Layugan vs.

IAC; Torts- vicarious liability of owner of a truck

07/15/2013
0 Comments

G.R. No. 73998

November 14, 1988

Facts:
Pedro T. Layugan filed an action for damages against Godofredo Isidro,
alleging that while at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, the Plaintiff and a
companion were repairing the tire of their cargo truck which was parked
along the right side of the National Highway; that defendant's truck, driven
recklessly by Daniel Serrano bumped the plaintiff, that as a result, plaintiff
was injured and hospitalized where he incurred and will incur more expenses
as he recuperates from said injuries; Plaintiff's right leg was amputated and
that because of said injuries he would be deprived of a lifetime income.
To free themselves from liability, defendants Isidro [owner] and Serrano
[driver] averred that he knows his responsibilities as a driver and further
contends that it was the negligence of plaintiff that was the proximate cause
of the accident. They alleged that plaintiff parked his truck in a manner
which occupied a part of the highway and he did not even put a warning
sign.
Subsequently, a third-party complaint was filed by the defendant against his
insurer, the Travellers Multi Indemnity Corporation; that the third-party
plaintiff [Isidro], without admitting his liability to the plaintiff, claimed that
the third-party defendant [Travellers] is liable to the former for contribution,
indemnity and subrogation by virtue of their insurance contract which covers
the insurer's liability for damages arising from death, bodily injuries and
damage to property. The Insurance company argued that it is only liable for
the amount agreed in the policy and the complaint was premature since no
claim was made to it.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioners. The CA reversed the decision,
stating that it is the petitioners who were negligent since they did
not exercise caution by putting warning signs that their truck is park on the
shoulder of the highway.
Issue:
Whether or not Isidro is liable as employer of Serrano.
Ruling:

Yes!
The SC held that the CA erroneously appreciated the evidence. It was proven
that the petitioner placed a warning sign within 3 to 4 meters from their
truck in the form of a lighted kerosene lamp. The existence of this warning
sings was corroborated by Serrano, respondent's driver, and further stated
that when he saw a parked truck, he kept on stepping on the brake pedal but
it did not function. Thus despite this warning signs, the truck recklessly
driven by Serrano and owned by Respondent Isidro bumped the truck of
petitioner.
The private respondent is sued under Art. 2176 in relation to Art. 2180,
paragraph 5, of the Civil Code. In the latter, when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of
law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in
the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
selection, or both. Such presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de
jure and consequently, may be rebutted. If follows necessarily that if the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in
the supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. In
disclaiming liability for the incident, the private respondent stresses that the
negligence of his employee has already been adequately overcome by his
driver's statement that he knew his responsibilities as a driver and that the
truck owner used to instruct him to be careful in driving.
We do not agree with the private respondent in his submission. In the first
place, it is clear that the driver did not know his responsibilities because he
apparently did not check his vehicle before he took it on the road. If he did
he could have discovered earlier that the brake fluid pipe on the right was
cut, and could have repaired it and thus the accident could have been
avoided. Moveover, to our mind, the fact that the private respondent used to
intruct his driver to be careful in his driving, that the driver was licensed, and
the fact that he had no record of any accident, as found by the respondent
court, are not sufficient to destroy the finding of negligence of the Regional
Trial Court given the facts established at the trial. The private respondent or
his mechanic, who must be competent, should have conducted a thorough
inspection of his vehicle before allowing his driver to drive it.
In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case, we hold that Isidro
failed to prove that the diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervision of his employees which would exculpate him from solidary
liability with his driver to the petitioner. But even if we concede that the

diligence of a good father of a family was observed by Isidro in the

supervision of his driver, there is not an iota of evidence on record of the
observance by Isidro of the same quantum of diligence in the supervision of
his mechanic, if any, who would be directly in charge in maintaining the road
worthiness of his (Isidro's) truck. But that is not all. There is paucity of proof
that Isidro exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
of his driver, Daniel Serrano, as well as in the selection of his mechanic, if
any, in order to insure the safe operation of his truck and thus prevent
damage to others. Accordingly, the responsibility of Isidro as employer
treated in Article 2180, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code has not ceased.

