I recall when we were in law school, whenever someone bragged that he had a pretty girlfriend, we would dare him to introduce her to us. And when he did, and if the girl was indeed beautiful, we would say res ipsa loquitur. Such is a Latin term which means "the thing speaks for itself." So with regard to that lady introduced to us, our Latin expression meant a total affirmation of his claim. No further proof or explanation was needed. The radiant beauty was right before us. But really, what does this Latin term signify in law? What is its correlation with negligence? Before I discuss that, let me first tell you a story. One that actually transpired and is included in the many cases the Supreme Court ruled on.
Jessica Maitim and Maria Theresa Aquila lived in townhouses across from each other. A common driveway separated them. One day, Jessica boarded her car driven by Restituto Santos, her driver. As the car was moving out of the driveway, it sideswiped Angela, the six-year-old daughter of Maria Theresa. This resulted in the fracture of her leg which entailed surgery costing Maria Theresa heavily. This likewise caused Angela to be bound in a wheelchair as she recovered. Maria Theresa wanted to be indemnified for all the damages she and her daughter suffered. Such fell on deaf ears. She referred the matter for conciliation at the barangay. Jessica did not appear. Having no other recourse, Maria Theresa brought the matter to the court. After reception of evidence, the trial court found Restituto to be presumed negligent, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, thereby making Jessica vicariously liable as the employer. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, said court sided with the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, Jessica elevated the matter to the final bastion of justice. This is what the Highest Court had to say.
"First, it must be noted that the RTC correctly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when it ruled that Santos should be presumed negligent, and thus, had the burden of proving such presumption otherwise… Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as the 'the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.' The doctrine… means that 'where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.' It is simply 'a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.' …As applied in the instant case, the fact that Angela was hit by a moving vehicle owned by Maitim and driven by Santos is undisputed, and the same is supported by the Traffic Accident Investigation Report… The fact that Angela sustained injuries in her collision with Maitim's vehicle is also not in question. Thus, since it is clearly established that there was a vehicular accident that caused injuries, then the rule on res ipsa loquitur shall apply. An inference of negligence on the part of Santos, the person who controls the instrumentality (vehicle) causing the injury, arises, and he has the burden of presenting proof to the contrary… Ordinarily, driving inside a relatively narrow driveway shared by two houses would not result in children being hit and their bones fractured. This is because a reasonably prudent man, especially an alleged experienced driver, would have foreseen that the residents of the houses may exit towards the common driveway anytime, including young and playful children who may suddenly run across or along the said driveway. Thus, a reasonably prudent man is expected to drive with utmost caution when traversing the said driveway, even if given a clear signal by a guard… If Santos truly drove slowly and with care, he should have been able to have an ample opportunity to brake or otherwise steer their vehicle out of trouble…"
Accordingly, Restituto Santos, in accordance with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, was held accountable for his acts. As for Jessica Matim, she was, likewise, held vicariously liable as an employer. This means that an employer, under certain conditions, is held liable for the acts of his employee. This vicarious liability however will be a story for another day.
The facts and quoted provisions are from Jessica P. Maitim versus Maria Theresa Aguila, G.R. 218344 promulgated on 21 March 2022.
