2. DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY imposed by law.

Simply stated, tort is a breach of a

MAJOR PURPOSES OF TORT LAW
legal duty.
1. to provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights  that which is required by the nature of the
of parties who might otherwise take the law into obligation and corresponds with the  Sergio Naguiat is held solidarily liable for corporate
their own hands; circumstances of person, time and place (Art. tort because he had actively engaged in the
1173, NCC) management and operation of CFTI, a close
2. deter wrongful acts; corporation.
 aka ORDINARY DILIGENCE or DILIGENCE OF A
3. encourage socially responsible behavior; and
PRUDENT MAN
4. restore injured parties to their original condition, VINZONS-CHATO vs FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP.
insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them 3. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE  extreme care that
for their injury. a person of unusual prudence exercises to secure  The rule in this jurisdiction is that a public officer
rights or property may be validly sued in his/her private capacity for
ELEMENTS OF TORT acts done in the course of the performance of the
CASES functions of the office, where said public officer:
1. DUTY or obligation recognized by law requiring a
person to conform to a certain standard of conduct PICART vs. SMITH, JR. 1) acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence; or
for the protection of others against unreasonable  The test by which to determine the existence of 2) where the public officer violated a constitutional
risk; negligence in a particular case may be stated as right of the plaintiff.
2. BREACH or failure on the part of the person to follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
 The Code Commission deemed it necessary to hold
conform to the standard required; negligent act use that person would have used in the
not only public officers but also private individuals
3. PROXIMATE CAUSATION or a close causal same situation?
civilly liable for violation of the rights enumerated in
connection between the conduct and the resulting  Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of Article 32 of the Civil Code. It is not necessary that
injury; the suggestion born of this prevision, is always the defendant under this Article should have acted
4. INJURY or actual loss or damage resulting to the necessary before negligence can be held to exist. with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it would defeat its
interest of another. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for main purpose, which is the effective protection of
determining the existence of negligence in a given individual rights. It suffices that there is a violation of
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a the constitutional right of the plaintiff.
prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would
1. SLIGHT NEGLIGENCEthe failure to exercise great  Article 32 was patterned after the “tort” in American
have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
or extraordinary care law. A tort is a wrong, a tortious act which has been
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing
defined as the commission or omission of an act by
conduct or guarding against its consequences.
2. ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE  the want of ordinary one, without right, whereby another receives some
care and diligence (such care and diligence as an  It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or
ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent reputation.
same or similar circumstances negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of
the road. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the
3. GROSS NEGLIGENCE materially greater than GARCIA, JR. vs. SALVADOR
two parties were not contemporaneous, since the
ordinary negligence, and consists of an entire
negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection
absence of care or an absence of even slight care or
of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these of the interest of another person that degree of care,
diligence
circumstances the law is that the person who has the precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
 implies a thoughtless disregard for last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
consequences or an indifference to the rights or to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without injury.
welfare of others reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
 For health care providers, the test of the existence of
DEGREES OF DILIGENCE negligence is: did the health care provider either fail
NAGUIAT vs. NLRC to do something which a reasonably prudent health
1. DUE DILIGENCE  the diligence reasonably care provider would have done, or that he or she did
 Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the definite scope
expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person something that a reasonably prudent health care
of "corporate tort." Essentially, "tort" consists in the
who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to provider would not have done; and that failure or
violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
discharge an obligation action caused injury to the patient; if yes, then he is
guilty of negligence.
Che-an Prelim Notes 1
 Thus, the elements of an actionable conduct are: Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in Article 365 punishes part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents.
not only reckless but also simple negligence. Proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is
1) duty,
sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.
Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case,
2) breach,  The test by which to determine whether the
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required,
3) injury, and while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting
sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. to alight from a moving railway train, is that of
4) proximate causation. ordinary or reasonable care. It is to be considered
whether an ordinarily prudent person, of the age, sex
 In fine, violation of a statutory duty is negligence.
CANGCO vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO. and condition of the passenger, would have acted as
the passenger acted under the circumstances
OCEAN BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs. SPS.  It is important to note that the foundation of the legal
disclosed by the evidence. This care has been defined
ANTONIO liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage.
to be, not the care which may or should be used by
That is to say, its liability is direct and immediate,
 To successfully prosecute an action anchored on the prudent man generally, but the care which a man
differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that
torts, three elements must be present, viz: of ordinary prudence would use under similar
presumptive responsibility for the negligence of its
circumstances, to avoid injury." (Thompson,
(1) duty servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code,
Commentaries on Negligence, vol. 3, sec. 3010.)
which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due
(2) breach care in their selection and supervision. Article 1903
of the Civil Code is not applicable to obligations ELCANO vs. HILL
(3) injury and proximate causation.
arising ex contractu, but only to extra-contractual  Under the Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation
 Proximate cause is that which, in natural and obligations — or to use the technical form of of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt
continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient expression, that article relates only to culpa aquiliana or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action,
intervening cause, produces injury, and without and not to culpa contractual. not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence,
which, the result would not have occurred. An injury but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa
or damage is proximately caused by an act or failure  The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff
carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double
to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the recovery."
case that the act or omission played a substantial part in safety and to provide safe means of entering and
in bringing about or actually causing the injury or leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That duty,  While it is true that parental authority is terminated
damage, and that the injury or damage was either a being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil
direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of non-performance could not be excused by proof that Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes
the act or omission. the fault was morally imputable to defendant's place "by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is,
servants. however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
 The fundamental distinction between obligations of emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really
BARREDO vs. GARCIA full or absolute.
