Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

BORROMEO V. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC.

(2016),
supra  The application of res ipsa loquitur requires:
Brion, J.
(1) That the accident was of a kind which does not
Summary: Petitioner’s wife died in the care of respondent ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
hospital and doctor, after the former’s appendix was removed.
To prove negligence, petitioner presented a medico-legal officer (2) That the instrumentality or agency which caused
and an expert in medical jurisprudence as expert witnesses. To the injury was under the exclusive control of the
defend against allegations of negligence, respondents presented person charged with negligence; and
two highly credible expert witnesses, which opined that the
cause of death of petitioner’s wife was a rare blood disease. (3) That the injury suffered must not have been due to
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that it was res ipsa any voluntary action or contribution from the injured
loquitur since a patient’s death doesn’t usually happen during an person.
appendectomy.
 The concurrence of these elements creates a
The CA reversed the RTC, giving greater weight to respondent’s presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted,
expert witnesses testimonies over petitioner’s as the latter was overcomes the plaintiff’s burden of proof.
not an expert in pathology, appendectomy, nor in surgery; and
since the expert in medical jurisprudence expert as the premise
 This doctrine is used in conjunction with the doctrine
of his testimony was that the doctor who conducted the autopsy
of common knowledge, which have been applied in the
is a pathologist of equal or of grater expertise than the expert
following cases:
witnesses of respondent.
The CA denied the applicability of res ipsa loquitur because the o Where a patient who was scheduled for a
element of causation between the instrumentality under the cholecystectomy1 but was otherwise healthy
control and management of the doctor and the injury that caused suffered irreparable brain damage after
petitioner’s wife was absent, with the respondents having being administered anesthesia prior to the
sufficiently established that the cause of death was the rare operation.2
blood disease.
The Court affirmed the CA ruling, also giving more weight to o Where after giving birth, a woman woke up
the testimony of the respondents’ expert witnesses. The Court with a gaping burn wound close to her left
found that the expert witnesses presented by petitioner were armpit.3
unfit to opine on the negligence in relation to the medical
malpractice in this case, because the medico-legal officer lacked o The removal of the wrong body part
the experience and credentials in pathological autopsy, during the operation; and
brandished his own credentials; and the medical jurisprudence
expert had no actual experience in appendectomies and o Where an operating surgeon left a foreign
autopsies. Therefore, medical negligence can’t be proven. object (i.e., rubber gloves) inside the body
Neither did the Court consider res ipsa loquitur as the alleged of the patient.4
negligence is not even apparent to a layman, and the actual
cause of the injury has been identified.  The rule is not applicable in cases such as the present
one where the defendant’s alleged failure to observe
Doctrine: Res ipsa loquitur is used in conjunction with the due care is not immediately apparent to a layman.
doctrine of common knowledge. The [doctrine of common
knowledge] is not applicable in cases where the defendant’s o These instances require expert opinion to
alleged failure to observe due care is not immediately apparent establish the culpability of the defendant
to a layman. These instances require expert opinion to establish doctor.
the culpability of the defendant doctor. It is also not applicable
to cases where the actual cause of the injury had been identified o It is also not applicable to cases where the
or established. actual cause of the injury had been
identified or established.
Issue: Whether or not res ipsa loquitur is applicable on this
case? Ruling: Petition DENIED for lack of merit. No costs.

Held: No, the doctrine is not applicable. The alleged failure PLDT V. CA (1989)
of Dr. Inso to observe due care is not immediately apparent Regalado, J.
to a layman, and the actual cause of the injury has been
identified.
1
The removal of gall stones
 The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa 2
Ramos v. CA (1999)
loquitur to shift the burden of evidence onto the 3
respondent. Dr. Cantre v. Spouses (2007)
4
Batiquin v. CA (1996)

1 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
Keywords: open excavation; underground conduit system; left uncovered, because of the creeping darkness and
swerving; speeding; dim lights; last clear chance the lack of any warning light or signs.

Summary: Spouses Antonio and Gloria Esteban sued PLDT for  As a result, Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries
the injuries they sustained when their jeep ran over a mound of on her limbs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her
earth and fell into an open excavation allegedly undertaken by cheek. Meanwhile, the windshield of the jeep was
PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. shattered.

