!as!involved.!
Q:!You!mean!to!say!there!is!no!supervisor!attending!the!emergency!room?!
A:!At!the!emergency!room,!at!the!Manila!Doctors!Hospital,!the!supervisor!there!is!a!consultant!that!usually!comes!from!a!family!medicine.!They!
see!where!a!certain!patient!have!to!go!and!then!if!they!cannot!manage!it,!they!refer!it!to!the!consultant!on!duty.!Now!at!that!time,!I!dont![know]!
why!they!dont.Because!at!that!time,!I!think,!it!is!the!decision.!Since!the!x/rays.!
Ordinarily,!only!physicians!and!surgeons!of!skill!and!experience!are!competent!to!testify!as!to!whether!a!patient!has!been!treated!or!operated!upon!
with!a!reasonable!degree!of!skill!and!care.!However,!testimony!as!to!the!statements!and!acts!of!physicians,!external!appearances,!and!manifest!
conditions!which!are!observable!by!any!one!may!be!given!by!non/expert!witnesses.!Hence,!in!cases!where!the!res+ipsa+loquitur+is!applicable,!the!
court!is!permitted!to!find!a!physician!negligent!upon!proper!proof!of!injury!to!the!patient,!without!the!aid!of!expert!testimony,!where!the!court!
from!its!fund!of!common!knowledge!can!determine!the!proper!standard!of!care.!Where!common!knowledge!and!experience!teach!that!a!resulting!
injury!would!not!have!occurred!to!the!patient!if!due!care!had!been!exercised,!an!inference!of!negligence!may!be!drawn!giving!rise!to!an!application!
of!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+without!medical!evidence,!which!is!ordinarily!required!to!show!not!only!what!occurred!but!how!and!why!it!
occurred.!In!the!case!at!bench,!we!give!credence!to!the!testimony!of!Mrs.!Santiago!by!applying!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur.!
Res+ipsa+loquitur+is!not!a!rigid!or!ordinary!doctrine!to!be!perfunctorily!used!but!a!rule!to!be!cautiously!applied,!depending!upon!the!circumstances!
of!each!case.!It!is!generally!restricted!to!situations!in!malpractice!cases!where!a!layman!is!able!to!say,!as!a!matter!of!common!knowledge!and!
observation,!that!the!consequences!of!professional!care!were!not!as!such!as!would!ordinarily!have!followed!if!due!care!had!been!exercised.!A!
distinction!must!be!made!between!the!failure!to!secure!results!and!the!occurrence!of!something!more!unusual!and!not!ordinarily!found!if!the!
service!or!treatment!rendered!followed!the!usual!procedure!of!those!skilled!in!that!particular!practice.!The!latter!circumstance!is!the!primordial!
issue!that!confronted!this!Court!and!we!find!application!of!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+to!be!in!order.!
WHEREFORE,$in!view!of!the!foregoing,!the!appeal!in!this!case!is!hereby!DISMISSED!and!the!assailed!decision!of!the!trial!court!finding!accused/
appellants!guilty!beyond!reasonable!doubt!of!simple!imprudence!resulting!in!serious!physical!injuries!is!hereby!AFFIRMED$in+toto.!
SO$ORDERED.8!
The!petitioners!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration,!but!it!was!denied!by!the!CA!in!its!May!19,!2009!Resolution.!
Hence,!this!petition.!

The!petitioners!pray!for!the!reversal!of!the!decision!of!both!the!RTC!and!the!CA!anchored!on!the!following!
GROUNDSR!