this character and those which arise from contract,
 Some of the differences between crimes under the rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual  Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary
Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or concession shall terminate parental authority over
under the Civil Code are: omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, the child's person. It shall enable the minor to
whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists administer his property as though he were of age, but
1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi- independently of the breach of the voluntary duty he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber
delitos are only of private concern. assumed by the parties when entering into the real property without the consent of his father or
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or  When the sources of the obligation upon which mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court
corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by plaintiff's cause of action depends is a negligent act or only with the assistance of his father, mother or
means of indemnification, merely repairs the omission, the burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to guardian."
damage. prove the negligence — if he does not his action fails.  On the other hand, the clear implication of Article
3. That delicts are punished only if there is a penal But when the facts averred show a contractual 399, in providing that a minor emancipated by
law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi- undertaking by defendant for the benefit of plaintiff, marriage may not, nevertheless, sue or be sued
delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to without the assistance of the parents, is that such
negligence intervenes." perform the contract, it is not necessary for plaintiff emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter
to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the into transactions or do any act that can give rise to
contract is due to willful fault or to negligence on the judicial litigation. (See Manresa, Id., Vol. II, pp. 766-

Che-an Prelim Notes 2

 767, 776.) And surely, killing someone else invites marry where the woman is a victim of moral good father of a family in the selection and
judicial action. seduction. supervision of their employees.”
 In an action by the woman, the enticement,  The law requires common carriers to carry
ANDAMO vs. IAC
persuasion or deception is the essence of the injury; passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very
 A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint and a mere proof of intercourse is insufficient to cautious persons with due regard for all
shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 warrant a recovery. circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to
and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not
 Pari delictomeans "in equal fault; in a similar offense only during the course of the trip but for so long as
elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault.
the passengers are within its premises and where
a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of
 This rule, however, has been interpreted as
b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some applicable only where the fault on both sides is, carriage.
other person for whose acts he must respond; and more or less, equivalent. It does not apply where
 In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed
one party is literate or intelligent and the other
c) the connection of cause and effect between the to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple
one is not.
fault or negligence of the defendant and the proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty
damages incurred by the plaintiff. to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier
CINCO vs. CANONOY or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the
 It must be stressed that the use of one's property is carrier to prove that the injury is due to an
 It bears emphasizing that petitioner's cause of action
not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code unforeseen event or to force majeure.
is based on quasi-delict. The concept of quasidelica as
provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use
enunciated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so  The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is
thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a
broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once
third person." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON
also damage to property. It makes no distinction such fault is established, the employer can then be
LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have
between "damage to persons" on the one hand and made liable on the basis of the presumption juris
mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each
"damage to property" on the other. Indeed, the word tantum that the employer failed to exercise
must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done
not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
and "reparation" for the harm done. And with respect supervision of its employees. The liability is primary
to harm it is plain that it includes both injuries to and can only be negated by showing due diligence in
BAKSH vs. CA person and property since "harm" is not limited to the selection and supervision of the employee, a
 The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry personal but also to property injuries. factual matter that has not been shown.
per se is not an actionable wrong.
SYQUIA vs.CA  A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and
 We are of the opinion, and so hold, that where a when the same act or omission causes the injury, one
man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause  The law defines negligence as the "omission of that resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa
of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his diligence which is required by the nature of the aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well
representation to fulfill that promise thereafter obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under
becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself the persons, of the time and of the place."In the a contract, where tort is that which breaches the
unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in absence of stipulation or legal provision providing contract. Stated differently, when an act which
reality, no intention of marrying her and that the the contrary, the diligence to be observed in the constitutes a breach of contract would have itself
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive performance of the obligation is that which is constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability
device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to expected of a good father of a family. had no contract existed between the parties, the
obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY vs. NAVIDAD thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
 Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier,
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs SPS
both from the nature of its business and for reasons
honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is TANJANGCO and SPS CUASO
of public policy, is burdened with the duty of
essential, however, that such injury should have been
exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of  In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
passengers. has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the
customs or public policy.
 “This liability of the common carriers does not cease damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or
 Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that negligence of the defendant or some other person for
upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a
Article 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of
Che-an Prelim Notes 3
 cause and effect between the fault or negligence and warning or signs of an impending danger to health SICAM vs. JORGE
the damages incurred. and body. To prove contributory negligence, it is still
 The CA correctly pierced the veil of the corporate
necessary to establish a causal link, although not
 A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely fiction and adjudged petitioner Sicam liable together
proximate, between the negligence of the party and
carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and with petitioner corporation. The rule is that the veil
the succeeding injury.
may be one which creates a situation involving an of corporate fiction may be pierced when made as a
unreasonable risk to another because of the  The doctrine of last clear chance states that where shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate
expectable action of the other, a third person, an both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one issues. The theory of corporate entity was not meant
animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it to promote unfair objectives or otherwise to shield
from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence them.
position, in the same or similar circumstances, would caused the loss, the one who had the last clear
 Robbery per seis not a fortuitous event.
foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is
to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the  Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary
careful manner. antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore,
him from recovering damages caused by the not enough that the event should not have been
 The test to determine the existence of negligence
supervening negligence of defendant, who had the foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but
in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The
defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use
exercise of due diligence. The proximate cause of the mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
injury having been established to be the negligence of impossibility to foresee the same.
