JARCIA VS PEOPLE (GR NO.

187926 FEBRUARY 15, 2012)

Jarcia vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 187926 February 15, 2012

Facts: Belinda Santiago lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) against the petitioners, Dr. Emanuel Jarcia and Dr. Marilou
Bastan, for their alleged neglect of professional duty which caused her son, Roy
Alfonso Santiago, to suffer physical injuries. Upon investigation, the NBI found
that Roy Jr. was hit by a taxicab; that he was rushed to the Manila Doctors Hospital
for an emergency medical treatment; that an X-ray of the victim’s ankle was
ordered; that the X-ray result showed no fracture as read by Dr. Jarcia; that Dr.
Bastan entered the emergency room and, after conducting her own examination of
the victim, informed Mrs. Santiago that since it was only the ankle that was hit
there was no need to examine the upper leg; that 11 days later, Roy developed
fever, swelling of the right leg and misalignment of the right foot; that Mrs.
Santiago brought him back to the hospital; and that the x-ray revealed a right mid-
tibial fracture and a linear hairline fracture in the shaft of the bone. A complaint for
reckless imprudence resulting physical injuries was filed against the petitioners for
the alleged misconduct in the handling of the illness of Roy.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners failed to exercise the degree of care expected
of them as doctors and are liable for negligence to the private respondent.

Held: Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa liquitor as a rule of evidence is unusual to the
law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligencce may be
established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
negligence. The doctrine however, is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a
mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience the rule when applicable to the
facts and circumstances of a given case, is not meant to and does not dispense with
the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and helps the
plaintiff in proving a breach of duty. The doctrine can be invoked when and only
when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absolute and not readily
available.

The requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor are:

1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone
is negligent;
 2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person in charge; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured.

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand whereby such other person suffers injury.

Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice,

an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.

In failing to perform an extensive medical examination to determine the extent of

Roy’s injuries, Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan were remiss of their duties as members of
the medical profession. Assuming for the sake of argument that they did not have
the capacity to make such thorough evaluation at that stage they should have
referred the patient to another doctor with sufficient training and experience
instead of assuring him and his mother that everything was all right.

Torts And Damages Case Digest: Marcelo Macalinao, Et Al., V. Eddie Medecielo
Ong (2005)
G.R. No. 146635 December 14, 2005

Lessons Applicable: Res Ipsa Loquitur (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

 April 1992: Sebastian instructed Macalinao, Ong and 2 other truck helpers to
deliver a heavy piece of machinery to Sebastian’s manufacturing plant in
Angat, Bulacan
 While delivering, the Genetron’s Isuzu Elf truck driven by Ong bumped the
front portion of a private jeepney. Both vehicles incurred severe damages while
the passengers sustained physical injuries as a consequence of the collision.
 Macalinao was brought to Sta. Maria District Hospital for first aid treatment
then to Philippine Orthopedic Center then to Capitol Medical Center and lastly,
 to Philippine General Hospital due to financial considerations. His body was
paralyzed and immobilized from the neck down. He filed against Ong and
Sebastian. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries was instituted but was not ensued.
 November 7 1992: Macalinao died and was substituted by his parents.
 RTC: Ong negligent and Sebastian failed to exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of Ong thus ordering them
jointly liable to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as civil
indemnity for Macalinao’s death
 CA: reversed for lack of evidence
ISSUE: W/N Ong may be held liable under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

HELD: YES.
 photographs clearly shows that the road where the mishap occurred is marked
by a line at the center separating the right from the left lane
 While ending up at the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in
automobile collisions, the position of the two vehicles gives rise to the
conclusion that it was the Isuzu truck which hit the private jeepney rather than
the other way around.
 Based on the angle at which it stopped, the private jeepney obviously swerved
to the right in an unsuccessful effort to avoid the Isuzu truck.
 Since respondents failed to refute the contents of the police blotter, the
statement therein that the Isuzu truck hit the private jeepney and not the other
way around is deemed established.
 While not constituting direct proof of Ong’s negligence, the foregoing pieces of
evidence justify the application of res ipsa loquitur, a Latin phrase which
literally means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself
 Res ipsa loquitur
 recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct
proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence
 permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the
attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or
presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of
proving that there was no negligence on his part
 based on the theory that defendant in charge of the instrumentality which
causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best
opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is
therefore compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the
proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence
 can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent
and not readily available
 grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether
culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible
to the injured person
 requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:

(1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence; - No two motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will
collide as a matter of course unless someone is negligent

(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the

defendant or defendants - Driving the Isuzu truck gave Ong exclusive
management and control over it

(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated
(4) defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the
injury was caused by his or her want of due care (Based on
American Jurisprudence) - defendant fails to offer any explanation
tending to show that the injury was caused by his or her want of due
care
 Macalinao could no longer testify as to the cause of the accident since he is
dead. Petitioners, while substituting their son as plaintiff, have no actual
knowledge about the event since they were not present at the crucial moment
 evidence as to the true cause of the accident is, for all intents and purposes,
accessible to respondents but not to petitioners
 two truck helpers who survived, both employees of Sebastian, and Ong, who is
not only Sebastian’s previous employee but his co-respondent in this case as
well