1.$IN$AFFIRMING$ACCUSEDRPETITIONERS$CONVICTION,$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$ERRED$IN$NOT$HOLDING$THAT$THE$ACTUAL,$DIRECT,$
IMMEDIATE,$AND$PROXIMATE$CAUSE$OF$THE$PHYSICAL$INJURY$OF$THE$PATIENT$(FRACTURE$OF$THE$LEG$BONE$OR$TIBIA),$WHICH$
REQUIRED$MEDICAL$ATTENDANCE$FOR$MORE$THAN$THIRTY$(30)$DAYS$AND$INCAPACITATED$HIM$FROM$PERFORMING$HIS$CUSTOMARY$
DUTY$DURING$THE$SAME$PERIOD$OF$TIME,$WAS$THE$VEHICULAR$ACCIDENT$WHERE$THE$PATIENTS$RIGHT$LEG$WAS$HIT$BY$A$TAXI,$NOT$
THE$FAILURE$OF$THE$ACCUSEDRPETITIONERS$TO$SUBJECT$THE$PATIENTS$WHOLE$LEG$TO$AN$XRRAY$EXAMINATION.$
2.$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$ERRED$IN$DISREGARDING$ESTABLISHED$FACTS$CLEARLY$NEGATING$PETITIONERS$ALLEGED$NEGLIGENCE$OR$
IMPRUDENCE.$SIGNIFICANTLY,$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$UNJUSTIFIABLY$DISREGARDED$THE$OPINION$OF$THE$PROSECUTIONS$EXPERT$
WITNESS,$DR.$CIRILO$TACATA,$THAT$PETITIONERS$WERE$NOT$GUILTY$OF$NEGLIGENCE$OR$IMPRUDENCE$COMPLAINED$OF.$
3.$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$ERRED$IN$HOLDING$THAT$THE$FAILURE$OF$PETITIONERS$TO$SUBJECT$THE$PATIENTS$WHOLE$LEG$TO$AN$XRRAY$
EXAMINATION$PROLONGED$THE$PAIN$AND$SUFFERING$OF$THE$PATIENT,$SUCH$CONCLUSION$BEING$UNSUPPORTED$BY,$AND$EVEN$
CONTRARY$TO,$THE$EVIDENCE$ON$RECORD.$
4.$ASSUMING$ARGUENDO$THAT$THE$PATIENT$EXPERIENCED$PROLONGED$PAIN$AND$SUFFERING,$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$ERRED$IN$NOT$
HOLDING$THAT$THE$ALLEGED$PAIN$AND$SUFFERING$WERE$DUE$TO$THE$UNJUSTIFIED$FAILURE$OF$THE$PATIENTS$MOTHER,$A$NURSE$
HERSELF,$TO$IMMEDIATELY$BRING$THE$PATIENT$BACK$TO$THE$HOSPITAL,$AS$ADVISED$BY$THE$PETITIONERS,$AFTER$HE$COMPLAINED$OF$
SEVERE$PAIN$IN$HIS$RIGHT$LEG$WHEN$HE$REACHED$HOME$AFTER$HE$WAS$SEEN$BY$PETITIONERS$AT$THE$HOSPITAL.$THUS,$THE$PATIENTS$
ALLEGED$INJURY$(PROLONGED$PAIN$AND$SUFFERING)$WAS$DUE$TO$HIS$OWN$MOTHERS$ACT$OR$OMISSION.$
5.$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$ERRED$IN$NOT$HOLDING$THAT$NO$PHYSICIANRPATIENT$RELATIONSHIP$EXISTED$BETWEEN$PETITIONERS$AND$
PATIENT$ALFONSO$SANTIAGO,$JR.,$PETITIONERS$NOT$BEING$THE$LATTERS$ATTENDING$PHYSICIAN$AS$THEY$WERE$MERELY$REQUESTED$BY$
THE$EMERGENCY$ROOM$(ER)$NURSE$TO$SEE$THE$PATIENT$WHILE$THEY$WERE$PASSING$BY$THE$ER$FOR$THEIR$LUNCH.$
6.$THE$COURT$OF$APPEALS$GRAVELY$ERRED$IN$NOT$ACQUITTING$ACCUSEDRPETITIONERS$OF$THE$CRIME$CHARGED."9!
