Res Ipsa Loquitur

Thus doctrine was first applied in Byrne v. Boadle, an English tort law case, where a
barrel of flour fell from a building hitting the plaintiff on the head. The incident had no
witnesses. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is normally the one who must
procure direct evidence to prove who is the person directly responsible for the damage
done. However, the British Court ruled that said incident (the rolling of the barrel)
could not occur if without some negligence of the warehouse men and that the rolling
of the barrel and subsequently hitting the plaintiff constitutes prima facie evidence of
negligence on the part of the persons whose duty is to keep the barrels in order.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a latin phrase which literally translates to “the thing speaks for
itself”. It is a rule on evidence which provides that the mere existence of the injury or
accident implies the existence of some negligence of one party.

It is grounded on logic because normal circumstances would normally yield normal

results. Thus, based on common knowledge, the occurrence of an accident could imply
that there was some foreign or extra ordinary element which altered the result.

In sum, the mere occurrence of the accident or existence of damage or injury is a

prima facie evidence of the negligence of the acting party who has the duty to prevent
such occurrence.
 Res Ipsa Loquitur Vis a Vis Legal Medicine

The doctrine often arises in cases of medical malpractice and negligence. For
example, the existence of metal objects or other medical equipment inside the patient’s
body requires no further explanation to show that the attending doctor was negligent or
when a simple medical operation places the patient in a comatose state. Clearly, the
mere happening of the incident raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the
attending doctor. Thus, pursuant to this doctrine, negligence may be established even
without direct proof of negligence.

The presumption of negligence is anchored on a universally recognized oath

taken by medical practitioners, the Hippocratic oath. Substantially, the oath provides
that medical practitioners promises to “do no harm” and “treat the ill to the best of
one’s ability”.

To be absolved of any liability, the defendant doctor must prove that he did not
act negligent and did everything he could possibly do to treat the illness.

Notes:

1. Since it is a mere presumption of negligence, it is a rebuttable presumption. It

may be overturned by presentation of evidence to the contrary.

2. In Jarcia vs People of the Philippines (G.R. no. 187926), the court ruled that Res
Ipsa Loquitur is not a substantive law but it is merely a mode of proof or a mere
procedural convenience. It 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 absent and not
readily available.

3. For it to apply, the following requisites must concur:

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

Application in a case:

Dr. Milagros Cantre vs. Spouses Go

G.R. no. 160889 April 27, 2007
Facts:
Mrs. Go, gave birth to her 4 th child and the attending physician is Petitioner, Dr.
Cantre. After a successful medical procedure to stop an internal bleeding inside Mrs.
Go’s womb, Petitioner ordered a droplight to warm Nora and her baby while Mrs. Go
remained unconscious.

After a few hours in the recovery room, Mr. Go noticed a gaping wound on the
arm of Mrs. Go. Petitioner told Mr. Go that it was caused by the blood pressure cuff
because when the medical procedure was on going, petitioner had to constantly
monitor Mrs. Go’s blood pressure. Spouses went to the NBI and the medico legal officer
said that the wound appears to be a burn and may be caused by the droplight. Thus,
because of that incident, the spouses filed a case against the Petitioner.

Ruling:
The court, applying the requisites of Res ipsa loquitur ruled that:
1. “The accident does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence” In this
case the operation was the delivery of the child and the stopping of the
profuse bleeding in the womb. Said procedure would not normally cause a
wound in the arm.
2. “instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant” In this case,
whatever the cause of the injury is of no moment because both the droplight
and blood pressure cuff is both within the exclusive control of the petitioner.
3. “Contributory negligence of the plaintiff” Mrs. Go could not have contributed
to the injury done to herself because while the operation was on going she was
unconscious.

Clearly, the doctrine raised the presumption of negligence on the part of the
petitioner and he burden to prove otherwise lies with the same party.