person would have used in the same situation? If not,
petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no
then he is guilty of negligence.  To constitute a fortuitous event, the following
application in the instant case.
elements must concur:
 Actual or compensatory damages are those
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs. BRUNTY awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to
Negligence is the omission to do something which a comply with obligations must be independent of
reasonable man, guided by those considerations natural justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done. To
be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a human will;
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable degree of certainty. b) it must be impossible to foresee the event that
prudent and reasonable man would not do.  Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are constitutes the casofortuito or, if it can be
designed to compensate and alleviate in some way foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
 In Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company, this Court
held that negligence is want of the care required by the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious c) the occurrence must be such as to render it
the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, impossible for the debtor to fulfill obligations in
an absolute, term and its application depends upon moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury a normal manner; and,
the situation of the parties and the degree of care and unjustly caused a person. Although incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages must d) the obligor must be free from any participation
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
nevertheless be somehow proportional to and in in the aggravation of the injury or loss.
require.
approximation of the suffering inflicted.  The burden of proving that the loss was due to a
 In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order to
fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. And, in
sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and BORJA vs. CA order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from
requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2)
negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or liability, it is necessary that one has committed no
 Negligence has been defined as "the failure to negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned
some person for whose acts he must respond was
observe for the protection of the interests of another the loss.
guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect between
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
such negligence and damage.  It has been held that an act of God cannot be invoked
which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury." Using the to protect a person who has failed to take steps to
 Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of
aforementioned philosophy, it may be reliably forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the
concluded that there is no hard and fast rule whereby loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an
harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard
such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is act of God in producing damage and injury to
to which he is required to conform for his own
dependent upon the circumstances in which a person another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or
protection. To hold a person as having contributed to
finds himself. proximate cause of the damage or injury was a
his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an
fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability.
act that brought about his injuries in disregard of
Che-an Prelim Notes 4
 When the effect is found to be partly the result of a has the burden of proving that the defendant was  Generally, the degree of care required is graduated
person's participation -- whether by active negligent. according to the danger a person or property
intervention, neglect or failure to act -- the whole attendant upon the activity which the actor pursues
 Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
occurrence is humanized and removed from the or the instrumentality which he uses. The greater the
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
rules applicable to acts of God. danger the greater the degree of care required. What
intervening cause, produces the injury and without
is ordinary under extraordinary of conditions is
which the result would not have occurred. Proximate
dictated by those conditions; extraordinary risk
CALALAS vs. CA cause is determined by the facts of each case upon demands extraordinary care. Similarly, the more
mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy
 In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be imminent the danger, the higher the degree of care.
and precedent.
clearly established because it is the basis of the  It may be said, as a general rule, that negligence in
action, whereas in breach of contract, the action can  The doctrine of last clear chance states that where
order to render a person liable need not be the sole
be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence,
contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case the is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it
concurring with one or more efficient causes other
common carrier, failed to transport his passenger is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
than piaintiff's, is the proximate cause of the injury.
safely to his destination. caused the loss, the one who had the last clear
Accordingly, where several causes combine to
opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is
 Where there is a pre-existing contractual relation produce injuries, a person is not relieved from
chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the
between the parties, it is the parties themselves who liability because he is responsible for only one of
antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not
create the obligation, and the function of the law is them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the
preclude him from recovering damages caused by the
merely to regulate the relation thus created. person charged with injury is an efficient cause
supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the
without which the injury would not have resulted to
 A caso fortuito is an event which could not be last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the
as great an extent, and that such cause is not
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. exercise of due diligence. attributable to the person injured. It is no defense to
This requires that the following requirements be  We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury
present: the present case. This is a case of culpa contractual, would not have resulted from his negligence alone,
a) the cause of the breach is independent of the where neither the contributory negligence of the without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other
debtor’s will; plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes
would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such producing an injury are concurrent and each is an
b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; efficient cause without which the injury would not
contributory negligence or last clear chance by the
c) the event is such as to render it impossible for plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the any of the causes and recovery may be had against
manner, and defendant from his breach of contract. any or all of the responsible persons although under
d) the debtor did not take part in causing the injury the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one
to the creditor. of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed
MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION vs. PPA by them to the injured person was not the same. No
 He is not held to the highest possible degree of skill actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK & TRUST CORP. vs. CA and care, but must have and exercise the ordinary merely because it does not exceed the negligence of
skill and care demanded by the circumstances, and other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the
 This fiduciary relationship means that the banks entire result and is liable as though his acts were the
obligation to observe high standards of integrity and usually shown by an expert in his profession. Under
extraordinary circumstances, a pilot must exercise sole cause of the injury.
performance is deemed written into every deposit
agreement between a bank and its depositor. The extraordinary care.
fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume  An act may be negligent if it is done without the FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. CA
a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father competence that a reasonable person in the position
of a family.  In culpa contractual, moral damages may be
of the actor would recognize as necessary to prevent recovered where the defendant is shown to have
 In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a it from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the
breach of contract, there is a presumption that the another. Those who undertake any work calling for contract.
defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on special skills are required not only to exercise
the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or reasonable care in what they do but also possess a  Bad faith, in this context, includes gross, but not
negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff standard minimum of special knowledge and ability. simple, negligence. Exceptionally, in a contract of
carriage, moral damages are also allowed in case of

Che-an Prelim Notes 5

 death of a passenger attributable to the fault (which corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time  There are four elements involved in medical
is presumed) of the common carrier. and place. negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate
causation.
 Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest CRUZ vs. CA  As to the aspect of medical malpractice, the
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the determination of the reasonable level of care and the
negative idea of negligence in that malice or bad faith  Whether or not a physician has committed an breach thereof, expert testimony is essential.
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of
with furtive design or ill will. his patient is to be determined according to the  Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must
standard of care observed by other members of the have acquired special knowledge of the subject
 The test (whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to profession in good standing under similar matter about which he or she is to testify, either by
underlie the breach of a contract) can be stated circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the study of recognized authorities on the subject or
thusly: Where, without a pre-existing contract the profession at the time of treatment or the present by practical experience.
between two parties, an act or omission can state of medical science.
 Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in
nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the
 This Court stated that in accepting a case, a doctor in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar
effect represents that, having the needed training and efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and
to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the
skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing without which the result would not have occurred. An
case.
in the same field, he will employ such training, care injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a
and skill in the treatment of his patients. He therefore failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence
PSBAvs. CA has a duty to use at least the same level of care that in the case that the act or omission played a
any other reasonably competent doctor would use to substantial part in bringing about or actually causing
 When an academic institution accepts students for
treat a condition under the same circumstances. the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage
enrollment, there is established a contract between
was either a direct result or a reasonably probable
them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both  Expert testimony should have been offered to prove consequence of the act or omission.
parties are bound to comply with.For its part, the that the circumstances cited by the courts below are
school undertakes to provide the student with an constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of  Contributory negligence is the act or omission
education that would presumably suffice to equip him care employed by other physicians in good standing amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the
with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher when performing the same operation. It must be person injured, which, concurring with the
education or a profession. On the other hand, the remembered that when the qualifications of a defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the
student covenants to abide by the school's academic physician are admitted, as in the instant case, there is injury.
requirements and observe its rules and regulations. an inevitable presumption that in proper cases he
 Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or takes the necessary precaution and employs the best
LUCAS vs. DR. PROSPERO MA. C. TUAÑO
"built-in" obligation of providing their students with of his knowledge and skill in attending to his clients,
an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining unless the contrary is sufficiently established. This  In medical negligence cases, also called medical
its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion which is malpractice suits, there exist a physician-patient
Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of so sadly lacking in the case at bench. relationship between the doctor and the victim. But
physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm just like any other proceeding for damages, four
of the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying essential (4) elements i.e., (1) duty; (2) breach; (3)
CAYAO-LASAM vs. SPS RAMOLETE
or grenades exploding in the air or where there looms injury; and (4) proximate causation, must be
around the school premises a constant threat to life  Medical malpractice is a particular form of established by the plaintiff/s. All the four (4)
and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that negligence which consists in the failure of a physician elements must co-exist in order to find the physician
adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
within the campus premises and to prevent the degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed
 In treating his patient, a physician is under a duty to
breakdown thereof. by the profession generally, under similar conditions,
[the former] to exercise that degree of care, skill and
and in like surrounding circumstances. In order to
 The school may still avoid liability by proving that the diligence which physicians in the same general
successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must
breach of its contractual obligation to the students neighborhood and in the same general line of practice
prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do
was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases. Stated
something which a reasonably prudent physician or
to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is otherwise, the physician has the duty to use at least
surgeon would not have done, and that the failure or
required by the nature of the obligation and the same level of care that any other reasonably
action caused injury to the patient.
competent physician would use to treat the condition
under similar circumstances.
Che-an Prelim Notes 6
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. AGANA  Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating doctor (Dr. Ampil) was its agent. Present are the two
surgeon is the person in complete charge of the factors that determine apparent authority:
 An operation requiring the placing of sponges in the
surgery room and all personnel connected with the
incision is not complete until the sponges are first, the hospital's implied manifestation to the
operation. Their duty is to obey his orders.
properly removed, and it is settled that the leaving of patient which led the latter to conclude that the
sponges or other foreign substances in the wound  In our shores, the nature of the relationship between doctor was the hospital's agent; and
after the incision has been closed is at least prima the hospital and the physicians is rendered
second, the patient’s reliance upon the conduct of
facie negligence by the operating surgeon. To put it inconsequential in view of our categorical
simply, such act is considered so inconsistent with pronouncement in Ramos v. Court of Appeals that for the hospital and the doctor, consistent with
ordinary care and prudence.
due care as to raise an inference of negligence. purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical
negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship
 This is a clear case of medical malpractice or more February 11, 2008
in effect exists between hospitals and their attending
appropriately, medical negligence. To successfully
and visiting physicians.  In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of
pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove
that a health care provider either failed to do  Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred an independent contractor-physician. There is,
something which a reasonably prudent health care to as the "holding out" theory, or doctrine of however, an exception to this principle. The hospital
provider would have done, or that he did something ostensible agency or agency by estoppel, has its may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent
that a reasonably prudent provider would not have origin from the law of agency. It imposes liability, not of the hospital. This exception is also known as the
done; and that failure or action caused injury to the as the result of the reality of a contractual "doctrine of apparent authority." (Sometimes
patient. Simply put, the elements are duty, breach, relationship, but rather because of the actions of a referred to as the apparent or ostensible agency
injury and proximate causation. principal or an employer in somehow misleading the theory.)
public into believing that the relationship or the  The doctrine of apparent authority essentially
 Literally, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks
authority exists. The concept is essentially one of involves two factors to determine the liability of
for itself." It is the rule that the fact of the occurrence estoppel and has been explained in this manner:
of an injury, taken with the surrounding an independent contractor-physician.