The!foregoing!can!be!synthesized!into!two!basic!issues:![1]!whether!or!not!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+is!applicable!in!this!case;!and![2]!
whether!or!not!the!petitioners!are!liable!for!criminal!negligence.!
THE$COURTS$RULING!

The!CA!is!correct!in!finding!that!there!was!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!petitioners.!After!a!perusal!of!the!records,!however,!the!Court!is!not!
convinced!that!the!petitioners!are!guilty!of!criminal!negligence!complained!of.!The!Court!is!also!of!the!view!that!the!CA!erred!in!applying!the!
doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!in!this!particular!case.!
As!to!the!Application!of!The!Doctrine!of!Res!Ipsa!Loquitur!
This!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!means!"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."!The!Black's+Law+Dictionary!defines!the!
said!doctrine.!Thus:!
The!thing!speaks!for!itself.!Rebuttable!presumption!or!inference!that!defendant!was!negligent,!which!arises!upon!proof!that!the!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!a!rule!of!evidence!whereby!negligence!of!the!alleged!wrongdoer!may!be!inferred!from!the!mere!fact!that!the!accident!happened!
provided!the!character!of!the!accident!and!circumstances!attending!it!lead!reasonably!to!belief!that!in!the!absence!of!negligence!it!would!not!have!
occurred!and!that!thing!which!caused!injury!is!shown!to!have!been!under!the!management!and!control!of!the!alleged!wrongdoer.!Under!this!
doctrine,!the!happening!of!an!injury!permits!an!inference!of!negligence!where!plaintiff!produces!substantial!evidence!that!the!injury!was!caused!by!
an!agency!or!instrumentality!under!the!exclusive!control!and!management!of!defendant,!and!that!the!occurrence!was!such!that!in!the!ordinary!
course!of!things!would!not!happen!if!reasonable!care!had!been!used.10!
The!doctrine!of!res!ipsa!loquitur!as!a!rule!of!evidence!is!unusual!to!the!law!of!negligence!which!recognizes!thatprima+facie!negligence!may!be!
established!without!direct!proof!and!furnishes!a!substitute!for!specific!proof!of!negligence.!The!doctrine,!however,!is!not!a!rule!of!substantive!law,!
but!merely!a!mode!of!proof!or!a!mere!procedural!convenience.!The!rule,!when!applicable!to!the!facts!and!circumstances!of!a!given!case,!is!not!
meant!to!and!does!not!dispense!with!the!requirement!of!proof!of!culpable!negligence!on!the!party!charged.!It!merely!determines!and!regulates!
what!shall!be!prima!facie!evidence!thereof!and!helps!the!plaintiff!in!proving!a!breach!of!the!duty.!The!doctrine!can!be!invoked!when!and!only!
when,!under!the!circumstances!involved,!direct!evidence!is!absent!and!not!readily!available.11!
The!requisites!for!the!application!of!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur!are:!(1)!the!accident!was!of!a!kind!which!does!not!ordinarily!occur!unless!
someone!is!negligent;!(2)!the!instrumentality!or!agency!which!caused!the!injury!was!under!the!exclusive!control!of!the!person!in!charge;!and!(3)!the!
injury!suffered!must!not!have!been!due!to!any!voluntary!action!or!contribution!of!the!person!injured.12!
In!this!case,!the!circumstances!that!caused!patient!Roy!Jr.s!injury!and!the!series!of!tests!that!were!supposed!to!be!undergone!by!him!to!determine!
the!extent!of!the!injury!suffered!were!not!under!the!exclusive!control!of!Drs.!Jarcia!and!Bastan.!It!was!established!that!they!are!mere!residents!of!
the!Manila!Doctors!Hospital!at!that!time!who!attended!to!the!victim!at!the!emergency!room.13!While!it!may!be!true!that!the!circumstances!pointed!
out!by!the!courts!below!seem!doubtless!to!constitute!reckless!imprudence!on!the!part!of!the!petitioners,!this!conclusion!is!still!best!achieved,!not!
through!the!scholarly!assumptions!of!a!layman!like!the!patients!mother,!but!by!the!unquestionable!knowledge!of!expert!witness/es.!As!to!whether!
the!petitioners!have!exercised!the!requisite!degree!of!skill!and!care!in!treating!patient!Roy,!Jr.!is!generally!a!matter!of!expert!opinion.!