The spouses claimed that they failed to notice the open trench,  In its answer, PLDT denied liability, contending that
which was left uncovered, because of the creeping darkness and respondent spouses’ injuries were the result of their
the lack of any warning lights or signs. own negligence.
The Court agreed with the appellate court that the accident was
o Moreover, PLDT contended that if at all, it
due to the lack of diligence of Antonio Esteban, and was not
imputable to a negligent omission on the part of PLDT. is L.R. Barte and Company, an independent
contractor which undertook the construction
The Court found that: (1) the accident wasn’t due to the absence of the manhole and the conduit system,
of warning signs but to the unexplained abrupt swerving of the should be the one held liable, if there is
jeep from the inside lane; (2) the jeep’s speed; (3) the usage of any liability at all.
dim lights instead of regular lights, given the circumstances,
which would have made him see the mound in time.  Accordingly, PLDT filed a third-party complaint
against Barte.
The Court held that the negligence of Antonio wasn’t only
contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but went to the o PLDT alleged that, under the terms of their
very cause of the accident’s occurrence, as one of its agreement, PLDT should in no manner be
determining factors, and thereby precluded their right to recover answerable for any accident or injuries
damages. The perils of the road were known to, and hence arising from the negligence or carelessness
appreciated and assumed by the spouses. Antonio could have of Barte or any of its employees.
avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming
arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part of
 In its own answer, Barte claimed it was neither aware
PLDT.
nor notified of the accident, and that it had complied
The Court also held that the presence of warning signs couldn’t with the terms of its contract with PLDT by installing
have completely prevented the accident. The only purpose of the necessary and appropriate standard signs in the
said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of vicinity of the work site, with barricades at both ends
excavations on the site. with red lights at night to warn the travelling public of
the presence of excavations.
Lastly, it found that Antonio had the last clear chance or  The RTC ruled in favor of private respondents,
opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the awarding damages6 and ordering Barte to reimburse
negligence he imputed to PLDT. whatever PLDT has paid to the Spouses.

Doctrine:. The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing  Only PLDT and the private respondents appealed,
of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the with the latter appealing as to the amount of damages.
proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act
would have prevented the injury.
 The Special Second Division of the CA reversed the
RTC Decision, holding that it was the spouses who
Action: Petition for review assailing CA Decision and
were negligent, absolving petitioner from the claim
Resolution, reversing an RTC Decision, which dismissed the
complaint against petitioners for damages. for damages.

o The Special Ninth Division of the CA


 Private respondent spouses Antonio and Gloria denied the subsequent motion for
Esteban instituted an action for damages against reconsideration.
petitioner PLDT for the injuries they sustained when
their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an  The CA, upon motion for leave of court, allowed
open trench. private respondents to file a second motion for
reconsideration.
o This was due to an excavation allegedly
undertaken by PLDT for the installation of  The CA, in view of the divergent opinions on the
its underground conduit system5. resolution of the second motion for reconsideration,
 The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio 6
For Gloria Esteban: P20,000 (moral damages) + P5,000
Esteban failed to notice the open trench, which was
(exemplary damages). For Antonio Esteban: P2,000 (moral
damages) + P500 (exemplary damages), with legal rate of
5
A system of tubes used to protect and route electrical wiring. interest. Also included were P3,000 for attorney’s fees.

2 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
designated two additional justices to form a division  The presence of warning signs couldn’t have
of five. completely prevented the accident.

o This division set aside the Special Second o The only purpose of said signs was to
Division’s Decision, affirming in toto the inform and warn the public of the presence
RTC Decision. of excavations on the site.

 Petitioners filed a motion to set aside and/or for o The private respondents already knew of
reconsideration of the same resolution, but were the presence of said excavations.
denied.
 It was the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep
 Hence the instant petition. of respondents, not the lack of knowledge of these
excavations, which caused the jeep of respondents to
fall into the accident mound.
Issue: Whether or not the original decision that the accident was
due to private respondents’ negligence (Special Second o The omission to perform a duty, such as the
Division) was erroneous? placing of the warning signs on the site of
the excavation, constitutes the proximate
Held: No, the original CA Decision finding private cause only when the doing of the said
respondents negligent wasn’t erroneous. omitted act would have prevented the
injury.
 The CA, in the original decision, correctly found that:
 It is basic that private respondents cannot charge
(1) If the jeep had remained on their lane, instead of PLDT for their injuries, where their own failure to
swerving, they wouldn’t have hit the accident mound. exercise due and reasonable care was the cause
thereof.
(2) The jeep was not running at 25km/hr as private
respondents claimed, for at that speed, Antonio o It is both a societal norm and necessity that
could’ve hit the brakes. The jeep must have been one should exercise a reasonable degree of
running quite fast. caution of rhis own protection.

