View full case

MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. v. RODELIO ALBERTO

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution. The CA Decision dismissed the Complaint filed by petitioner Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., which contested the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The incident occurred at the corner of EDSA and Ayala Avenue, Makati City, and involved four vehicles. According to the police report, the Fuzo Cargo Truck collided with the Mitsubishi Galant and the Nissan Bus, causing the vehicles to collide with each other. Malayan Insurance, as the insurer of the Mitsubishi Galant, paid for the damages sustained by the assured and sent demand letters to the registered owner and driver of the Fuzo Cargo Truck. Respondents refused to settle, prompting Malayan Insurance to file a complaint for damages for gross negligence against them. The trial court ruled in favor of Malayan Insurance, declaring respondents liable for damages. However, the CA reversed the decision, stating that the evidence failed to establish negligence on the part of respondents and the right of Malayan Insurance to subrogation. The admissibility of the police report, sufficiency of evidence to support a claim for gross negligence, and the validity of subrogation are among the issues raised in the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the police report is admissible in evidence even without the presentation of the police investigator

  2. Whether respondents presented sufficient evidence to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of the driver of the Fuzo Cargo truck

  3. Whether all the requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present in the case.

  4. Whether the presumption of negligence can be rebutted by the defendant's proof of due care.

  5. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.

  6. Whether there is valid subrogation.

RULING:

  1. The police report is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, the report cannot be considered as part of the evidence on record if it is not confirmed by the investigating police officer. In this case, the third requisite for the admissibility of the police report, which is the sufficient personal knowledge of the facts contained in the report by the police investigator, is lacking. Nonetheless, since the respondents failed to make a timely objection to the police report's presentation in evidence, they are deemed to have waived their right to do so. Therefore, the police report is still admissible in evidence.

  2. The driver of the Fuzo Cargo truck is presumed to be negligent for bumping the rear of the Mitsubishi Galant. This presumption can only be overturned if respondents present evidence to prove otherwise. In this case, the respondents failed to present any evidence to show that the driver was not negligent. Thus, the presumption of negligence stands and the driver is held liable.

  3. Yes, all the requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present in the case. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent, the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence, and the injury suffered was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

  4. No, the defendant cannot rebut the presumption of negligence by proving due care. The presumption or inference of negligence arises when the plaintiff establishes the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the burden then shifts to the defendant to explain. The defendant's proof of due care comes into play only after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine have been established.

  5. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. The accident in question would not have happened unless someone was negligent. The truck involved was under the exclusive control of its driver, and no contributory negligence was attributed to the driver of the other vehicle. The presumption of negligence remains as the respondents failed to present any evidence to the contrary.

  6. There is valid subrogation in this case. The claim check voucher and the Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt presented by the insurance company are already part of the evidence on record, and it is undisputed that the insurer paid the insured. The payment by the insurer to the insured operates as an equitable assignment of all the remedies the insured may have against a third party. The right of subrogation accrues upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Hearsay rule - Witnesses can only testify to facts derived from their own perception and not from what they have been told, read, or heard from others. Hearsay testimony is inadmissible as proof.

  • Exceptions to hearsay rule - One of the exceptions is the entry in official records. Entries made by a public officer or a person specially enjoined by law are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

  • Res ipsa loquitur - This doctrine establishes a presumption or inference of negligence in cases where the facts or circumstances surrounding an injury raise a presumption or permit an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant or a person charged with negligence. It allows for the establishment of prima facie negligence without direct proof and acts as a substitute for specific proof of negligence.

  • Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of necessity that applies when evidence is absent or not readily available. It is grounded upon the fact that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which caused the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it, while the plaintiff has no such knowledge.

  • The requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) the injury suffered was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

  • Once the plaintiff establishes the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur, the defendant's negligence is presumed or inferred. The defendant may rebut or overcome the presumption or inference with other evidence, but it is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption from arising. The defendant's proof of due care comes into play only after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine have been established.

  • The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent, the instrumentality causing the injury is under the exclusive control of the person charged, and the injury suffered was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the injured party.

  • The presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be rebutted by other evidence to the contrary.

  • Failure to object to offered evidence renders it admissible, and the court cannot disregard such evidence. Objections must be timely made and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

  • Subrogation is the substitution of one person by another with reference to a lawful claim or right, allowing the one who is substituted to succeed to the rights of the other. It operates as an equitable assignment of all the remedies the insured may have against a third party.