BJDC CONSTRUCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR JANET S.

DELA CRUZ vs
NENA E. LANUZO, CLAUDETTE E. LANUZO, CHILDREN__________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: Nena E. Lanuzo, respondents in this case, filed a complaint for damages against BJDC Construction (petitioner),
a single proprietorship engaged in the construction business under its Manager/Proprietor Janet S. de la Cruz. The company was
the contractor of the re–blocking project to repair the damaged portion of one lane of the national highway at San Agustin, Pili,
Camarines Sur. _________________________________________________________________________
It was alleged that when she and his late husband, Balbino Lanuzo, figured an accident that transpired at the site of the re–
blocking work where BJDC is the contractor. That because the company’s failure to place illuminated warning signs on the site of
the project, especially during night time, the Honda motorcycle they are riding sideswiped the road barricade placed by the
company in the right lane portion of the road, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle and to crash on the newly cemented
road, resulting in his instant death. She prayed that the company be held liable for damages.
______________________________________________________________________________ The company denied Nena’s
allegations of negligence, insisting that it had installed warning signs meters away from the construction; that it has lights along
the highway and on the barricades of the project; that at the time of the incident, the lights were working and switched on. That the
DPWH and LGU found that they have satisfactorily taken measures to ensure the safety of motorists. The company insisted that
the death of Balbino was an accident brought about by his own negligence, as confirmed by the report that stated, among others,
that Balbino was not wearing any helmet at that time, and the accident occurred while Balbino was overtaking another
motorcycle. ______________________________________________________________________ RTC ruled against
Lanuzo for failure to make out a case for damages, with a preponderance of evidence. On appeal, CA reversed the decision
invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were present, namely: (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference
that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the
accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
____________________________ BJDC’s contention: The company finds fault on the decision of the CA and claimed that the
application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was misplaced to the case at bar because as found by the trial court, the proximate
cause of the accident is the victim’s own negligence. This was supported by an investigation report to the effect that the incident
was “purely self accident,”____
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: WON BJDC is liable for the death of Balbino._________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Held: NO. For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a kind that
ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive
control of the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.____________________________________________________________________________________________
Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs, negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company considering
that it has shown its installation of the necessary warning signs and lights in the project site. In that context, the fatal accident was
not caused by any instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. In contrast, Balbino had the exclusive control of
how he operated and managed his motorcycle. The records disclose that he himself did not take the necessary precautions. As
Zamora declared, Balbino overtook another motorcycle rider at a fast speed, and in the process could not avoid hitting a barricade
at the site, causing him to be thrown off his motorcycle onto the newly cemented road. SPO1 Corporal’s investigation report
corroborated Zamora’s declaration. This causation of the fatal injury went uncontroverted by the Lanuzo heirs.
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Moreover, by the time of the accident, the project, which had commenced in September 1997, had been going on for
more than a month and was already in the completion stage. Balbino, who had passed there on a daily basis in going to and from
his residence and the school where he then worked as the principal, was thus very familiar with the risks at the project site. Nor
could the Lanuzo heirs justly posit that the illumination was not adequate, for it cannot be denied that Balbino’s motorcycle was
equipped with headlights that would have enabled him at dusk or night time to see the condition of the road ahead. That the
accident still occurred surely indicated that he himself did not exercise the degree of care expected of him as a prudent
motorist._______________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PEDRO T. LAYUGAN vs IAC, GODOFREDO ISIDRO, and TRAVELLERS MULTI-

INDEMNITY CORPORATION_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: Pedro T. Layugan filed an action for damages against Godofredo Isidro, owner of another truck, 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 Isidro’s truck, driven recklessly by Daniel Serrano bumped the plaintiff, that as
a result, plaintiff was injured, hospitalized, causing his left legs to be amputated. Isidro claimed that the proximate cause of the
incident was the failure of the driver of the parked truck in installing the early warning device, hence the driver of the parked car
should be liable.
The RTC ruled in favor of Layugan. It based its decision on the statement given by the driver Serrano who admitted that
he bumped Layugan while repairing the truck at the stop position.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ On
appeal, CA reversed the decision using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Isidro submits that the burden of proving that care and
diligence were observed is shifted to the petitioner, for, as previously claimed, his (Isidro's) Isuzu truck had a right to be on the
road, while the immobile cargo truck had no business, so to speak, to be there. Absent such proof of care, as in the case at bar,
Isidro concludes, would, under the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, evoke the presumption of negligence on the part of the driver of
the parked cargo truck as well as his helper, the petitioner herein, who was fixing the flat tire of the said
truck.________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in the case at bar. _______
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
HELD: YES. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur  is not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience. It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff
of proving a breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved,
direct evidence is absent and not readily available. Hence, it has generally been held that the presumption of inference arising
from the doctrine cannot be availed of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the
specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of or where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause
of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly
appear. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
The evidence on record discloses that three or four meters from the rear of the parked truck, a lighted kerosene lamp was
placed. But despite this warning which we rule as sufficient, the Isuzu truck driven by Daniel Serrano, an employee of the private
respondent, still bumped the rear of the parked cargo truck. Serrano also testified that when he was meters away, he saw the truck
but the foot break is not working because it was later found that the fluid pipe on the rear right was cut. As a direct consequence of
such accident the petitioner sustained injuries on his left forearm and left foot. His left leg was later amputated from below the
knee when gangrene had set in.