As!to!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastans!negligence!
The!totality!of!the!evidence!on!record!clearly!points!to!the!negligence!of!the!petitioners.!At!the!risk!of!being!repetitious,!the!Court,!however,!is!not!
satisfied!that!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan!are!criminally!negligent!in!this!case.!
Negligence!is!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.14!
Reckless!imprudence!consists!of!voluntarily!doing!or!failing!to!do,!without!malice,!an!act!from!which!material!damage!results!by!reason!of!an!
inexcusable!lack!of!precaution!on!the!part!of!the!person!performing!or!failing!to!perform!such!act.15!
The!elements!of!simple!negligence!are:!(1)!that!there!is!lack!of!precaution!on!the!part!of!the!offender,!and!(2)!that!the!damage!impending!to!be!
caused!is!not!immediate!or!the!danger!is!not!clearly!manifest.16!
In!this!case,!the!Court!is!not!convinced!with!moral!certainty!that!the!petitioners!are!guilty!of!reckless!imprudence!or!simple!negligence.!The!
elements!thereof!were!not!proved!by!the!prosecution!beyond!reasonable!doubt.!
The!testimony!of!Dr.!Cirilo!R.!Tacata!(Dr.+Tacata),!a!specialist!in!pediatric!orthopedic,!although!pointing!to!some!medical!procedures!that!could!
have!been!done!by!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan,!as!physicians!on!duty,!was!not!clear!as!to!whether!the!injuries!suffered!by!patient!Roy!Jr.!were!indeed!
aggravated!by!the!petitioners!judgment!call!and!their!diagnosis!or!appreciation!of!the!condition!of!the!victim!at!the!time!they!assessed!him.!Thus:!
Q:!Will!you!please!tell!us,!for!the!record,!doctor,!what!is!your!specialization?!
A:!At!present!I!am!the!chairman!department!of!orthopedic!in!UP/PGH!and!I!had!special!training!in!pediatric!orthopedic!for!two!(2)!years.!
Q:!In!June!1998,!doctor,!what!was!your!position!and!what!was!your!specialization!at!that!time?!
A:!Since!1980,!I!have!been!specialist!in!pediatric!orthopedic.!
Q:!When!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.!was!brought!to!you!by!his!mother,!what!did!you!do!by!way!of!physicians!as!first!step?!
A:!As!usual,!I!examined!the!patient!physically!and,!at!that!time!as!I!have!said,!the!patient!could!not!walk!so!I![began]!to!suspect!that!probably!he!
sustained!a!fracture!as!a!result!of!a!vehicular!accident.!So!I!examined!the!patient!at!that!time,!the!involved!leg,!I!dont!know!if!that!is!left!or!right,!
the!involved!leg!then!was!swollen!and!the!patient!could!not!walk,!so!I!requested!for!the!x/ray!of![the]!lower!leg.!
Q:!What!part!of!the!leg,!doctor,!did!you!request!to!be!examined?!

A:!If!we!refer!for!an!x/ray,!usually,!we!suspect!a!fracture!whether!in!approximal,!middle!or!lebistal!tinial,!we!usually!x/ray!the!entire!extremity.!
Q:!And!what!was!the!result?!
A:!Well,!I!can!say!that!it!was!a!spiral!fracture!of!the!mid/tibial,!it!is!the!bigger!bone!of!the!leg.!
Q:!And!when!you!say!spiral,!doctor,!how!long!was!this!fracture?!
A:!When!we!say!spiral,!it!is!a!sort!of!letter!S,!the!length!was!about!six!(6)!to!eight!(8)!centimeters.!