(3) Even if the jeep neither swerved nor sped, given  Furthermore, Antonio had the last clear chance to
that there was a “drizzle”, Antonio should have put his avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he
regular lights on instead of the dim lights. Doing this imputes to petitioner PLDT.
would’ve allowed Antonio to see the accident mound
in time. o As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on
that street almost every day and had
“[Antonio] knew of the existence and location of the knowledge of the presence and location of
accident mounds, since he’s seen it numerous times. the excavations there.

“With ordinary precaution, [Antonio] should have o It was his negligence that exposed him and
driven his jeep on the night of the accident so as to his wife to danger. Therefore, he is solely
avoid hitting the accident mound. responsible for the consequences of his
imprudence.
 Therefore, the negligence of respondent Antonio
Esteban was not only contributory to his and his  There was also insufficient evidence to prove
wife’s injuries, but it goes to the very cause of the petitioner’s negligence.
occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining
factors. o The only available evidence are self-serving
testimonies by respondent Antonio Esteban
o This precludes them from recovering and an unverified photograph of merely a
damages. portion of the scene of the accident.

 The perils of the road were known to, hence o A person claiming damages for the
appreciated and assumed by, private respondents. negligence of another has the burden of
proving the existence of such fault or
 If Antonio had exercised reasonable care and negligence causative thereof.
prudence, he could have avoided the injurious
consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo o The facts constitutive of negligence must be
that there was some alleged negligence on the part affirmatively established by competent
of petitioner. evidence.

3 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
o Whosoever relies on negligence for his  Efren Magno went to the 3-story house of Antonio
cause of action has the burden in the first Peñaloza, his stepbrother, located on Rodriguez
instance of proving the existence of the same Lanuza Street, Manila, to repair a “media agua”7
if contested, otherwise his action must fail. said to be in a leaking condition.

o The “media agua” was just below the


Ruling: Petition granted. CA Decision reinstated. window of the third story.

 Standing on said “media agua”, Magno received from


Note: On the procedural issue concerning the conflicting CA
his son thru that window a 3’ X 6’ galvanized iron
Resolutions, the Court held that private respondent’s motion for
sheet to cover the leaking portion, turned around.
leave to file a 2nd MR and the 2nd MR were filed out of time.
o In doing so the lower end of the iron sheet
Actions for 2nd MRs must be filed within the 15-day period, came into contact with the electric wire of
deducting therefrom the time in which the first motion was the Manila Electric Company (later
pending. referred to as Manila Electric) strung
parallel to the edge of the “media agua” and
The expiration of the 15-day period deprives the court of 2 1/2 feet from it, causing his death by
jurisdiction to take further proceedings in the case. electrocution.

MANILA ELECTRIC V. REMOQUILLO (1956)  His widow and children filed suit to recover damages
Montemayor, J. from Manila Electric.
Keywords: media agua, 3x6 galvanized iron sheet
 After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in the
appelee’s favor, awarding the following:
Summary Efren Magno went to the three-storey house of
Antonio Penaloza to repair a media agua said to be in a leaking
condition. The media agua was just below the window of the P10,000 as compensatory damages;
third storey. Standing on said media agua, Magno received a P784 as actual damages;
galvanized iron sheet to cover the leaking portion from his son 2,000 as moral and exemplary damages; 
through the window. P3,000 as attorney’s fees, with costs.

