INTERPHIL VS.
OEP PHILIPPINES standards, techniques, and designs furnished by OEP to
Res Ipsa Loquitur
G.R. No. 203697|March 20, 2019| J. Reyes A, JR
Nature of Case: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals
Digest maker: Dungo
SUMMARY: OEP and Interphil entered into a Manufacturing agreement
whereby Interphil would process and package 90 and 120 mg Diltelan
capsules for OEP. One day, OEP’s customers in Taiwan complained about
90-mg capsules being placed in 120-mg foils. OEP ended up having to
destroy the capsules and charged Interphil for the cost. The court held
that Interphil is guilty of negligence on the basis of res ipsa loquitur
because the packaging was under its exclusive management and it despite
it charging OEP for inspecting the materials, it still committed the error.
DOCTRINE: In order for a fortuitous event(unforeseeable and
unavoidable) to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has
committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the
loss. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person’s
participation (active intervention, neglect or failure to act) the whole act
is humanized.
Doctrine: Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which
caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of
the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as
in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those who had its
control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or,
as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation
by the defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused by the
defendant's want of care.
FACTS:
 In 1998, OEP and Interphil entered into a Manufacturing Agreement
whereby Interphil undertook to process and package 90 and 120 mg
Diltelan capsules for OEP under the ff pertinent conditions:
o All products processed by Interphil shall be prepared and
packed strictly in accordance with the formulae, processes,
Interphil from time to time.
o Interphil shall conduct quality control and other tests as
OEP shall specify for each of the products at OEP’s cost and
expense
o Should a batch of any of the products fail to meet the
processing or packaging standards specified by OEP,
Interphil shall either correct the deficiency or destroy the
batch under OEP’s instructions. Expenses occurred
shouldered by OEP unless Interphil was negligent.
 The parties issued a letter to the Bureau of Food and Drugs safety
stating that if there was problem in the packaging or manufacturing
process, Interphil would be liable
 On August 8, 2000, OEP received urgent phone calls from Taiwan
regarding a defect in the packaging of 90mg Diltelan capsules,
stating that several 90-mg Diltelan capsules were wrapped in foiled
meant for 120-mg Diltelan capsules and placed in boxes labeled for
90-mg Diltelan capsules
 OEP immediately informed Interphil and they found out the
defective ones belonges to a single batch. OEP had no choice but to
recall and destroy all the capsules since the necessary reworking
might put the public in danger. This cost OEP P5,183,525.05
 Interphil refused to pay
 RTC of Makati- Interphil was negligent on the basis of res ipsa
loquitur and OEP did not breach the agreement by not following the
procedure for destruction
 CA affirmed – proximate cause was the fact that Interphil
erroneously packed the 90-mg Diltelan capsules in the 120-mg
capsules which was in the exclusive hands and control of Interphil
ISSUE:
W/N Interphil is guilty of negligence on the basis of res ipsa loquitur? -
YES
RATIO:
1. While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while
the mere happening of an accident or injury will not generally give
 rise to an inference or presumption that it was due to negligence on Interphil’s responsibilities and the diligence to abide by. Interphil
defendant's part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which itself said its people inspected it.
means, literally, the thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one 4. Interphil had exclusive management and control at the time of the
jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality speaks for itself, the packaging. Though Interphil claimed that 90-mg foils were mis-
facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to spliced with the 120-mg foils. There was no evidence to the same.
raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of negligence on 5. There is no contributory fault on the part of OEP. Interphil claims
the part of the defendant, or some other person who is charged with that OEP was at fault for delivering reels of foils which are similar in
negligence. appearance and not distinctly labeled with colored tape. This fault
is, however not the proximate and immediate cause of the damage.
Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused
the injury complained of was under the control or management of
the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was
such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those
who had its control or management used proper care, there is
sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in
the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the injury arose
from or was caused by the defendant's want of care.

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory that
the 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 and that the plaintiff has no such
knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege negligence in
general terms and to rely upon the proof of the happening of the
accident in order to establish negligence. The inference which the
doctrine permits is 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.
2. Elements of Res ipsa Loquitur:
 The accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that
it would not have happened except for the defendant’s
negligence
 The accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentalilty within the exclusive management or control of
the person charged with the negligence complained of
 The accident must not have been due to voluntary action or
contribution by the part of the person injured
3. Interphil had exclusive control in the packaging of the materials
before the company delivered them to OEP. The agreement placed