Q:!Mid/tibial,!will!you!please!point!to!us,!doctor,!where!the!tibial!is?!
(Witness!pointing!to!his!lower!leg)!
A:!The!tibial!is!here,!there!are!two!bones!here,!the!bigger!one!is!the!tibial!and!the!smaller!one!is!the!fibula.!The!bigger!one!is!the!one!that!get!
fractured.!
Q:!And!in!the!course!of!your!examination!of!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.!did!you!ask!for!the!history!of!such!injury?!
A:!Yes,!actually,!that!was!a!routine!part!of!our!examination!that!once!a!patient!comes!in,!before!we!actually!examine!the!patient,!we!request!for!a!
detailed!history.!If!it!is!an!accident,!then,!we!request!for!the!exact!mechanism!of!injuries.!
Q:!And!as!far!as!you!can!recall,!Doctor,!what!was!the!history!of!that!injury!that!was!told!to!you?!
A:!The!patient!was!sideswiped,!I!dont!know!if!it!is!a!car,!but!it!is!a!vehicular!accident.!
Q:!Who!did!you!interview?!
A:!The!mother.!
Q:!How!about!the!child!himself,!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.?!
A:!Normally,!we!do!not!interview!the!child!because,!usually,!at!his!age,!the!answers!are!not!accurate.!So,!it!was!the!mother!that!I!interviewed.!
Q:!And!were!you!informed!also!of!his!early!medication!that!was!administered!on!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.?!

A:!No,!not!actually!medication.!I!was!informed!that!this!patient!was!seen!initially!at!the!emergency!room!by!the!two!(2)!physicians!that!you!just!
mentioned,!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dra.!Bastan,!that!time!who!happened!to!be!my!residents!who!were![on]!duty!at!the!emergency!room.!
x!x!x!x!
A:!At!the!emergency!room,!at!the!Manila!Doctors!Hospital,!the!supervisor!there!is!a!consultant!that!usually!comes!from!a!family!medicine.!They!
see!where!a!certain!patient!have!to!go!and!then!if!they!cannot!manage!it,!they!refer!it!to!the!consultant!on!duty.!Now!at!that!time,!I!dont!why!they!
dont!!Because!at!that!time,!I!think,!it!is!the!decision.!Since!the!x/rays!
x!x!x!
Q:!You!also!said,!Doctor,!that!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dra.!Bastan!are!not!even!an!orthopedic!specialist.!
A:!They$are$general$surgeon$residents.$You$have$to$man[x]$the$emergency$room,$including$neurology,$orthopedic,$general$surgery,$they$see$
everything$at$the$emergency$room.!
x!x!x!x!
Q:!But!if!initially,!Alfonso!Santiago,!Jr.!and!his!case!was!presented!to!you!at!the!emergency!room,!you!would!have!subjected!the!entire!foot!to!x/ray!
even!if!the!history!that!was!given!to!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dra.!Bastan!is!the!same?!
A:!I!could!not!directly!say!yes,!because!it!would!still!depend!on!my!examination,!we!cannot!subject!the!whole!body!for!x/ray!if!we!think!that!the!
damaged!was!only!the!leg.!
Q:!Not!the!entire!body!but!the!entire!leg?!
A:!I!think,!if!my!examination!requires!it,!I!would.!
Q:!So,!you!would!conduct!first!an!examination?!
A:!Yes,!sir.!
Q:!And!do!you!think!that!with!that!examination!that!you!would!have!conducted!you!would!discover!the!necessity!subjecting!the!entire!foot!for!x/
ray?!
A:!It!is!also!possible!but!according!to!them,!the!foot!and!the!ankle!were!swollen!and!not!the!leg,!which!sometimes!normally!happens!that!the!actual!
fractured!bone!do!not!get!swollen.!

x!x!x!x!
Q:!Doctor,$if$you$know$that$the$patient$sustained$a$fracture$on$the$ankle$and$on$the$foot$and$the$history$that$was$told$to$you$is$the$region$that$
was$hit$is$the$region$of$the$foot,$will$the$doctor$subject$the$entire$leg$for$xRray?!