Efren then turned around, and in doing so, the lower end of the  The CA affirmed the judgment with slight
iron sheet came into contact with the electric wire of the Manila modification by reducing the attorney’s fees from
Electric Company, causing Efren’s death by electrocution. His P3,000 to P1,000 with costs, holding that:
widow and children filed suit to recover damages.
 Although the owner of the house in constructing the
The Court held that Magno’s death was primarily caused by his “media agua” in question exceeded the limits fixed in
own negligence. They reversed the appellate court’s award of the permit, still, after making that “media agua”, its
damages and dismissed the complaint against petitioner. construction though illegal, was finally approved
because he was given a final permit to occupy the
Doctrine: Where it is shown that the death of the deceased was house;
primarily caused by his own negligence, Manila Electric could
not be held guilty of negligence or as lacking in due diligence  It was Manila Electric that was at fault and was
To hold the latter liable in damages for the death of the deceasd, guilty of negligence because although the electric wire
such supposed negligence of Manila Electric must have been the in question had been installed long before the
proximate and principal cause of the accident. But in the case at construction of the house and in accordance with the
bar, the act of the deceased in turning around and swining the ordinance fixing a minimum of 3 feet, mere
galvanized iron sheet with his hands was the proximate and compliance with the regulations does not satisfy the
principal cause of the electrocution. Therefore, his heirs cannot requirement of due diligence nor avoid the need for
recover. adopting such other precautionary measures as
may be warranted; 
Casis Comment: The Court starts out ruling that the proximate
cause was a combination of two negligent acts—one by Magno, o The appellate court, however, refrained from
and the other by a non-party to the suit (the one responsible for stating or suggesting what other
the media agua). It then downgraded the contribution of the fact precautionary measures could and should
that media agua not complying with regulations. Finally, it have been adopted.
placed the blame entirely on Magno.

Action:Appeal of a CA Decision, awarding damages to the  Hence the instant appeal.


herein respondents.

Issue: Whether or not Manila Electric can be held liable for


damages?
7
A canopy over a window

4 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
Held: No, they may not be held liable for damages. Magno’s the electric wire of Manila Electric, by reason of the
death was primarily caused by his own negligence. violation of the original permit given by the city and
the subsequent approval of said illegal construction of
 The record hows that during the construction of said the “media agua”.
house a similar incident took place, although
fortunate]y with much less tragic consequences.  Manila Electric can’t be held guilty of negligence or as
lacking in due diligence.
o A piece of wood which a carpenter was
holding happened to come in contact with o Although the city ordinance called for a
the same wire, producing some sparks.
distance of 3 feet of its wires from any
building, there was actually a distance of 7
o The owner of the house forthwith feet and 2 3/4 inches of the wires from the
complained to Defendant about the danger side of the house of Peñaloza.
which the wire presented, and as a
result Defendant moved one end of the wire o Even considering said regulation distance of
farther from the house by means of a brace, 3 feet as referring not to the side of a
but left the other end where it was. building, but to any projecting part thereof,
such as a “media agua”, had the house
owner followed the terms of the permit
 The distance from the electric wire to the edge of the the edge of said “media agua” would have
‘media agua’ on which the deceased was making been 3 feet and 11 3/8 inches.
repairs was only 30 inches or 2 1/2 feet.
 In fixing said one meter width for the “media agua”
o Regulations of the City of Manila required the city authorities must have wanted to preserve the
that ‘all wires be kept three feet from the distance of at least 3 feet between the wires and any
building.’  portion of a building.

 Appellant contends that in applying said regulations to o Unfortunately, however, the house owner,
the case at bar the reckoning should not be from the disregarding the permit, exceeded the one
edge of the ‘media agua’ but from the side of the meter fixed by the same by 17 3/8 inches
house and that, thus measured, the distance was and leaving only a distance of 2 1/2 feet
almost 7 feet, or more then the minimum prescribed. between the “Media agua” as illegally
constructed and the electric wires.
o This contention is manifestly groundless,
for not only is a ‘media agua’ an integral  And added to this violation of the permit by the house
part of the building to which it is attached owner, was its approval by the city through its
but to exclude it in measuring the distance agent, possibly an inspector.
would defeat the purpose of the regulation. 
o These violations have nothing to do with
 Appellant points out that the fact that the house Manila Electric, as it is guiltless of breach of
involved herein such distance was actually less than 3 any ordinance or regulation.
feet was due to the fault of the owner of said house,
because the city authorities gave him a permit to
 Manila Electric cannot be expected to be always on
construct a ‘media agua’ only one meter or 39 1/2
the lookout for any illegal construction which reduces
inches wide, but instead he built one having a width of
the distance between its wires and said construction,
65 3/4 inches, (17 3/8 inches more than the width
and after finding that said distance of 3 feet had been
permitted), thereby reducing the distance to the
reduced, to change the stringing or installation of its
electric wire to less than the prescribed minimum of 3
wires so as to preserve said distance.
feet.
 It would be much easier for the City, or rather it is its
o The owner of the house exceeded the limit
duty, to be ever on the alert and to see to it that its
fixed in the permit given to him by the city
ordinances are strictly followed by house owners and
authorities for the construction of the ‘media
to condemn or disapprove all illegal constructions.
agua’, and that if he had not done
so Appellants wire would have been 11 3/8
(inches) more than the required distance of  Of course, in the present case, the violation of the
three feet from the edge of the ‘media agua’. permit for the construction of the “media agua” was
not the direct cause of the accident. It merely
o However, after the ‘media agua’ was contributed to it.
constructed, the owner was given a final
permit of occupancy of the house...  Had said “media agua” been only one meter wide as
allowed by the permit, Magno standing on it, would
instinctively have stayed closer to or hugged the
 The death of Magno was primarily caused by his side of the house in order to keep a safe margin
own negligence and in some measure by the too close between the edge of the “media agua” and the
proximity of the “media agua” or rather its edge to