RAMOS V CA
G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
Lessons Applicable: Personal Injury and Death (Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

June 17, 1985 afternoon: Erlinda Ramos, 47-year old robust woman
underwent on an operation to the stone at her gall bladder removed after
being tested that she was fit for "cholecystectomy" operation performed
by Dr. Orlino Hozaka. Dr. Hosaka charged a fee of P16,000.00, which was
to include the anesthesiologist's fee and which was to be paid after the
operation. He assured Rogelio E. Ramos, husband that he will get a
good anesthesiologist who was Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez. Erlinda's hand
was held by Herminda Cruz, her sister -in-law who was the Dean of the
College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center together with her
husband went down with her to the operating room.
Instead of 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka arrived at about 12:15 P.M.
Herminda noticing what Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez was doing, saw the
nailbed of Erlinda becoming bluish and Dr. Hosaka called for
another anesthesiologist Dr. Calderon.
She went out of the operating room to tell Rogelio that something is
wrong.
When she went back she saw Erlinda in a trendelenburg position and at
3 p.m. she was taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where she stayed for
a month due to bronchospasm incurring P93,542.25 and she was since
then comatosed.
She suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen
in her brain for four to five minutes.

She was also diagnosed to be suffering from "diffuse cerebral

parenchymal damage"

Monthly expenses ranged from P8,000 to P10,000

Spouses Ramos and their minors filed against Dr. Hosaka and Dra.
Perfecta Gutierrez

RTC: favored the Ramos' awarding P8,000 as actual monthly expenses

totalling to P632,000 as of April 15, 1992, P100,000 atty. fees, P800,000
moral damages,P200,000 exemplary damages and cost of suit

CA: reversed ordering the Ramos' to pay their unpaid bills

of P93,542.25 plus interest
ISSUE: W/N the Ramos' are entitled to damages

HELD: YES. CA modified in favor of petitioners, and solidarily against private

respondents the following: 1) P1,352,000 actual damages computed as of
the date of promulgation plus a monthly payment of P8,000.00 up to the
time that petitioner Erlinda Ramos expires or miraculously survives; 2)
P2,000,000 moral damages, 3) P1,500,000 temperate damages; 4) P100,000
exemplary damages and P100,000 attorney's fees; and, 5) the costs of the
suit.

The application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases

presents a question of law since it is a judicial function to determine
whether a certain set of circumstances does, as a matter of law, permit a
given inference.
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for
expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
provides the proof of negligence - applicable in this case
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a
physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a
scientific treatment
As borne by the records, respondent Dra. Gutierrez failed to properly
intubate the patient according to witness Herminda
With her clinical background as a nurse, the Court is satisfied
with her testimony
Dra. Gutierrez' act of seeing her patient for the first time only an hour
before the scheduled operative procedure was, therefore, an act of
exceptional negligence and professional irresponsibility
Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired
special knowledge of the subject matter about which he or she is to
testify, either by the study of recognized authorities on the subject or by
practical experience.

Dr. Jamora, not an anesthesiologist, stated that oxygen

deprivation which led to anoxic encephalopathy was due to an
unpredictable drug reaction to the short-acting barbiturate was not
accepted as expert opinion
Dr. Hosaka's negligence can be found in his failure to exercise the
proper authority in not determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper
anesthesia protocols
Dr. Hosaka had scheduled another procedure in a different hospital at
the same time as Erlinda's cholecystectomy, and was in fact over three
hours late for the latter's operation. Because of this, he had little or no
time to confer with his anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery.
This indicates that he was remiss in his professional duties towards his
patient
private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their
attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not,
technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in
denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the control exercised,
the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important
hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of
the payment of wages.
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled
to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.
temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and
continuing. And because of the unique nature of such cases, no
incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate damages are
provided for. The reason is that these damages cover two distinct phases.
They should not be compelled by dire circumstances to provide
substandard care at home without the aid of professionals, for anything
less would be grossly inadequate. Under the circumstances, an award of
P1,500,000.00 in temperate damages would therefore be reasonable.
the damage done to her would not only be permanent and lasting, it
would also be permanently changing and adjusting to the physiologic
changes which her body would normally undergo through the years.
Erlinda Ramos was in her mid-forties when the incident occurred. She
has been in a comatose state for over fourteen years now
Ramos' are charged with the moral responsibility of the care of the
victim. The family's moral injury and suffering in this case is clearly a real
one. Award of P2,000,000 in moral damages would be appropriate.
Finally, by way of example, exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00 are hereby awarded. Considering the length and nature of

the instant suit we are of the opinion that attorney's fees valued at
P100,000 are likewise proper.

