04 – Dra. Leila Dela Llana v.

Rebecca Biong, (2013)

GR NO. 182356
III. Importance of Proof

FACTS
- On March 30, 2000 around 11pm, a dump truck owned by Biong under her business Pongkay
Trading (gravel and sand truck) rammed the car’s rear end where Dra. Dela Llana (DL) was
riding.
- Said impact caused the collapse of the car’s rear end and windshield, thereby puncturing Dra.
Dela Llana with glas splinters.
- The traffic investigation report yielded the truck dirver to have been recklessly imprudent in
driving. And that the driver was Biong’s employee.
- 2 months after the incident, Dra. DL began to feel pains on her left arm until she could not
move it anymore. Upon her consultation with a doctor, she was diagnosed with whiplash injury
or that which is caused by compression of the nerves.
- Despite a series of physical therapies, her condition did not improve so the other doctors
advised her to undergo spine surgery. Dra DL then underweny surgery but was still
incapacitated to practice her profession as surgeon.
- With that, Dra DL demanded compensation from Biong for her injuried but unheeded. So she
filed before RTC action for damages arguing that the proximate cause of her injury was the
negligence of Biong’s employee; and so under vicarious liability, the employer is liable.
> Dra DL prayed for the following: P150k medical expenses, P30k loss of monthly income,
pus the other damages.
- As a defense, Biong said that Dra DL failed to prove the reasonable relation between the
accident and injury because the injury became manifest only a month after the date of
accident. Thus, there could be no cause of action against Biong.
- During trial Dra DL presented the following to prove her claim:
> medical certificate attesting to the fact that Dra DL suffered whiplash injury
> pictures of damaged car
> testimony offered by herself (Dra DL) and driver as ordinary witnesses
- RTC: favored Dra DL. Found the driver negligent because the accidnet could not have
happened if driver was driving at slower speed and if driver honked his horns to warn the car.
So, the driver could have been sleepin when the collission occurred. Since by the nature of his
work he had been driving 15 hours for the said day. And so, under vicarious liability, employer
is liable for negligence of employee. Biong is presumed to have not xercised DGF in selection
and supervision of driver.
- CA reversed RTC: Dra DL failed to establish the reaosnable connection between the accident
and the injury by preponderance of evidence. Based on Nutrimix v. CA, when no evidence or
if the evidence is too slight to warrant an inference establishing a gact in issue, the courts will
not rule in favor of the party who alleges the coa. Here, the evidence presented by Dra DL
were not entitled weight to prove proximate cause.
- Hence, this petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 before the SC
ISSUE: Whether Dra Dela Llana was able to present evidence that would establish proximate
cause of the accident and the injury

HELD: NO. Dra DL failed to establishe her case by preponderance of evidence.

First, Dra DL must prove that the elements for qaasi-delict are present because that is her
cause of action.
1. Act or ommission by the defendant or some person for whose acts the defendant
answers for
2. Damage against the plaintiff
3. Causal relation between the act or omisison and the damages
Dra. DL should then show that the driver’s negligence caused her whiplash injury. Only then can
the employer Biong be held answerable for his emplpyee’s acts.

Second, in civil cases “he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by preponderance of
evidence or greater weight of credible evidence”. Ratio: mere allegations are NOT evidence;
and bare allageations unsubstantiated by evidence are not PROOF.

In this case, Dra Dela Llana alleged that she presentd 3 pcs of evidence. But the court found
them to have not adduced the factum probans (or the evidentiary facts by which the ultimate
fact can be established)
A. Pictures of damaged car: whiplash injury, by logic and common sense could not be
infered from the picture of damaged car. Collision and impact are the facts derived form
the picture but not the injury.
B. Medical Certificate: it was not admitted in evidence by RTC, so CA could not make this a
basis of tehir conclusion. Basic rule in evid that WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED
CANNOT BE VALIDLY CONSIDERED BY COURTS in arriving at their judgments.
Assuming arguendo that the evidence was admitted, it is still not given probative value
because it is based on Hearsay and thus not on personal knowledge. It was only
hearsay because the med cert ws prepared by Dr. Milla. However, instead of presenting
Dr. Milla as witness, Dra. DL herself testified to the contents of the med cert. Personal
knowledge is with Dr. Milla.Nonetheless, the med cert did not indicate that the injury ws
caused by the accident.
C. Dra. DL’s testimony cannot be given great weight because she testified as an oridnary
witness. So she is not competent to testify the nature and cause and effects of whiplash
injury.
Ordinary wits’s opinions can only be recievd in evidence when they relate to:
 identity of person whom he has adequate knowledge
 handwriting which he has familiarty
 mental sanity of person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted
While exert wits’s opinions relate to those matters requiring specil knowledge, skill,
experience or training. Its weight lies in the assistance that the expert witness may afford
the courts by demonstrating the facts which serve as a basis for his opinion and the
reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded.

In sum, a perusal of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties before the trial court shows
that Dra. dela Llana did not present any testimonial or documentary evidence that directly
shows the causal relation between the vehicular accident and Dra. dela Llana’s injury.

(Side issue)
Whether SC may take cognizance of case involing question of fact: YES. Because this is an
exception to the general rule that only questions of law ay be handled by SC. Here, the lower
courts have conflicting findings, so SC may review the presented evidence.

CA affirmed. Petition Denied.