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a "The principal is bound by the acts of his agent The first factor focuses on the hospital’s
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s with the apparent authority which he knowingly manifestations and is sometimes described as an
prima facie case, and present a question of fact for permits the agent to assume, or which he holds inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner
defendant to meet with an explanation. Stated the agent out to the public as possessing. The which would lead a reasonable person to conclude
differently, where the thing which caused the injury, question in every case is whether the principal that the individual who was alleged to be negligent
without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such was an employee or agent of the hospital. In this
control of the defendant and the injury is such that it a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, regard, the hospital need not make express
should not have occurred if he, having such control conversant with business usages and the nature representations to the patient that the treating
used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in of the particular business, is justified in physician is an employee of the hospital; rather
the absence of explanation that the injury arose from presuming that such agent has authority to a representation may be general and implied.
the defendant’s want of care, and the burden of proof perform the particular act in question.
is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due The second factor focuses on the patient’s reliance.
care and diligence. February 2, 2010 It is sometimes characterized as an inquiry on
whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the
 From the foregoing statements of the rule, the CORONA, J.: conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with
requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of ordinary care and prudence.
res ipsa loquitur are:  After gathering its thoughts on the issues, this Court
holds that PSI is liable to the Aganas, not under the Clearly, PSI is estopped from passing the blame solely to
1) the occurrence of an injury; principle of respondeat superior for lack of evidence Dr. Ampil. Its act of displaying his name and those of the
of an employment relationship with Dr. Ampil but other physicians in the public directory at the lobby of
2) the thing which caused the injury was under the
under the principle of ostensible agency for the the hospital amounts to holding out to the public that it
control and management of the defendant;
negligence of Dr. Ampil and, pro hac vice, under the offers quality medical service through the listed
3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary principle of corporate negligence for its failure to physicians. This justifies Atty. Agana’s belief that Dr.
course of things, would not have happened if perform its duties as a hospital. Ampil was a member of the hospital’s staff. It must be
those who had control or management used stressed that under the doctrine of apparent
 There is, however, ample evidence that the hospital
proper care; and authority, the question in every case is whether the
(PSI) held out to the patient (Natividad)that the
principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent
4) the absence of explanation by the defendant.
in such a situation that a person of ordinary
Che-an Prelim Notes 7
prudence, conversant with business usages and the affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a gross negligence, because as the referee found, “no
nature of the particular business, is justified in prudent man and reasonable man would not do. danger or risk was apparent.”
presuming that such agent has authority to perform
“Negligence is want of care required by the
the particular act in question. In these cases, the
circumstances. ILAO-ORETAvs.SPS. RONQUILLO
circumstances yield a positive answer to the question.
 The Rules provide that property for official use and "Gross negligence" implies a want or absence of or
purpose shall be utilized with the diligence of a good failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the
VALENZUELA vs CA
father of a family. Extra-ordinary measures are not entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless
 Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of called for in taking care of a cellular phone while in disregard of consequences without exerting any
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the transit. It is a settled rule that negligence cannot be effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of
harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard presumed; it has to be proven. In the absence of any even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
to which he is required to conform for his own shred of evidence thereof, respondents gravely situation where there is a duty to act, not
protection. abused their discretion in finding petitioner inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
negligent. conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
 Courts have traditionally been compelled to
other persons may be affected.
recognize that an actor who is confronted with an
emergency is not to be held up to the standard of AMEDO vs. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.  It bears noting that when she was scheduling the date
conduct normally applied to an individual who is in of her performance of the procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta
 The phrase "notorious negligence" has been held to
no such situation. The law takes stock of impulses of had just gotten married and was preparing for her
be tantamount to "gross negligence", which, in turn,
humanity when placed in threatening or dangerous honeymoon, and it is of common human knowledge
has been defined as follows:
situations and does not require the same standard of that excitement attends its preparations. Her
thoughtful and reflective care from persons Gross negligence is defined to be the want of even negligence could then be partly attributed to human
confronted by unusual and oftentimes threatening slight care and diligence. frailty which rules out its characterization as gross.
conditions.
By gross negligence is meant "such entire want of
 Under the “emergency rule” adopted by this Court in care as to raise a presumption that the person in TAYLOR vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND
Gan vs Court of Appeals,an individual who suddenly fault is conscious of the probable consequences of LIGHT COMPANY
finds himself in a situation of danger and is required carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the
to act without much time to consider the best means  We agree with counsel for appellant that under the
danger of injury to person or property of others." ...
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, Civil Code, as under the generally accepted doctrine
The negligence must amount to a reckless
is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what in the United States, the plaintiff in an action such as
disregard of the safety of person or property."
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a that under consideration, in order to establish his
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by right to a recovery, must establish by competent
his own negligence. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC. vs. THE evidence:
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
 Obviously in the case at bench, the only negligence 1) Damages to the plaintiff.
ascribable was the negligence of Li on the night of the  There is no doubt that mere riding on haulage truck
2) Negligence by act or omission of which
accident. “Negligence, as it is commonly understood or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence,
defendant personally, or some person for whose
is conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to ordinarily. It couldn’t be, because transportation by
acts it must respond, was guilty.
others.”It is the failure to observe that degree of care, truck is not dangerous per se.
