View full case

D.M. CONSUNJI v. CA

FACTS:

On November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker, fell 14 floors to his death while working at the Renaissance Tower in Pasig City. Investigation revealed that Juego, along with two other carpenters, were working on a platform attached to a chain block when the bolt connecting the platform and chain block got loose, causing the platform and Juego to fall. Juego was crushed to death due to the fall. On May 9, 1991, Juego's widow filed a complaint for damages against D.M. Consunji, Inc., Juego's employer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the widow and ordered D.M. Consunji, Inc. to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. D.M. Consunji, Inc. appealed the case and argued that the police report, which was presented as evidence, should not have been considered admissible. They also raised other grounds for reversal.

The case involves a dispute over the admissibility of a police report and the testimony of a police officer in a case involving the death of a person due to an elevator crash. The Court ruled that the portions of the police report which were based on the personal knowledge and perceptions of the police officer who executed the report were admissible as evidence, while the rest of the report, such as the summary of statements based on sworn statements, could be considered as independently relevant statements gathered during the investigation. The Court also held that the testimony of the police officer, who had personal knowledge of certain facts, was sufficient to prove the cause of death and the condition of the elevator platform. The Court further explained that the opinion of a witness is generally not admissible, but in this case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, which allowed a presumption of negligence to be established based on the mere fall of the elevator.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows: The husband of the appellee fell from the 14th floor of a building to the basement while working on the appellant's construction project, resulting in his death. The construction site is under the control and management of the appellant, with various employees responsible for its operation. The appellant argued that it exercised due care to avoid the accident. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that all the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur were present in the case. No contributory negligence was attributed to the appellee's husband, and the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent. The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the appellant. The appellee, on the other hand, was not in a position to know what caused the accident. The CA concluded that a reasonable presumption or inference of appellant's negligence arises. The appellant's argument that it exercised due care was deemed to be a misapprehension of the proceedings.

ISSUES:

  1. Admissibility of the Police Report

    • Is the police report admissible as evidence of the alleged negligence of the petitioner?

  2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

    • Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable to prove negligence on the part of the petitioner?

  3. Negligence Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code

    • Is the petitioner presumed negligent under Article 2180 of the Civil Code?

  4. Recovery of Damages Under the Civil Code

    • Is the respondent precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code after availing benefits from the State Insurance Fund?

RULING:

  1. Admissibility of the Police Report

    • The police report is inadmissible to prove the truth of the statements contained but is admissible insofar as it constitutes part of the testimony of the investigating officer.

  2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

    • The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case, warranting a presumption or inference of negligence on the part of the petitioner.

  3. Negligence Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code

    • The petitioner failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption or inference of negligence arising from the application of res ipsa loquitur.

  4. Recovery of Damages Under the Civil Code

    • The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code despite having previously availed benefits from the ECC, as she was unaware of the petitioner's negligence at the time of filing for benefits.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Hearsay Rule and Exception for Official Records

    • Exceptions to the hearsay rule include entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer.

  2. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

    • Negligence may be inferred from the mere occurrence of certain types of accidents, provided specific requisites are met. This doctrine is based on the defendant's control over the instrumentality causing the injury and the accident's nature as unlikely to occur in the absence of negligence.

  3. Waiver by Election of Remedies

    • Election of remedies bars pursuing a second, inconsistent remedy. However, such waiver is negated by ignorance or mistake of fact.

  4. Article 2180, Civil Code of the Philippines

    • Establishes the presumption of negligence on the part of employers for acts committed by their employees within the scope of their assigned tasks.

  5. Doctrine of Mistake of Fact

    • Waiver and election of remedies are nullified by ignorance or mistake of fact. Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver as one cannot intentionally relinquish a right they are unaware of.

Note The case was remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to determine whether the award by the ECC should be deducted from the total damages awarded by the trial court to prevent double compensation.