5 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
yawning 2-story distance or height from the ground, supposedly a tinsmith trained and
and possibly if not probably avoided the fatal experienced in the repair of galvanized iron
contact between the lower end of the iron sheet and roofs and “media agua”.
the wires.
o Moreover, in that very case of Astudillo vs.
 The real cause of the accident or death was the Manila Electric Co., the court said that
reckless or negligent act of Magno himself. although it is a well- established rule that the
liability of electric companies for damages
 When he was called by his stepbrother to repair the or personal injuries is governed by the rules
“media agua” just below the third story window, it is of negligence, nevertheless such companies
to be presumed that due to his age and experience he are not insurers of the safety of the public.
was qualified to do so.
 Even assuming that Manila Electric could be
 Perhaps he was a tinsmith or carpenter and had considered negligent in installing its electric wires so
training and experience for the job. close to the house and “media agua” in question, and
in failing to properly insulate those wires, the
 Therefore, he could not have been entirely a (hypothetical) negligence isn’t the proximate cause.
stranger to electric wires and the danger lurking in “ 
them.
 The principal and proximate cause of the
 Unfortunately, in the instant care, his training and electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a
experience failed him, and forgetting where he was remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent
standing, holding the 6-feet iron sheet with both hands act of Magno in turning around and swinging the
and at arms length, evidently without looking, and galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution,
throwing all prudence and discretion to the winds, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire
he turned around swinging his arms with the motion to avoid its contacting said iron sheet, considering the
of his body, thereby causing his own electrocution. latter’s length of 6 feet. C

 The CA erred in applying Astudillo vs. Manila o A prior and remote cause cannot be made
Electric. the basis of an action if such remote cause:

o There involved was “a public place where (1) Did nothing more than furnish the
persons come to stroll, to rest and to enjoy condition; or
themselves”.
(2) Give rise to the occasion by which the
o The electric company was clearly negligent injury was made possible,
in placing its wires so near the place that
without much difficulty or exertion, a person If there intervened between such prior or
by stretching his hand out could touch them. remote cause and the injury a distinct,
successive, unrelated, and efficient cause
of the injury, even though such injury
o A boy named Astudillo, placing one foot on
would not have happened but for such
a projection, reached out and actually condition or occasion.
grasped the electric wire and was
electrocuted. The person electrocuted in said If no danger existed in the [remote]
case was a boy who was in no position to condition except because of the independent
realize the danger. cause, such condition was not the
proximate cause.
 In the present case, however, the wires were well
high over the street where there was no possible If an independent negligent act or defective
danger to pedestrians. condition sets into operation the
circumstances which result in injury because
o The only possible danger was to persons of the prior defective condition, such
standing on the “media agua”, but a subsequent act or condition is the
“media agua” can hardly be considered a proximate cause.
public place where persons usually gather.

o Moreover, a person standing on the “media Ruling: CA Decision reversed, and complaint against Manila
agua” could not have reached the wires with Electric dismissed.
his hands alone. It was necessary as was
done by Magno to hold something long
enough to reach the wire.

o Furthermore, Magno was not a boy or a


person immature but the father of a family,

6 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
wire from one of the electric posts owned
by the petitioner.

o They contended that the mishap was due to


petitioner’s negligence when it failed to fix
and change said live tension wires, despite
being immediately informed by residents in
the area that it might pose an immediate
danger.