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances 3) The connection of cause and effect between the
 The prohibition had nothing to do with personal
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers negligence and the damage.
safety of the riders.
injury.We stressed, in Corliss vs. Manila Railroad  "The conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be
Company,that negligence is the want of care required  Nevertheless, even granting there was negligence, it judged by the same rule which governs that of adult.
by the circumstances. surely was not “notorious” negligence, which we have
While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
interpreted to mean the same thing as “gross
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury
negligence” — implying “conscious indifference to
CRUZvs. GANGAN resulting from the fault or negligence of another he
consequences” “pursuing a course of conduct which
must himself have been free from fault, such is not
 “Negligence is the omission to do something which a would naturally and probably result in injury” “utter
the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The
reasonable man, guided upon those considerations disregard of consequences.” Getting or accepting a
care and caution required of a child is according to
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human free ride on the company’s haulage truck couldn’t be
his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be

Che-an Prelim Notes 8

 determined in each case by the circumstances of the the employer was negligent. This presumption may  Accident and negligence are intrinsically
case." be rebutted only by a clear showing on the part of the contradictory; one cannot exist with the other.
employer that he exercised the diligence of a good Accident occurs when the person concerned is
 And the same eminent jurist in his treatise or torts,
father of a family in the selection and supervision of exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault
alluding to the doctrine of implied invitation to
his employee.. of any person and which could not have been
visit the premises of another, says:
prevented by any means suggested by common
 In the selection of prospective employees, employers
In the case of young children, and other persons prudence.
are required to examine them as to their
not fully sui juris, an implied license might qualifications, experience, and service records. On the  The test in determining the existence of negligence is
sometimes arise when it would not on behalf of
other hand, with respect to the supervision of enunciated in the landmark case of Plicart v. Smith,
others. Thus leaving a tempting thing for children
employees, employers should formulate standard thus: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
to play with exposed, where they would be likely to
operating procedures, monitor their implementation, act use that reasonable care and caution which an
gather for that purpose, may be equivalent to an
and impose disciplinary measures for breaches ordinarily prudent person would have used in the
invitation to them to make use of it; and, perhaps, if
thereof. To establish these factors in a trial involving same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
one were to throw away upon his premises, near
the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit
the common way, things tempting to children, the  Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we
concrete proof, including documentary evidence.
same implication should arise. (Chap. 10, p. 303.) apply the conclusive presumption that favors
children below nine (9) years old in that they are
 As was said in case of Railroad Co. vs. Stout (supra),
PACIS vs. MORALES incapable of contributory negligence. In his book,
"While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
former Judge Cezar S. Sangco stated:
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury  Indeed, a higher degree of care is required of
resulting from the fault or negligence of another he someone who has in his possession or under his In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of
must himself have been free from fault, such is not control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in age is conclusively presumed to have acted
the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. without discernment, and is, on that account,
care and caution required of a child is according to Such person in possession or control of dangerous exempt from criminal liability. The same
his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional presumption and a like exemption from criminal
determined in each case by the circumstances of the precautions to prevent any injury being done liability obtains in a case of a person over nine
case." thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown
which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with that he has acted with discernment. Since
dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and
THE HEIRS OF COMPLETO AND ABIAD vs. ALBAYDA required discernment as a condition of liability,
degree of care.
 The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least either criminal or civil, a child under nine years
equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION vs.CA of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to
highway, and it is fortified by the fact that usually be incapable of negligence; and that the
 An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity
more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in
no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. It is for negligence in the case of a child over nine but
discharging his duty of care to the other because of
"a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an under fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one,
the physical advantages the automobile has over the
event happening without any human agency, or if under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child
bicycle.
happening wholly or partly through human agency, under nine years of age must be conclusively
an event which under the circumstances is unusual or presumed incapable of contributory negligence
 It is obvious that a motor vehicle poses a greater unexpected by the person to whom it happens." as a matter of law.
danger of harm to a bicyclist than vice versa.
 On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do
Accordingly, while the duty of using reasonable care
something which a reasonable man, guided by those YLARDE vs. AQUINO
falls alike on a motorist and a bicyclist, due to the
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
inherent differences in the two vehicles, more care is
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something  In ruling that the child Ylarde was imprudent, it is
required from the motorist to fully discharge the duty
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. evident that the lower court did not consider his age
than from the bicyclist.Simply stated, the physical
Negligence is "the failure to observe, for the and maturity. This should not be the case. The degree
advantages that the motor vehicle has over the
protection of the interest of another person, that of care required to be exercised must vary with the
bicycle make it more dangerous to the bicyclist than
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself.
vice versa.
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other A minor should not be held to the same degree of care
 When an injury is caused by the negligence of an person suffers injury." as an adult, but his conduct should be judged
employee, a legal presumption instantly arises that according to the average conduct of persons of his
Che-an Prelim Notes 9
 age and experience. The standard of conduct to which not be constantly be exposed to the danger flowing FERNANDO vs. CA
a child must conform for his own protection is that from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless
 Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe
degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the medicine." The "skill" required of a druggist is
for the protection of the interests of another person
same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and denominated as "high" or "ample." In other words,
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which
experience under the same or similar circumstances. the care required must be commensurate with the
6 Bearing this in mind, we cannot charge the child the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
danger involved, and the skill employed must
person suffers injury.