A:!I$am$an$orthopedic$surgeon,$you$have$to$subject$an$xRray$of$the$leg.$Because$you$have$to$consider$the$kind$of$fracture$that$the$patient$
sustained$would$you$say$the$exact$mechanism$of$injury.$For$example$spiral,$"paikot$yung$bale$nya,"$so$it$was$possible$that$the$leg$was$run$over,$
the$patient$fell,$and$it$got$twisted.$Thats$why$the$leg$seems$to$be$fractured.17![Emphases!supplied]!
It!can!be!gleaned!from!the!testimony!of!Dr.!Tacata!that!a!thorough!examination!was!not!performed!on!Roy!Jr.!As!residents!on!duty!at!the!
emergency!room,!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan!were!expected!to!know!the!medical!protocol!in!treating!leg!fractures!and!in!attending!to!victims!of!car!
accidents.!There!was,!however,!no!precise!evidence!and!scientific!explanation!pointing!to!the!fact!that!the!delay!in!the!application!of!the!cast!to!
the!patients!fractured!leg!because!of!failure!to!immediately!diagnose!the!specific!injury!of!the!patient,!prolonged!the!pain!of!the!child!or!
aggravated!his!condition!or!even!caused!further!complications.!Any!person!may!opine!that!had!patient!Roy!Jr.!been!treated!properly!and!given!the!
extensive!X/ray!examination,!the!extent!and!severity!of!the!injury,!spiral!fracture!of!the!mid/tibial!part!or!the!bigger!bone!of!the!leg,!could!have!
been!detected!early!on!and!the!prolonged!pain!and!suffering!of!Roy!Jr.!could!have!been!prevented.!But!still,!that!opinion,!even!how!logical!it!may!
seem!would!not,!and!could!not,!be!enough!basis!to!hold!one!criminally!liable;!thus,!a!reasonable!doubt!as!to!the!petitioners!guilt.!
Although!the!Court!sympathizes!with!the!plight!of!the!mother!and!the!child!in!this!case,!the!Court!is!bound!by!the!dictates!of!justice!which!hold!
inviolable!the!right!of!the!accused!to!be!presumed!innocent!until!proven!guilty!beyond!reasonable!doubt.!The!Court,!nevertheless,!finds!the!
petitioners!civilly!liable!for!their!failure!to!sufficiently!attend!to!Roy!Jr.s!medical!needs!when!the!latter!was!rushed!to!the!ER,!for!while!a!criminal!
conviction!requires!proof!beyond!reasonable!doubt,!only!a!preponderance!of!evidence!is!required!to!establish!civil!liability.!Taken!into!account!also!
was!the!fact!that!there!was!no!bad!faith!on!their!part.!
Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan!cannot!pass!on!the!liability!to!the!taxi!driver!who!hit!the!victim.!It!may!be!true!that!the!actual,!direct,!immediate,!and!
proximate!cause!of!the!injury!(fracture!of!the!leg!bone!or!tibia)!of!Roy!Jr.!was!the!vehicular!accident!when!he!was!hit!by!a!taxi.!The!petitioners,!
however,!cannot!simply!invoke!such!fact!alone!to!excuse!themselves!from!any!liability.!If!this!would!be!so,!doctors!would!have!a!ready!defense!
should!they!fail!to!do!their!job!in!attending!to!victims!of!hit/and/run,!maltreatment,!and!other!crimes!of!violence!in!which!the!actual,!direct,!
immediate,!and!proximate!cause!of!the!injury!is!indubitably!the!act!of!the!perpetrator/s.!