BATIQUIN VS CA
NATURE:Petition for review of the decision of the Court of AppealsFACTS- Mrs.
Villegas submitted to Dr. Batiquin for prenatal care as the latter's private
patientsometime before September 21,1988. In the morning of September
21, 1988 Dr. Batiquin, alongwith other physicians and nurses, performed
a caesarean operation on Mrs. Villegas andsuccessfully delivered the latters
baby. After leaving the hospital, Mrs. Villegas began tosuffer abdominal pains
and complained of being feverish. She also gradually lost her appetite, soshe
consulted Dr. Batiquin at the latter's polyclinic who prescribed for her certain
medicines.However, the pains still kept recurring. She then consulted Dr.Ma.
Salud Kho. After examiningher, Dr Kho suggested that Mrs.Villegas submit to
another surgery.- When Dr. Kho opened theabdomen of Mrs. Villegas she
found whitish-yellow discharge inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left and
right ovaries which gave out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus, and a piece
of rubber material on the right side of the uterus, embedded on the ovarian
cyst. The piece of rubber appeared to be a part of a rubber glove. This was
the cause of all of the infection of the ovariesand consequently of all
the discomfort suffered by Mrs. Villegas. The piece of rubber allegedlyfound
was not presented in court, and Dr. Kho testified that she sent it to a
pathologist in CebuCity for examination. Aside from Dr. Kho's testimony, the
evidence which mentioned the pieceof rubber are a Medical Certificate,
a Progress Record, an Anaesthesia Record, a Nurse's Record,and a
Physician's Discharge Summary. The trial court, however, regarded these
documentaryevidence as mere hearsay, "there being no showing that the
person or persons who prepared themare deceased or unable to testify on
the facts therein stated- There was also doubts as to thewhereabouts of the
piece of rubber, as 2 versions arose from Dr. Khos testimony: 1) that it
wassent to the Pathologist in Cebu as testified to in Court by Dr. Kho and (2)
that Dr. Kho threw itaway as told by her to Defendant. The failure of
the Plaintiffs to reconcile these two differentversions served only to weaken
their claim against Defendant Batiquin. The trial court ruled infavor of the
defendants. The CA reversed the decision.ISSUES Procedural:WON the court can
review questions of factSubstantive:WON Dr. Batiquin is liable HELDProcedural:YES While the rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review oncertiorari , there are exceptions, among which are when the factual findings
of the trial court andthe appellate court conflict, when the appealed decision is
clearly contradicted by the evidenceon record, or when the appellate court
misapprehended the factsSubstantive- The focal point of the appeal is Dr. Khos
testimony. There were inconsistencies within her own testimony, which led to
the different decision of the RTC and CA. The CA was correct insaying that
the trial court erred when it isolated the disputed portion of Dr. Khos

testimony anddid not consider it with other portions of Dr. Khos testimony.
Also, the phrase relied upon bythe trial court does not negate the fact that
Dr. Kho saw a piece of rubber in private respondentVillegas' abdomen, and
that she sent it to a laboratory and then to Cebu City for examination bya
pathologist. Furthermore, Dr. Kho's knowledge of the piece of rubber could
not be based onother than first hand knowledge for, as she asserted before
the trial court

D.M. Consunji vs. CA and Juego

TITLE: D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego
CITATION: GR No. 137873, April 20, 2001 | 357 SCRA 249

FACTS:

Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of D.M.

Consunji Inc. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City. He was immediately
rushed to Rizal Medical Center in Pasig City. The attending physician, Dr. Errol de Yzo,
pronounce Jose dead on arrival (DOA) at around 2:15PM.

Jose Juergo, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo, performing their work as
carpenter at the elevator core of the 14th floor of Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building
were on board a platform. Jose was crushed to death when the platform fell due to
removal or looseness of the pin, which was merely inserted to the connecting points of
the chain block and platform but without a safety lock. Luckily, Jessie and Delso jumped
out of safety.

PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed
report dated Nov. 25, 1990. Maria Juergo, Joses widow filed a complaint on May 9, 1991
for damages in the RTC and was rendered a favorable decision to receive support from
DM Consunji amounting to P644,000.

DM Consunji seeks reversal of the CA decision.

ISSUE: Whether Maria Juergo can still claim damages with D.M. Consunji apart from the
death benefits she claimed in the State Insurance Fund.

HELD:

The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the civil code. Maria
Juergo was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her claim for death
benefits from the State Insurance Fund. She filed the civil complaint for damages after
she received a copy of the police investigation report and the Prosecutors
Memorandum dismissing the criminal complaint against petitioners personnel.
Supreme Court remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to determine whether the award
decreed in its decision is more than that of the Employees Compensation Commission
(ECC). Should the award decreed by the trial court be greater than that awarded by the
ECC, payments already made to private respondent pursuant to the Labor Code shall be
deducted therefrom.