Torts and Damages Case Digest: Professional Services, Inc. v. Natividad and Enrique Agana (2007)

G.R. No. 157906   November 2, 2006
Lessons Applicable: Res ipsa loquitur (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Art. 2176 Art. 2180  and  Art. 1869 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

• April 4, 1984: Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General Hospital because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Miguel Ampil diagnosed her to be suffering from cancer of the sigmoid.
• April 11, 1984: Dr. Ampil performed an anterior resection surgery on Natividad and found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread on her left ovary, necessitating the removal of certain portions of it
• Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of Natividad’s husband, Enrique Agana to perform hysterectomy.
• After a couple of days, Natividad consulted both Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes about the excruciating pain in her anal region. Dr. Ampil recommended that she consult an oncologist.
• May 9, 1984: The Aganas went to the United States to seek further treatment and was told she was FREE from cancer.
• August 31, 1984: Natividad's daughter found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina.  Dr. Ampil proceeded to her house and extracted by hand a piece of gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width and assuring that the pain will vanish. 
• When the pain intensified, Nativided went to Polymedic General Hospital where Dr. Ramon Gutierrez  found a foul-smelling gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width which badly infected her vaginal vault which formed a recto-vaginal fistula forcign her stool to excrete through the vagina.
• October 1984: Natividad underwent another surgery to remedy the damage
• February 16, 1986: Natividad died so she was substituted by her children
• RTC: PSI solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes for damages for negligence and malpractice
• CA: absolved Dr. Fuentes upon the same advise from the PRC Board of Medicine for failure to show that he placed the guages or concealed the fact from Natividad 

ISSUE: W/N  Dr. Fuentes may be held liable under the principle of res ipso loquitor

HELD: NO.  CA affirmed

• Dr. Ampil as the negligent party
• surgeons used gauzes as sponges to control the bleeding of the patient during the surgical operation
• immediately after the operation, the nurses who assisted in the surgery noted in their report 2 sponges lacking
• 2 gauzes were extracted from the same spot of the body of Mrs. Agana
• element 3 "control and management of the thing which caused the injury" to be wanting 
• Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter reported and showed his work to Dr. Ampil who allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room
• Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the operation
• res ipsa loquitur
• not a rule of substantive law, hence, does not per se create or constitute an independent or separate ground of liability, being a mere evidentiary rule
• mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence
• Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
• ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

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

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.

• failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the accreditation and supervision 
• private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting ‘consultant’ staff
• control test is determining
• for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians
• ART. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.
• By accrediting Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes and publicly advertising their qualifications, the hospital created the impression that they were its agents, authorized to perform medical or surgical services for its patients
• doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate responsibility
• knowledge of any of the staff of Medical City Hospital constitutes knowledge of PSI
• It is worthy to note that Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes operated on Natividad with the assistance of the Medical City Hospital’s staff, composed of resident doctors, nurses, and interns

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Joaquinita P. Capili v. Sps. Dominador and Rosalita Cardana (2006)

G.R. No. 157906   November 2, 2006

Lessons Applicable: Res ipsa loquitur (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Article 2176 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

• February 1, 1993: Jasmin Cardaa was walking along the San Roque Elementary School when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous death.  Her parents Dominador and Rosalita Cardaa filed a case for damages against the school principal Joaquinita Capili knowing that the tree was dead and rotting did not dispose of it
• RTC: dismissed for failing to show negligence on the part of Capili
• CA: reversed. Awarded P50,000 as indemnity for the death of Jasmin and P15,010 as reimbursement of her burial expenses, moral damages P50,000 and attorney's fees and litigation P10,000

ISSUE: W/N Capili can be held liable for damages under Res ipsa loquitur 

HELD: YES. 

• negligent act
• inadvertent(unintentional) act
• may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature
• an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner
• The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable.  As school principal, she was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises.  Moreover, even if petitioner had assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises supervision over her assignee
• Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school's premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.  
• Once respondents made out a prima facie case of all requisites, the burden shifts to petitioner 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
• Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis--vis respondents' daughter's death.The award of moral damages is therefore not proper.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Marcelo Macalinao, et al., v. Eddie Medecielo Ong (2005)

G.R. No.  146635  December 14, 2005

Lessons Applicable: Res Ipsa Loquitur (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• April 1992: Sebastian instructed Macalinao, Ong and 2 other truck helpers to deliver a heavy piece of machinery to Sebastian’s manufacturing plant in Angat, Bulacan
• While delivering, the Genetron’s Isuzu Elf truck driven by Ong bumped the front portion of a private jeepney.  Both vehicles incurred severe damages while the passengers sustained physical injuries as a consequence of the  collision. 
• Macalinao was brought to Sta. Maria District Hospital for first aid treatment then to Philippine Orthopedic Center then to Capitol Medical Center and lastly, to Philippine General Hospital due to financial considerations.  His body was paralyzed and immobilized from the neck down.  He filed against Ong and Sebastian.  A  criminal  case  for  reckless  imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries was instituted but was not ensued.
• November 7 1992: Macalinao died and was substituted by his parents.
• RTC: Ong negligent and Sebastian failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Ong thus ordering them jointly liable to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as civil indemnity for Macalinao’s death
• CA: reversed for lack of evidence

ISSUE: W/N Ong may be held liable under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

HELD: YES.

