BJDC CONSTRUCTION v.

LANUZO
G.R. No. 161151 – March 24, 2014
J. Bersamin

Topic: Res Ipsa Loquitor – control over the cause

Petitioners: BJDC Construction
Respondents: Nena Lanzuo, Claudette Lanzuo, Joan Lanuzo and Ryan Lanuzo

Summary: Balbino died after hitting the barricades in a project site in Camarines Sur. His family sued
the construction company for inadequacy in the measure they put up to warn motorists of the project site.
The SC disagreed with the heirs and sided with the company because they were able to prove that
adequate safety measures were in place. In addition, the SC found the deceased to be negligent himself
because he was not wearing a helmet and he was over speeding.

FACTS:
 October 30, 1997: Balbino Lanuzo was in an accident which happened at the site of a road re-
blocking in Camarines Sur
o At about 6:30 pm, Balbino’s Honda motorcycle sideswiped the road barricade placed by
the Petitioner’s company in the right lane portion of the road – this caused him to lose
control of the motorcycle and crash onto the newly cemented road  this caused Balbino’s
death
 The Lanuzo family filed a coplaint against the Petitioners because of their failure to place
illuminated warning signs on the site of the project, especially during the nighttime
o The company negated this by alleging that since September 1997, they have put warning
signs in place such as:
 Big overhead streamers containing the words “slow down road under repair ahead”
hung approximately 100m before the site;
 Road signs containing the words “slow down under repair” 100m ahead of the site;
 Road signs 50m ahead;
 Barricades surrounding the affected portion of the highway; and
 The unaffected portion of the highway was temporarily widened to allow two-way
traffic
 RTC: In favor of BJDC
 CA: Reversed the judgment of the RTC, ruling that the application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor should be applied.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the proximate cause of the accident was the victim’s own negligence – YES
 The burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the about of evidence required by law
o It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation
is not evidence  generally, the party who denies has NO burden to prove
 Negligence as stated by Layugan v. IAC is “the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do…”
o In order that a party may be held liable for damages caused by negligence, the claimant
must prove that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury
 In the lower courts, the heirs stated that there was a total omission to put up adequate lighting and
the required signs to illuminate the project site, However, in the present appeal, the heirs changed
 their tune and stated that BJDC was negligent because of their omission to put up adequate lighting
and warning signs
o They presented witnesses who had conflicting stories. One said the site was completely
dark, while another said that there were only gas lamps to illuminate the site
o The witnesses were not consistent on their recollections of the significant detail of the
illumination of the site.
 In contrast, the company credibly refuted the allegation of inadequate illumination
o Zamora, the flagman in the project said that the site had been illuminated by light bulbs
and gas lamps
 He added that before the accident, Balbino was in the process of overtaking another
motorcycle at a fast speed when he hit the barricade on the newly cemented road
o SPO1 Corporal, the investigator who arrive at the scene recalled that there were light bulbs
on the opposite lane of the accident, and then broken light bulbs on the lane of the accident
which were broken because it had been hit by the victim’s motorcycle
o In addition, the company submitted application for lighting permit which covered the
project site
 The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is not applicable
o RIS means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself” – a maxim for the rule that the
fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit
an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie
case
o For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must exist”
 (a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of
the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct that
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated
o The doctrine must be cautiously applied depending upon the circumstances of each case
o Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs, negligence cannot be placed on BJDC
 Balbino had the exclusive control of how he operated his motorcycle – he himself
did not take the necessary precautions
 He was speeding and was overtaking another motorcycle at a fast speed,
and in the process could not avoid hitting the barricade
o Moreover, the project had commenced on September 1997, more than a month before
Balbino’s accident
 Balbino passed the same road on a daily basis from his residence and the school
where he worked as a principal – he was familiar with the road and the risks at the
project site
 The heirs cannot justly posit that the illumination was not adequate  Balbino’s
motorcycle was equipped with headlights that would have enabled him to see the
condition of the road at dusk or at night time
o The cause of death was the fatal depressed fracture of the back of his head – Balbino was
NOT wearing a helmet during the accident

RULING: “WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari, REVERSES the
decision of the COURT OF APPEALS…”