Ylarde with reckless imprudence. correspond with the superior knowledge of the
business which the law demands.  To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from
 The contention that private respondent Aquino
the negligence of another, a claimant must establish
exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious  Under one conception, and it should not be forgotten
the relation between the omission and the damage.
person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably that the case we consider are civil in nature, the
He must prove under Article 2179 of the New Civil
prudent person would have foreseen that bringing question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The
Code that the defendant's negligence was the
children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving druggist is responsible as an absolute guarantor of
immediate and proximate cause of his injury.
them there all by themselves, may result in an what he sells.
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause,
accident. An ordinarily careful human being would
 The rule of caveat emptor cannot apply to the which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken
not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the
purchase and sale of drugs. The vendor and the by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger
vendee do not stand at arms length as in ordinary injury, and without which the result would not have
that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation
transactions. An imperative duty is on the druggist to occurred. Proof of such relation of cause and effect is
would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher
take precautions to prevent death or serious injury to not an arduous one if the claimant did not in any way
who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have
anyone who relies on his absolute honesty and contribute to the negligence of the defendant.
made sure that the children are protected from all
peculiar leaning. Consequently, it must be that the However, where the resulting injury was the product
harm in his company.
druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called of the negligence of both parties, there exists a
for. difficulty to discern which acts shall be considered
CULION ICE, FISH AND ELECTRIC CO., INC. vs. the proximate cause of the accident.
PHILIPPINE MOTORS CORPORATION
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vs. DE LEON
 It must be remembered that when a person holds RAMOS vs. CA
 Mercury Drug and Ganzon failed to exercise the
himself out as being competent to do things requiring
highest degree of diligence expected of them.  Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally
professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence
means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself."
if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily  Mercury Drug and Ganzon can not exculpate
The phrase "res ipsa loquitur'' is a maxim for the rule
skilled in the particular work which he attempts to themselves from any liability. As active players in the
that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with
do. The proof shows that Quest had had ample field of dispensing medicines to the public, the
the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
experience in fixing the engines of automobiles and highest degree of care and diligence is expected of
inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or
tractors, but it does not appear that he was them. Likewise, numerous decisions, both here and
make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a
experienced in the doing of similar work on boats. abroad, have laid salutary rules for the protection of
question of fact for defendant to meet with an
human life and human health.
explanation. Where the thing which caused the injury
THE UNITED STATES vs. PINEDA  In the United States case of Tombari v. Conners, it was complained of is shown to be under the management
ruled that the profession of pharmacy demands care of the defendant or his servants and the accident is
 The profession of pharmacy, it has been said again such as in ordinary course of things does not happen
and skill, and druggists must exercise care of a
and again, is one demanding care and skill. The specially high degree, the highest degree of care if those who have its management or control use
responsibility of the druggist to use care has been proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
known to practical men. In other words, druggists
variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a absence of explanation by the defendant, that the
must exercise the highest practicable degree of
special high degree," "the highest degree of care accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's
prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and
known to practical men." Even under the first want of care.
reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable
conservative expression, "ordinary care" with
conduct of the business, so that human life may not
reference to the business of a druggist, the Supreme  Mere invocation and application of the doctrine of res
constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the
Court of Connecticut has said must be held to signify ipsa loquiturdoes not dispense with the requirement
substitution of deadly poisons for harmless
"the highest practicable degree of prudence, of proof of negligence. It is simply a step in the
medicines.
thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and most exact and process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to
reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable present along with the proof of the accident, enough
conduct of the business, in order that human life may of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine,
Che-an Prelim Notes 10
 creating an inference or presumption of negligence, occurred which is beyond the regular scope of that the consequences of professional care were not
and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of customary professional activity in such operations, as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care
going forward with the proof. 20 Still, before resort to which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably had been exercised. In other words, as held in Ramos
the doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites speak to the average man as the negligent cause or v. Court of Appeals,the real question is whether or not
must be satisfactorily shown: causes of the untoward consequence. If there was in the process of the operation, any extraordinary
such extraneous interventions, the doctrine of res incident or unusual event outside of the routine
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
ipsa loquitur may be utilized and the defendant is performance occurred which is beyond the regular
not occur in the absence of someone's called upon to explain the matter, by evidence of scope of professional activity in such operations, and
negligence;
exculpation, if he could. which, if unexplained, would themselves reasonably
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the speak to the average man as the negligent cause or
 Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must
exclusive control of the defendant or causes of the untoward consequence.
have acquired special knowledge of the subject
defendants; and
matter about which he or she is to testify, either by  The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which the study of recognized authorities on the subject or existence of an injury to justify a presumption of
would make the plaintiff responsible is by practical experience. negligence on the part of the person who controls the
eliminated. instrument causing the injury, provided that the
 Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in
following requisitesconcur:
 Although generally, expert medical testimony is natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
physician has done a negligent act or that he has without which the result would not have occurred. An not occur in the absence of someone's
deviated from the standard medical procedure, when injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a negligence:
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is in the case, that the act or omission played a
substantial part in bringing about or actually causing exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
dispensed with because the injury itself provides the and
proof of negligence. The reason is that the general the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage
rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only was either a direct result or a reasonably probable 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which
to such matters clearly within the domain of medical consequence of the act or omission. It is the would make the plaintiff responsible is
science, and not to matters that are within the dominant, moving or producing cause. eliminated.
common knowledge of mankind which may be
testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.
