7/21/2019 17. Dela Llana vs.

Biong - DIGEST

17. DELA LLANA VS BIONG

FACTS:

On March 30, 2000, Juan dela Llana was driving a car along North Avenue,
Quezon City !is sister, "ra dela Llana, was seated at the #ront $assenger
seat while a certain Cali%li% was at the &ac'seat Juan sto$$ed the when
the signal light turned red A #ew seconds a#ter the car halted, a du%$ truc'
owned &y (e&ecca )iong and driven &y Joel *ri%ero containing gravel and
sand suddenly ra%%ed the car+s rear end, violently $ushing the car #orward
"ue to the i%$act, the car+s rear end colla$sed and its rear windshield was
shattered lass s$linters -ew, $uncturing "ra dela Llana A$art #ro% these
%inor wounds, "ra dela Llana did not a$$ear to have su.ered #ro% any
other visi&le $hysical in/uries

n the 1rst wee' o# May 2000, "ra dela Llana &egan to #eel %ild to %oderate
$ain on the le#t side o# her nec' and shoulder he $ain &eca%e %ore intense
as days $assed &y !er in/ury &eca%e %ore severe !er health deteriorated
to the etent that she could no longer %ove her le#t ar% On June 4, 2000,
she consulted with "r (osalinda Milla, a reha&ilitation %edicine s$ecialist, to
ea%ine her condition "r Milla told her that she su.ered #ro% a whi$lash
in/ury, an in/ury caused &y the co%$ression o# the nerve running to her le#t
ar% and hand "r Milla re5uired her to undergo $hysical thera$y to alleviate
her condition

"ra dela Llana+s condition did not i%$rove des$ite three %onths o#
etensive $hysical thera$y 6he then consulted other doctors in search #or a
cure "r 7lores, a neuro8surgeon, 1nally suggested that she undergo a
cervical s$ine surgery to release the co%$ression o# her nerve On Octo&er
94, 2000, "r 7lores o$erated on her s$ine and nec', &etween the C: and the
C; verte&rae he o$eration released the i%$inge%ent o# the nerve, &ut
inca$acitated "ra dela Llana #ro% the $ractice o# her $ro#ession since June
2000 des$ite the surgery

"ra dela Llana, on Octo&er 9;, 2000, de%anded #ro% (e&ecca

co%$ensation #or her in/uries, &ut (e&ecca re#used to $ay hus, on May <,
2009, "ra dela Llana sued (e&ecca #or da%ages &e#ore the (egional rial
Court o# Quezon City =(C> 6he alleged that she lost the %o&ility o# her ar%
as a result o# the vehicular accident and clai%ed *9:0,00000 #or her %edical
e$enses =as o# the 1ling o# the co%$laint> and an average %onthly inco%e
o# *30,00000 since June 2000 6he #urther $rayed #or actual, %oral, and
ee%$lary da%ages as well as attorney+s #ees

At the trial, "ra dela Llana $resented hersel# as an ordinary witness and Joel
as a hostile witness "ra "ela Llana reiterated that she lost the %o&ility o#
her ar% &ecause o# the vehicular accident o $rove her clai%, she identi1ed

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/17-dela-llana-vs-biong-digest 1/4
7/21/2019 17. Dela Llana vs. Biong - DIGEST

and authenticated a %edical certi1cate dated Nove%&er 20, 2000 issued &y
"r Milla he %edical certi1cate stated that "ra dela Llana su.ered #ro% a
whi$lash in/ury t also chronicled her clinical history and $hysical
ea%inations Meanwhile, Joel testi1ed that his truc' hit the car &ecause the
truc'+s &ra'es got stuc'

n de#ense, (e&ecca testi1ed that "ra dela Llana was $hysically 1t and
strong when they %et several days a#ter the vehicular accident 6he also
asserted that she o&served the diligence o# a good #ather o# a #a%ily in the
selection and su$ervision o# Joel

 he (C ruled in #avor o# "ra dela Llana and held that the $roi%ate cause
o# "ra dela Llana+s whi$lash in/ury to &e Joel+s rec'less driving

 he CA reversed the (C ruling

ISSUES:
9 ?ho has the &urden o# $roving the $roi%ate causation &etween Joel+s
negligence and "ra dela Llana+s whi$lash in/ury@
2 ?ON the %edical certi1cate has no $ro&ative value #or &eing hearsay
3 ?ON "ra dela Llana+s %edical o$inion cannot &e given $ro&ative
value #or the reason that she was not $resented as an e$ert witness
 ?ON the 6u$re%e Court cannot ta'e /udicial notice that vehicular
accidents cause whi$lash in/uries
HELD:

