OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR.

vs.
GERONIMO BACOY
G.R. No. 173870. April 25, 2012

FACTS:
Spouses Emilia Bacoy Monsalud and Leonardo Monsalud, Sr. and
their daughter Glenda Monsalud, were run over by a Fuso passenger
jeep driven by Allan Maglasang and was registered in the name of
petitioner. Consequently, a case was filed against Allan for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide before the RTC, which said
court declared Allan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.
During the pendency of said criminal case, Emilias father,
Geronimo Bacoy filed an independent civil action for damages based
on culpa aquiliana to Allan and the petitioner. Defendants refused to
assume civil liability for the victims deaths. Petitioner averred that the
Monsaluds have no cause of action against them because Allan was
not their employee anymore and the jeep was stolen when the incident
happened. The RTC absolved the petitioner from all civil liability but
was reversed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is liable for damages under the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur.

RULING:
The SC held the petitioner liable for quasi-delict resulting from
his jeeps use, as all requisites under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
are
present.
First,
no
person
just
walking along the road would suddenly be sideswiped and run
over
by an on-rushing vehicle unless the one in charge of the said vehicle
had been negligent. Second, the jeep which caused the injury was
under the exclusive control of petitioner as its owner. When petitioner
entrusted the ignition key to Rodrigo (Allans friend), he had the power
to instruct him with regard to the specific restrictions of the jeeps use,
including who or who may not drive it. As he is aware that the jeep
may run without the ignition key, he also has the responsibility to park
it safely and securely and to instruct his driver Rodrigo to observe the
same precaution. Lastly, there was no showing that the death of the
victims was due to any voluntary action or contribution on their part.
The aforementioned requisites having been met, there now
arises a presumption of negligence against the petitioner, which he
could have overcome by evidence that he exercised due care and
diligence in preventing strangers from using his jeep. Absent the
circumstance of unauthorized use or that the subject vehicle was
stolen which are valid defenses available to a registered owner, the
petitioner cannot escape his civil liability on this present case.

SPS. ALFREDO BONTILAO AND SHERLINA BONTILAO

versus
DR. CARLOS GERONA
G.R. No. 176675, September 25, 2010
FACTS:
On December 28, 1991, Dr. Carlos Gerona, an orthopedic
surgeon, treated petitioners' son, eight (8)-year-old Allen Key Bontilao
(Allen), for a fractured right wrist.. On June 4, 1992, Allen re-fractured
the same wrist and was brought back to the hospital. Respondent
performed a closed reduction procedure, with Dr. Vicente Jabagat (Dr.
Jabagat) as the anesthesiologist. He allowed Allen to go home after the
post reduction x-ray showed that the bones were properly aligned, but
advised Allen's mother, petitioner Sherlina Bontilao, to bring Allen back
for re-tightening of the cast not later than June 15, 1992.
Allen, however, was brought back to the hospital only on June 22,
1992. By then, because the cast had not been re-tightened, a
rotational deformity had developed in Allen's arm. The x-ray
examination showed that the deformity was caused by a redisplacement of the bone fragments, so it was agreed that an open
reduction surgery will be conducted by respondent with Dr. Jabagat as
the anesthesiologist.
During the operation, Dr. Jabagat failed to intubate the patient
after five (5) attempts so anesthesia was administered through a gas
mask. Respondent asked Dr. Jabagat if the operation should be
postponed given the failure to intubate, but Dr. Jabagat said that it was
alright to proceed. Respondent verified that Allen was breathing
properly before proceeding with the surgery.[ As respondent was about
to finish the suturing, Sherlina decided to go out of the operating room
to make a telephone call and wait for her son. Later, she was informed
that her son had died on the operating table. The cause of death was
"asphyxia due to congestion and edema of the epiglottis.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent is liable for damages for Allen's death.
RULING:
The SC held that the court cannot properly declare that
respondent failed to exercise the required standard of care as lead
surgeon as to hold him liable for damages for Allen's death under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Petitioners failed to present substantial
evidence of any specific act of negligence on respondent's part or of
the surrounding facts and circumstances which would lead to the
reasonable inference that the untoward consequence was caused by
respondent's negligence. In fact, under the established facts,
respondent appears to have observed the proper amount of care
required under the circumstances. Therefore res ipsa loquitor could not
be invoked on this present case due to lack of substantial evidence
that the injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality under the

exclusive control and management of the defendant, and that the

injury was such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen
if reasonable care had been used.