__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is clear from the foregoing disquisition that the absence or want of care of Daniel Serrano has been established by clear
and convincing evidence. It follows that in stamping its imprimatur upon the invocation by respondent Isidro of the doctrine of
Res ipsa loquitur to escape liability for the negligence of his employee, the respondent court committed reversible
error.__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
LUZ PALANCA TAN vs. JAM TRANSIT, INC. ______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: In her Complaint, petitioner Luz Palanca Tan alleged that she was the owner of a passenger-type jitney loaded
with ballot and salted eggs. That around 5am the said jitney figured in an accident at an intersection along Maharlika Highway
Laguna, as it collided with a JAM Transit passenger bus bound for Manila, and was driven by Eddie Dimayuga.
____________________ Tan alleged that Dimayuga was reckless, negligent, imprudent for overtaking the jeepney causing the
bus to collide with it as it is about to negotiate a left turn towards Brgy Calauan, Laguna going to the Poblacion. The jitney turned
turtle along the shoulder of the road and the cargo of eggs was destroyed. Ramirez and his helper were injured and hospitalized,
incurring expenses for medical treatment. Tan prayed for damages. In its Answer with Counterclaim, respondent JAM Transit,
Inc. admitted ownership of the subject passenger bus and that Dimayuga was under its employ. However, it denied the allegations
in the Complaint, and claimed that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of Ramirez. Tan presented testimonial
evidence from driver Ramirez and Police Officer who made the investigation on the scene. Additional documentary evidence of
police report, sketch and photographs of the scene was presented where it was shown that the road where the accident occur has a
double yellow straight like which prohibits overtaking. It was also shown that it was at the intersection where overtaking is also
prohibited. JAM on the other hand presented only the testimonial evidence from its driver
Dimayuga.____________________________________________________________________________
RTC: Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the RTC found the JAM driver at fault as he was then violating a traffic
regulation when the collision took place. ____________________________________
CA: Ruled in favor of JAM. The CA held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can only be invoked when direct evidence is
nonexistent or not accessible. It said that Tan had access to direct evidence as to the precise cause of the mishap, such that the
circumstances of the vehicular accident or the specific act constituting the supposed negligence of Dimayuga could have been
testified to by Ramirez or by the latter’s companion.________________________________________________
ISSUE: WON res ipsa loquitur is applicable in the case at bar._______________________________________
HELD: YES. In the case at bar, no direct evidence was presented with respect to the exact road position of the bus and the jitney
at the time of the collision such that the same can only be inferred from the pictures of the colliding vehicles taken immediately
after the incident.
To prove negligence of the bus driver, plaintiff relies heavily upon the testimony of PO3 DANIEL C. ESCARES, who
identified the police report of the incident, as well as the sketch of the and the pictures taken as reflective of the scene of the
incident, invoking in plaintiff’s memorandum the application of the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitor."
_________________________________
At this juncture, it was established from exhibits that the jitney’s left side portion was directly hit by the front-right
portion of the bus. This is consistent with the plaintiff’s theory that the jitney was then negotiating the left portion of the road
when it was hit by the oncoming bus causing the jitney to have a 90-degree turn around. Verily, although there was no direct
evidence that the JAM passenger bus was overtaking the vehicles running along the right lane of the highway from the left lane,
the available evidence readily points to such fact. There were two continuous yellow lines at the center of the highway, which
meant that no vehicle in the said area should overtake another on either side of the road. The "double yellow center lines"
regulation, which this Court takes judicial notice of as an internationally recognized pavement regulation, was precisely intended
to avoid accidents along highways, such as what happened in this case. Thus, by overtaking on the left lane, Dimayuga was not
only violating the "double yellow center lines" regulation, but also the prohibition on overtaking at highway intersections.
Consequently, negligence can be attributed only to him, which negligence was the proximate cause of the injury sustained by
petitioner. This prima facie finding of negligence was not sufficiently rebutted or contradicted by Dimayuga.
__________________________________________________________________________
The liability of Dimayuga is solidary with JAM, pursuant to Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines______________________________________________________
COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN (CAP) and COMPREHENSIVE ANNUITY PLAN and PENSION CORPORATION
(CAPP) vs. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC.