• photographs clearly shows that the road where the mishap occurred is marked by a line at the center separating the right from the left lane
• While ending up at the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in automobile collisions, the position of the two vehicles gives rise to the conclusion that it was the Isuzu truck which hit the private jeepney rather than the other way around.
• Based on the angle at which it stopped, the private jeepney obviously swerved to the right in an unsuccessful effort to avoid the Isuzu truck. 
• Since respondents failed to refute the contents of the police blotter, the statement therein that the Isuzu truck hit the private jeepney and not the other way around is deemed established.
• While not constituting direct proof of Ong’s negligence, the foregoing pieces of evidence justify the application of res ipsa loquitur, a Latin phrase which literally means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself
• Res ipsa loquitur 
• recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence
• permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part
• based on the theory that 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 while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence
• can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily available
• 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
• requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
  
  
  (1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; - No two motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of course unless someone is negligent
  
  
  
  
  (2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants - Driving the Isuzu truck gave Ong exclusive management and control over it
  
  
  (3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated 

              (4) defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the

                    injury was caused by his or her want of due care (Based on 

                   American Jurisprudence) - defendant fails to offer any explanation

                   tending to show that the injury was caused by his or her want of due

                   care

• Macalinao could no longer testify as to the cause of the accident since he is dead. Petitioners, while substituting their son as plaintiff, have no actual knowledge about the event since they were not present at the crucial moment
• evidence as to the true cause of the accident is, for all intents and purposes, accessible to respondents but not to petitioners
• two truck helpers who survived, both employees of Sebastian, and Ong, who is not only Sebastian’s previous employee but his co-respondent in this case as well

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc., et al. v. Sps. Gaudencio and Primitiva Sarangaya (2005)

G.R. No. 147746  October 25, 2005

Lessons Applicable: Res Ipsa Loquitur (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

• 1986: Spouses Gaudencio Sarangaya III and Primitiva Sarangaya erected Super A Building, a semi-concrete, semi-narra, one-storey commercial building fronting the provincial road of Santiago, Isabela
• It has three doors which were leased out
• The two-storey residence of the Sarangayas was behind the second and third doors of the building
• On the left side of the commercial building stood the office of the Matsushita Electric Philippine Corporation (Matsushita)
• 1988: Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. through its branch manager Bienvenido Pascual, entered into a contract of lease of the first door beside the Matsushita office
• It was converted into a two door so he had a garage where he parked a company car 1981 model 4-door Ford Cortina which he used to supervise different towns
• July 7, 1988: Pascual went to San Fernando, Pampanga leaving the car
• 3 days later: When he returned and warmed up the car, it made an odd sound.  On the second try, there was again an odd sound and a small flames came out of its engine so he was startled, stopped the car, went out and pushed it out of the garage
• Soon, fire spewed out of its rear compartment and burned the whole garage where he was trapped so he suffered burns in the face, legs and arms
• The spouses were busy atching TV when they heard 2 loud explosions, smelt of gasoline and fire burned all their belongings
• city fire marshall investigated and concluded that the fire was accidental
• Spouses filed a complaint against Pascual for gross negligence and Perla for lacking the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. 
• RTC: Pascual and Perla liable jointly and solidarily
• Pascual was held liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
• CA: affirmed but modified the amount of damages

ISSUE: 

1. W/N the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable - YES

2. W/N Perla lacked the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. - NO

HELD: DENIED

1. YES.

• Res ipsa loquitur 
• Latin phrase which literally means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.
• It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima facie case
• The doctrine rests on inference and not on presumption
• facts of the occurrence warrant the supposition of negligence and they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence when direct evidence is lacking
• based on the theory that the defendant either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and the plaintiff, having no knowledge thereof, is compelled to allege negligence in general terms
• plaintiff relies on proof of the happening of the accident alone to establish negligence
• provides a means by which a plaintiff can pin liability on a defendant who, if innocent, should be able to explain the care he exercised to prevent the incident complained of
• defendant’s responsibility to show that there was no negligence on his part
• Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur
• 1) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
• “Ordinary” refers to the usual course of events
• Flames spewing out of a car engine, when it is switched on, is obviously not a normal event. Neither does an explosion usually occur when a car engine is revved.
• Pascual, as the caretaker of the car, failed to submit any proof that he had it periodically checked - negligence
• 2) the cause of 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 on the part of the person injured.
• When there is caso fortuito:
• (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected  occurrence  was  independent  of  the human will
• human agency must be entirely excluded as the proximate cause or contributory cause of the injury or loss -Not because car not maintained 
• (b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid -  NOT under the control of pascual
• (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner - Spouses had no access nor obligation for the maintenance
• (d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the accident

2. YES.

• Perla did not include any rule or regulation that Pascual should have observed in performing his functions
• There was no guidelines for the maintenance and upkeep of company property like the vehicle that caught fire
• Did not require periodic reports on or inventories of its properties 
• Article 2180 of the Civil Code states that employers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees. The liability is imposed on all those who by their industry, profession or other enterprise have other persons in their service or supervision
• Nowhere does it state that the liability is limited to employers in the transportation business.