In!failing!to!perform!an!extensive!medical!examination!to!determine!the!extent!of!Roy!Jr.s!injuries,!Dr.!Jarcia!and!Dr.!Bastan!were!remiss!of!their!
duties!as!members!of!the!medical!profession.!Assuming!for!the!sake!of!argument!that!they!did!not!have!the!capacity!to!make!such!thorough!
evaluation!at!that!stage,!they!should!have!referred!the!patient!to!another!doctor!with!sufficient!training!and!experience!instead!of!assuring!him!
and!his!mother!that!everything!was!all!right.!
This!Court!cannot!also!stamp!its!imprimatur!on!the!petitioners!contention!that!no!physician/patient!relationship!existed!between!them!and!patient!
Roy!Jr.,!since!they!were!not!his!attending!physicians!at!that!time.!They!claim!that!they!were!merely!requested!by!the!ER!nurse!to!see!the!patient!

while!they!were!passing!by!the!ER!for!their!lunch.!Firstly,!this!issue!was!never!raised!during!the!trial!at!the!RTC!or!even!before!the!CA.!The!
petitioners,!therefore,!raise!the!want!of!doctor/patient!relationship!for!the!first!time!on!appeal!with!this!Court.!It!has!been!settled!that!"issues!
raised!for!the!first!time!on!appeal!cannot!be!considered!because!a!party!is!not!permitted!to!change!his!theory!on!appeal.!To!allow!him!to!do!so!is!
unfair!to!the!other!party!and!offensive!to!the!rules!of!fair!play,!justice!and!due!process."18!Stated!differently,!basic!considerations!of!due!process!
dictate!that!theories,!issues!and!arguments!not!brought!to!the!attention!of!the!trial!court!need!not!be,!and!ordinarily!will!not!be,!considered!by!a!
reviewing!court.19!
Assuming!again!for!the!sake!of!argument!that!the!petitioners!may!still!raise!this!issue!of!"no!physicianpatient!relationship,"!the!Court!finds!and!so!
holds!that!there!was!a!"physicianpatient"!relationship!in!this!case.!
In!the!case!of!Lucas!v.!Tuao,20!the!Court!wrote!that!"[w]hen!a!patient!engages!the!services!of!a!physician,!a!physician/patient!relationship!is!
generated.!And!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.!Thus,!in!
treating!his!patient,!a!physician!is!under!a!duty!to!exercise!that!degree!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.!Stated!otherwise,!the!physician!has!the!
obligation!to!use!at!least!the!same!level!of!care!that!any!other!reasonably!competent!physician!would!use!to!treat!the!condition!under!similar!
circumstances."!
Indubitably,!a!physician/patient!relationship!exists!between!the!petitioners!and!patient!Roy!Jr.!Notably,!the!latter!and!his!mother!went!to!the!ER!for!
an!immediate!medical!attention.!The!petitioners!allegedly!passed!by!and!were!requested!to!attend!to!the!victim!(contrary+to+the+testimony+of+Dr.+
Tacata+that+they+were,+at+that+time,+residents+on+duty+at+the+ER).21!They!obliged!and!examined!the!victim,!and!later!assured!the!mother!that!
everything!was!fine!and!that!they!could!go!home.!Clearly,!a!physician/patient!relationship!was!established!between!the!petitioners!and!the!patient!
Roy!Jr.!
To!repeat!for!clarity!and!emphasis,!if!these!doctors!knew!from!the!start!that!they!were!not!in!the!position!to!attend!to!Roy!Jr.,!a!vehicular!accident!
victim,!with!the!degree!of!diligence!and!commitment!expected!of!every!doctor!in!a!case!like!this,!they!should!have!not!made!a!baseless!assurance!
that!everything!was!all!right.!By!doing!so,!they!deprived!Roy!Jr.!of!adequate!medical!attention!that!placed!him!in!a!more!dangerous!situation!than!
he!was!already!in.!What!petitioners!should!have!done,!and!could!have!done,!was!to!refer!Roy!Jr.!to!another!doctor!who!could!competently!and!
thoroughly!examine!his!injuries.!
All!told,!the!petitioners!were,!indeed,!negligent!but!only!civilly,!and!not!criminally,!liable!as!the!facts!show.!