9 n civil cases, a $arty who alleges a #act has the &urden o# $roving it
!e who alleges has the &urden o# $roving his allegation &y $re$onderance o#
evidence or greater weight o# credi&le evidence he reason #or this rule is
that &are allegations, unsu&stantiated &y evidence, are not e5uivalent to
$roo# n short, %ere allegations are not evidence

n the $resent case, the &urden o# $roving the $roi%ate causation &etween
 Joel+s negligence and "ra dela Llana+s whi$lash in/ury rests on "ra dela
Llana 6he %ust esta&lish &y $re$onderance o# evidence that Joel+s
negligence, in its natural and continuous se5uence, un&ro'en &y any eBcient
intervening cause, $roduced her whi$lash in/ury, and without which her
whi$lash in/ury would not have occurred

2 he %edical certi1cate has no $ro&ative value #or &eing hearsay It is

a basic rule that evidence, whether oral or docu%entary, is hearsay i# its
$ro&ative value is not &ased on the $ersonal 'nowledge o# the witness &ut on
the 'nowledge o# another $erson who is not on the witness stand !earsay
evidence, whether o&/ected to or not, cannot &e given credence ece$t in
very unusual circu%stance that is not #ound in the $resent case
7urther%ore, ad%issi&ility o# evidence should not &e e5uated with weight o#

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/17-dela-llana-vs-biong-digest 2/4
7/21/2019 17. Dela Llana vs. Biong - DIGEST

evidence he ad%issi&ility o# evidence de$ends on its relevance and

co%$etence, while the weight o# evidence $ertains to evidence already
ad%itted and its tendency to convince and $ersuade hus, a $articular ite%
o# evidence %ay &e ad%issi&le, &ut its evidentiary weight de$ends on
 /udicial evaluation within the guidelines $rovided &y the (ules o# Court

3 nder the (ules o# Court, there is a su&stantial di.erence &etween an

ordinary witness and an e$ert witness he o$inion o# an ordinary witness
%ay &e received in evidence regardingD =a> the identity o# a $erson a&out
who% he has ade5uate 'nowledgeE =&> a handwriting with which he has
suBcient #a%iliarityE and =c> the %ental sanity o# a $erson with who% he is
suBciently ac5uainted 7urther%ore, the witness %ay also testi#y on his
i%$ressions o# the e%otion, &ehavior, condition or a$$earance o# a
$erson3 On the other hand, the o$inion o# an e$ert witness %ay &e
received in evidence on a %atter re5uiring s$ecial 'nowledge, s'ill,
e$erience or training which he shown to $ossess

!owever, courts do not i%%ediately accord $ro&ative value to an ad%itted

e$ert testi%ony, %uch less to an uno&/ected ordinary testi%ony res$ecting
s$ecial 'nowledge he reason is that the $ro&ative value o# an e$ert
testi%ony does not lie in a si%$le e$osition o# the e$ert+s o$inion (ather,
its weight lies in the assistance that the e$ert witness %ay a.ord the courts
&y de%onstrating the #acts which serve as a &asis #or his o$inion and the
reasons on which the logic o# his conclusions is #ounded:

n the $resent case, "ra dela Llana+s %edical o$inion cannot &e given
$ro&ative value #or the reason that she was not $resented as an e$ert
witness As an ordinary witness, she was not co%$etent to testi#y on the
nature, and the cause and e.ects o# whi$lash in/ury 7urther%ore, we
e%$hasize that "ra dela Llana, during trial, nonetheless did not $rovide a
%edical e$lanation on the nature as well as the cause and e.ects o#
whi$lash in/ury in her testi%ony

 ndeed, a $erusal o# the $ieces o# evidence $resented &y the $arties

&e#ore the trial court shows that "ra dela Llana did not $resent any
testi%onial or docu%entary evidence that directly shows the causal relation
&etween the vehicular accident and "ra dela Llana+s in/ury !er clai% that
 Joel+s negligence caused her whi$lash in/ury was not esta&lished &ecause o#
the de1ciency o# the $resented evidence during trial ?e $oint out in this
res$ect that courts cannot ta'e /udicial notice that vehicular accidents cause
whi$lash in/uries his $ro$osition is not $u&lic 'nowledge, or is ca$a&le o#
un5uestiona&le de%onstration, or ought to &e 'nown to /udges &ecause o#
their /udicial #unctions ?e have no e$ertise in the 1eld o# %edicine Justices
and /udges are only tas'ed to a$$ly and inter$ret the law on the &asis o# the
$arties+ $ieces o# evidence and their corres$onding legal argu%ents

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/17-dela-llana-vs-biong-digest 3/4
7/21/2019 17. Dela Llana vs. Biong - DIGEST

n su%, "ra dela Llana %isera&ly #ailed to esta&lish her case &y
$re$onderance o# evidence ?hile we co%%iserate with her, our sole%n
duty to inde$endently and i%$artially assess the %erits o# the case &inds us
to rule against "ra dela Llana+s #avor !er clai%, unsu$$orted &y
$re$onderance
stand on o# evidence, is %erely a &are assertion and has no leg to

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/17-dela-llana-vs-biong-digest 4/4