 Petitioner Cagayan II Electric Cooperative, Inc.


(CAGELCO) contended that it cannot be faulted for
negligence as typhoons are fortuitous events.
CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V. RAPANAN
(2014) o It alleged that the typhoons that struck its
Villarama, Jr., J. areas of responsibility caused some of its
Keywords: live wire; skid mark; common law spouse poles to fall and high tension wires to snap
or cut-off which caused brownouts in said
Summary: A motorcycle incident resulted in the death of the areas.
motorcycle driver and serious physical injuries on his two
passengers. One passenger and the deceased driver’s common  Rapanan testified that while he, Tangonon and
law wife filed a complaint against CAGELCO, alleging that it Coloma were riding a motorcycle along the National
was their negligence in failing to fix and change the live tension Highway, they saw a dangling wire and because of a
wires from their electric posts that caused the death and injuries. strong wind that blew, they got wound by said wire
The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, finding respondent’s and were electrocuted.
overspeeding the cause of the accident. The CA reversed the
trial court, finding petitioner liable under Article 2176, but also  Respondents then testified and presented Dr. Tiffany
finding contributory negligence on the part of respondents for C. Hasim as witness, the doctor who attended to them
overspeeding and not wearing helmets. in the Alfonso Ponce Enrile Memorial District
Hospital.
The Court agreed with the trial court ruling, finding no
negligence under Article 2176 on the part of petitioner. It gave
o According to Dr. Hasim, the abrasions of
credence to petitioner’ employees testimony of having taken the
necessary precautions to take the live wires as far away from the Rapanan were caused by pressure when the
body was hit by a hard object or by friction.
road as possible, and concluding that it was the driver’s
negligence (i.e. overspeeding), as evidenced by the skid mark
o However, she was uncertain as to whether
left on the road, that was the proximate cause (and not the
petitioner’s alleged negligence). It also dismissed the award of a live electric wire could have caused
damages as to the common law wife of the driver, given that she them.
is not a legal heir, and thus is without personality to file the
herein suit. o She further said that she did not find any
electric burns on Rapanan.
Action: Petition for review on certiorari assailing CA Decision,
granting respondent’s appeal and holding petitioner liable for  As with Camilo, Dr. Hasim found abrasions and
quasi-delict and ordering it to pay damages. hematoma on his body and that the cause of death was
due to “cardio respiratory arrest secondary to
strangulation.”
 On October 31, 1998 at around 9PM, a motorcycle
incident with 3 (1 driver; 2 companions) passengers
figured in a mishap along the way of Maddalero,  Petitioner presented four witnesses:
Buguey, Cagayan.
o SPO2 Tactac: There was a 30m skid mark
o The owner and driver of the motorcyle, on the cemented portion of the road caused
Camilo Tangonan, died from the accident, by the motorcycles foot rest (not from the
while his companions respondent Rapanan tire), which indicates that the motorcycle
and Erwin Coloma suffered injuries. was overspeeding.

 Rapanan and Mary Gine Tangonon8 filed a complaint o Rasos and Adviento (petitioner’s employees:
for damages against Cagayan II Electric Cooperative As a result of typhoons Iliang and Loleng,
Inc before the RTC. the power lines were cut off because the
electric wires snapped and electric poles
o They alleged that while the victims were were destroyed; employees then inspected
traversing the national highway, they were the affected areas and the dangling wires
stuck and electrocuted by a live tension were removed and were placed at the foot of
the poles which were located 4-5 meters
8
The common law wife of Camilo Tangonan from the road.

7 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
 The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and dismissed the o They rolled the snapped wires and placed
complaint, holding that the proximate cause of the them behind nearby electric poles, away
accident was Camilo (motorcycle driver)’s negligence from the roads as a temporary remedy
and imprudence. considering that the snapped wires could not
be collected all at once.
o It further held that respondent Mary Gine
has no legal personality to institute the  Petitioner further contends that, as found by the trial
action, being a common law wife, as such court, the proximate cause of the mishap was the
right is only given to the legal heir of the recklessness and imprudence of Camilo, and not the
deceased. petitioner.