FACTS: Belfranlt Development, Inc. (respondent) is the owner of Belfranlt Building in Angeles City, Pampanga. It
leased to petitioners CAP and CAPP several units on the second and third floors of the building. A fire destroyed portions of the
building, including the third floor units being occupied by petitioners. It was disclosed in the field investigation that fire was
caused by the overheating of coffee percolator owned by the petitioners. These findings are reiterated in the certification issued by
the BFP to petitioners CAP and CAAP as supporting document for the latter's insurance
claim.______________________________________________________________________________ Citing the foregoing
findings, respondent sent petitioners several notices to pay reparation from P1.5 – 2.2 million. Petitioners vacated the leased
premises, including the units on the second floor, but they did not act on the demand for reparation. Petitioners disclaimed liability
for reparation, pointing out that the fire was a fortuitous event for which they could not be held
responsible.____________________________________________________________________________________________
After its third demand went unheeded, respondent filed with the RTC a complaint against petitioners for damages. RTC
hold petitioners liable and ordered to pay Belfranlt severally. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC with modification on the
damages awarded. It applied the doctrine of Res Ipsa
Loquitur._________________________________________________________________________
CAP & CAAP is assailing the BFP field investigation report and the BFP certification claiming that these evidences were
presented in court by Fireman Sitchon who admitted to having no participation in the investigation of the fire incident or personal
knowledge about said incident.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: WON petitioners are liable for the reparation of the razed building of Belfranlt.___________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
HELD: The defense that the fire was a fortuitous event is untenable. It is undisputed that the fire originated from appellants'
stockroom located on the third floor leased premises. Said stockroom was under the control of appellants which, on that fateful
day, conducted a seminar in the training room which was adjoining the stockroom. Absent an explanation from appellants on the
cause of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.____________________________________________
Even without the testimony of Fireman Sitchon and the documents he prepared, the finding of the RTC and CA on the
negligence of petitioners cannot be overturned by petitioners' bare denial. The CA correctly applied the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur under which expert testimony may be dispensed with to sustain an allegation of negligence if the following requisites
obtain: a) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; b) the cause of 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 on the part of the person injured. The fire that damaged Belfranlt Building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence
but the outcome of a human act or omission. It originated in the store room which petitioners had possession and control of.
Respondent had no hand in the incident. Hence, the convergence of these facts and circumstances speaks for itself: petitioners
alone having knowledge of the cause of the fire or the best opportunity to ascertain it, and respondent having no means to find out
for itself, it is sufficient for the latter to merely allege that the cause of the fire was the negligence of the former and to rely on the
occurrence of the fire as proof of such negligence. It was all up to petitioners to dispel such inference of negligence, but their bare
denial only left the matter unanswered.
__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. CA and MARIA J. JUEGO
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: Jose Juego, a construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig
City to his death.______________________________________________________
Investigation disclosed that while victim Jose A. Juego together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo were performing their work
as carpenteR[ at the 14th floor of the Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building on board a platform made of channel beam, the bolt
or pin which was merely inserted connecting points of the chain block and platform but without a safety lock, got loose causing
the whole platform assembly and the victim to fall down to the basement of the building under construction thereby crushing the
victim of death, save his two companions who luckily jumped out for safety. Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised,
among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. RTC rendered a decision in
favor of the widow Maria Juego. CA affirmed the decision of RTC in
toto.________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
DM CONSUNJI is assailing the decision of the appellate court which based its decision on the testimony of police officers who
investigated the scene and made a disclosure that the fall of the platform was the loosening of the bolt from the chain block. It is
claimed that such portion of the testimony is mere
opinion.____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: WON D.M. CONSUNJI is liable.______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
HELD: YES. Petitioner’s contention, however, loses relevance in the face of the application of res ipsa loquitur by the CA. The
effect of the doctrine is to warrant a presumption or inference that the mere fall of the elevator was a result of the person having
charge of the instrumentality was
negligent.______________________________________________________________________________________________
One of the theoretical based for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e., that necessary evidence is absent or not
available._______________________________________________________________________________ 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._______________________
It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur furnishes a bridge by which a plaintiff, without knowledge of the
cause, reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in
respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine, another court has said, is a rule of necessity,
in that it proceeds on the theory that under the peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is applicable, it is within the power of
the defendant to show that there was no negligence on his part, and direct proof of defendant’s negligence is beyond plaintiff’s
power. Accordingly, some court add to the three prerequisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the further
requirement that for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of
knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity
for explanation of the accident.__________________________________________________________________________
There is no dispute that appellee’s husband fell down from the 14th floor of a building to the basement while he was
working with appellant’s construction project, resulting to his death. The construction site is within the exclusive control and
management of appellant. It has a safety engineer, a project superintendent, a carpenter leadman and others who are in complete
control of the situation therein. The circumstances of any accident that would occur therein are peculiarly within the knowledge of
the appellant or its employees.__________________________________ No worker is going to fall from the 14th floor of
a building to the basement while performing work in a construction site unless someone is negligent[;] thus, the first requisite for
the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur is present. As explained earlier, the construction site with all its paraphernalia and
human resources that likely caused the injury is under the exclusive control and management of appellant[;] thus[,] the second
requisite is also present. No contributory negligence was attributed to the appellee’s deceased husband[;] thus[,] the last requisite
is also present. All the requisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur are present, thus a reasonable presumption or
inference of appellant’s negligence arises._______________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________