SPS. BONTILAO vs. GERONA HUANG vs. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC
 When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the patient
 The trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res  This Court finds it significant to take note of the
must do is prove a nexus between the particular act
ipsa loquitur to pin liability on respondent for Allen's following differences between quasi-delict (culpa
or omission complained of and the injury sustained
death. Res ipsa loquitur is a rebuttable presumption aquilina) and breach of contract (culpa contractual).
while under the custody and management of the
or inference that the defendant was negligent. The In quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive and
defendant without need to produce expert medical
presumption only arises upon proof that the independent, while in breach of contract, negligence
testimony to establish the standard of care. Resort to
instrumentality causing injury was in the defendant's is merely incidental to the performance of the
res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no other
exclusive control, and that the accident was one (1) contractual obligation; there is a pre-existing contract
way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which
the patient can obtain redress for injury suffered by which ordinarily does not happen in the absence of or obligation. In quasi-delict, the defense of "good
negligence. It is a rule of evidence whereby father of a family" is a complete and proper defense
him.
negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may be inferred insofar as parents, guardians and employers are
 It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa from the mere fact that the accident happened, concerned, while in breach of contract, such is not a
loquitur can have no application in a suit against a provided that the character of the accident and complete and proper defense in the selection and
physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a circumstances attending it lead reasonably to the supervision of employees. In quasi- delict, there is no
diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. Thus, res ipsa belief that in the absence of negligence it would not presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon
loquitur is not available in a malpractice suit if the have occurred and that the thing which caused injury the injured party to prove the negligence of the
only showing is that the desired result of an is shown to have been under the management and defendant, otherwise, the former’s complaint will be
operation or treatment was not accomplished. The control of the alleged wrongdoer. dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is
real question, therefore, is whether or not in the presumed so long as it can be proved that there was
 In malpractice cases, the doctrine is generally
process of the operation any extraordinary incident breach of the contract and the burden is on the
restricted to situations where a layman is able to say,
or unusual event outside of the routine performance defendant to prove that there was no negligence in
as a matter of common knowledge and observation,
Che-an Prelim Notes 11
 the carrying out of the terms of the contract; the rule defendant was negligent, which arises upon b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and,
of respondeat superior is followed. proof that [the] instrumentality causing injury
c) connection of cause and effect between the fault
was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the
 Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally or negligence of the defendant and the damage
accident was one which ordinary does not
means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." incurred by the plaintiff.
happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa
It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an
loquitur is [a] rule of evidence whereby  It is generally recognized that the drugstore business
inference to the cause thereof or establishes the
negligence of [the] alleged wrongdoer may be is imbued with public interest. The health and safety
plaintiff’s prima facie case. The doctrine rests on inferred from [the] mere fact that [the] accident
inference and not on presumption. The facts of the of the people will be put into jeopardy if drugstore
happened provided [the] character of [the] employees will not exercise the highest degree of care
occurrence warrant the supposition of negligence and
accident and circumstances attending it lead and diligence in selling medicines.Inasmuch as the
they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence
reasonably to belief that in [the] absence of matter of negligence is a question of fact, we defer to
when direct evidence is lacking. Simply stated, this
negligence it would not have occurred and that the findings of the trial court affirmed by the Court of
doctrine finds no application if there is direct proof of
thing which caused injury is shown to have been Appeals.
absence or presence of negligence. If there is
under [the] management and control of [the]
sufficient proof showing the conditions and  The care required must be commensurate with the
alleged wrongdoer . . . . Under [this] doctrine . . .
circumstances under which the injury occurred, then danger involved, and the skill employed must
the happening of an injury permits an inference
the creative reason for the said doctrine disappears. correspond with the superior knowledge of the
of negligence where plaintiff produces
substantial evidence that [the] injury was caused business which the law demands.
 Further, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies
where, by an agency or instrumentality under [the] Proximate cause is defined as any cause that
exclusive control and management of defendant, produces injury in a natural and continuous
1) the accident was of such character as to warrant and that the occurrence [sic] was such that in the sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
an inference that it would not have happened ordinary course of things would not happen if cause, such that the result would not have occurred
except for the defendant’s negligence; reasonable care had been used. otherwise.
2) the accident must have been caused by an xxx xxx xxx
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of
with the negligence complained of; and evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence
3) the accident must not have been due to any may be established without direct proof and
voluntary action or contribution on the part of furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
the person injured. negligence. The doctrine is not a rule of
substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a
BATIQUINvs. CA mere procedural convenience. The rule, when
applicable to the facts and circumstances of a
 As such, the rule of res ipsa loquitur comes to fore. particular case, is not intended to and does not
This Court has had occasion to delve into the nature dispense with the requirement of proof of
and operation of this doctrine: culpable negligence on the party charged. It
merely determines and regulates what shall be
This doctrine res ipsa loquituris stated thus:
primafacie evidence thereof and facilitates the
"Where the thing which causes injury is shown
burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the
to be under the management of the defendant,
duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked
and the accident is such as in the ordinary course
when and only when, under the circumstances
of things does not happen if those who have the
involved, direct evidence is absent and not
management use proper care, it affords
readily available.
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care." Or as Black's Law MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vsBAKING
Dictionary puts it:
 To sustain a claim based on Art 2176 of the Civil
Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Code, the following requisites must concur:
Rebuttable presumption or inference that
a) damage suffered by the plaintiff;
Che-an Prelim Notes 12