Article!II,!Section!1!of!the!Code!of!Medical!Ethics!of!the!Medical!Profession!in!the!Philippines!states:!
A!physician!should!attend!to!his!patients!faithfully!and!conscientiously.!He!should!secure!for!them!all!possible!benefits!that!may!depend!upon!his!
professional!skill!and!care.!As!the!sole!tribunal!to!adjudge!the!physicians!failure!to!fulfill!his!obligation!to!his!patients!is,!in!most!cases,!his!own!
conscience,!violation!of!this!rule!on!his!part!is!discreditable!and!inexcusable.22!

Established!medical!procedures!and!practices,!though!in!constant!instability,!are!devised!for!the!purpose!of!preventing!complications.!In!this!case,!
the!petitioners!failed!to!observe!the!most!prudent!medical!procedure!under!the!circumstances!to!prevent!the!complications!suffered!by!a!child!of!
tender!age.!
As-to-the-Award-of-Damages!
While!no!criminal!negligence!was!found!in!the!petitioners!failure!to!administer!the!necessary!medical!attention!to!Roy!Jr.,!the!Court!holds!them!
civilly!liable!for!the!resulting!damages!to!their!patient.!While!it!was!the!taxi!driver!who!ran!over!the!foot!or!leg!of!Roy!Jr.,!their!negligence!was!
doubtless!contributory.!
It!appears!undisputed!that!the!amount!of!P!3,850.00,!as!expenses!incurred!by!patient!Roy!Jr.,!was!adequately!supported!by!receipts.!The!Court,!
therefore,!finds!the!petitioners!liable!to!pay!this!amount!by!way!of!actual!damages.!
The!Court!is!aware!that!no!amount!of!compassion!can!suffice!to!ease!the!sorrow!felt!by!the!family!of!the!child!at!that!time.!Certainly,!the!award!of!
moral!and!exemplary!damages!in!favor!of!Roy!Jr.!in!the!amount!of!P!100,000.00!and!P!50,000.00,!respectively,!is!proper!in!this!case.!
It!is!settled!that!moral!damages!are!not!punitive!in!nature,!but!are!designed!to!compensate!and!alleviate!in!some!way!the!physical!suffering,!
mental!anguish,!fright,!serious!anxiety,!besmirched!reputation,!wounded!feelings,!moral!shock,!social!humiliation,!and!similar!injury!unjustly!
inflicted!on!a!person.!Intended!for!the!restoration!of!the!psychological!or!emotional!status+quo+ante,!the!award!of!moral!damages!is!designed!to!
compensate!emotional!injury!suffered,!not!to!impose!a!penalty!on!the!wrongdoer.23!
The!Court,!likewise,!finds!the!petitioners!also!liable!for!exemplary!damages!in!the!said!amount.1wphi1!Article!2229!of!the!Civil!Code!provides!that!
exemplary!damages!may!be!imposed!by!way!of!example!or!correction!for!the!public!good.!
WHEREFORE,!the!petition!is!PARTLY$GRANTED.!The!Decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!dated!August!29,!2008!isREVERSED$and$SET$ASIDE.!A!new!
judgment!is!entered!ACQUITTING!Dr.!Emmanuel!Jarcia,!Jr.!and!Dr.!Marilou!Bastan!of!the!crime!of!reckless!imprudence!resulting!to!serious!physical!
injuries!but!declaring!them!civilly!liable!in!the!amounts!of:!
(1)!P!3,850.00!as!actual!damages;!
(2)$P!100,000.00!as!moral!damages;!
(3)$P!50,000.00!as!exemplary!damages;!and!
(4)$Costs!of!the!suit.!

with!interest!at!the!rate!of!6%!per+annum!from!the!date!of!the!filing!of!the!Information.!The!rate!shall!be!12%!interest!per+annum!from!the!finality!
of!judgment!until!fully!paid.!
SO!ORDERED.!
!