Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Spouses Africa et al vs Caltex Philippines, Boquiren and the Court of Appeals

16 SCRA 448 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Res Ipsa Loquitur

FACTS:
In March 1948, in Rizal Avenue, Manila, a tank truck was hosing gasoline into the underground storage of
Caltex. Apparently, a fire broke out from the gasoline station and the fire spread and burned several
houses including the house of Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa. Allegedly, someone (a passerby)
threw a cigarette while gasoline was being transferred which caused the fire. But there was no evidence
presented to prove this theory and no other explanation can be had as to the real reason for the fire.
Apparently also, Caltex and the branch owner (Mateo Boquiren) failed to install a concrete firewall to
contain fire if in case one happens.

ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are liable to pay for damages.

HELD: Yes. This is pursuant to the application on the principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the transaction
speaks for itself”) which states: “where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the injured person,
is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence
of the explanation, that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care.” The gasoline station, with all its
appliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of Caltex and Boquiren. A fire occurred
therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have known
how the fire started were Boquiren, Caltex and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof
whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care.

Note that ordinarily, he who charges negligence shall prove it. However, res ipsa loquitur is the exception
because the burden of proof is shifted to the party charged of negligence as the latter is the one who had
exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury complained of.

You might also like