 The CA reversed and held petitioner liable for o The trial court correctly observed that
negligence under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, Camilo drove the motorcycle at a high
and awarding damages9 to respondents. speed, causing it to careen to the shoulder
of the road where the electric wire was.
o It found one consistent fact in the different
versions of the testimonies—the protruding o Had Camilo driven the motorcycle at an
or dangling CAGELCO wires to which the average speed, the accident wouldn’t have
victims were strangled or trapped. happened.

o It found Rapanan’s testimony to truthfully Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s negligence in maintenance of
establish the allegations, which weren’t its facilities was the proximate cause of the death of Camilo and
controverted by petitioner. the injuries of Rapanan?

 The CA found that the clear cause of the mishap Held: No, it’s not the proximate cause.
which lead to the death and injuries was the dangling
wire which struck them.

o Without the dangling wire which struck the


victims, the CA held that they wouldn’t have  Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the
fallen down and sustained the injuries they protection of the interest of another person that degree
did. of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstance justly demands, whereby such person
o They held that if petitioner hadn’t been suffers injury.
negligent in maintaining its facilities, and
making sure that every facility needing  Under Article 2176, the elements necessary to
repairs had been repaired, the mishap could establish a quasi-delict case are:
have been prevented.
(1) Damage to the plaintiff

 However, the CA also found victims to be partly (2) Negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or
responsible for the injuries they sustained as they by some person for whose acts the defendant must
were overspeeding and not wearing protective respond, was guilty
helmets.
(3) The connection of cause and effect between such
o While said circumstances were not the negligence and the damages
proximate cause of Camilo’s death and
Rapanan’s injuries, they contributed to the
occurrence of the unfortunate event.  Applying it to the case at hand:

 Hence the instant petition.  DAMAGE PRESENT  The unfortunate incident


brought about the death of Camilo and physical
 Petitioner contends that it cannot be accused of injuries to Rapanan.
negligence.
 NEGLIGENCE ABSENT  From the testimonies
o Petitioner’s crew has cleared the roads of of the petitioner’s employees and the excerpt from the
fallen electric poles and snapped wires. police blotter, it can be reasonably concluded that at
the time of the accident, said wires were quietly
9
For Rapanan: P10,000 (temperate damages) + P50,000 (moral sitting on the shoulder of the road, far enough from
damages). For heirs of Camilo Tangonan: P50,000 (death the concrete portion so as not to pose any threat to
indemnity) + P1,062,000 (loss of earning capacity indemnity) + passing motor vehicles and even pedestrians.
P20,000 (temperate damages) + P 50,000 (moral damages). For
both Rapanan and heirs of Camilo Tangonan: P50,000
(exemplary damages) + 20% of total amount adjudged.

8 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU
o Hence, if the victims of the mishap were
strangled by said wires, it can only mean
that either the motorcycle careened towards
the shoulder; or even more likely, that the
three passengers were thrown off from the
motorcycle to the shoulder of the road, and
thus became caught up with the wires.

 SPO2 Tactac’s testimony is worth credence. The 30m


skid mark on the road was caused by the foot rest and
not the tire.

 PROXIMATE CAUSATION ABSENT  The 30m


skid mark being caused by the foot rest shows that the
motorcycle was probably running too fast that it
lost control and started tilting and sliding, after
which the passengers were thrown off to the shoulder
of the road where the electric wires were. Therefore,
the proximate cause of the mishap was the
negligence of Camilo, not CAGELCO.

o Therefore, the mishap already occurred,


even while they were on the road.

o It just so happened that after the motorcycle


tilted and slid, the passengers were thrown
off to the shoulder where the electric wires
were.

 Had Camilo driven at the average speed, the three


passengers would not have been thrown off from the
vehicle towards the shoulder and eventually
strangulated by the electric wires sitting thereon.

Issue: Whether or not, in the event that petitioner’s negligence is


found to be the proximate cause of the accident, damages should
be awarded in favor of Camilo’s heirs even if they were not
impleaded?

Held: No, the appellate court erred in awarding damages in


favor of Camilo’s legal heirs, since they were not impleaded
in this case.

 Mary Gine, the common law wife of Camilo, is the


complainant in the case.

 As a mere common law wife, she is not considered a


legal heir of Tangonon, and hence, has no legal
personality to institute the action for damages due to
Camilo’s death.

Ruling: Petition granted. CA Decision reversed and set aside.


RTC Ruling reinstated.

9 | B2023 DE LA CRUZ, LOPEZ, & MANLANGIT – TORTS AND DAMAGES – PROF. MICHAEL TIU

S-ar putea să vă placă și