View full case

VICENTE T. GUERRERO v. PHIL. PHOENIX SURETY

FACTS:

On December 31, 2008, a vehicular accident occurred between a Chevrolet pick-up truck owned by petitioner Vicente Guerrero (Guerrero) and an Isuzu Sportivo vehicle owned by Atty. Joseph Agustin Gaticales (Gaticales). The Chevrolet was driven by Rogelio Cordero (Cordero), an employee of Guerrero. The accident resulted in damages to the Isuzu. It was found that Guerrero's Chevrolet encroached the lane occupied by the Isuzu, causing a head-on collision. Cordero fled after the incident.

Gaticales filed an own damage claim with respondent Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. (Phoenix), the company where Gaticales had the Isuzu insured. Phoenix paid Gaticales the amount of P810,000.00 and Gaticales executed a Release of Claim in favor of Phoenix, subrogating Phoenix to his rights to recover on all claims arising from the accident.

Phoenix filed a complaint against Guerrero and Cordero, seeking damages for the losses incurred by Phoenix, reimbursement for Gaticales' participation fee, attorney's fees, and cost of suit. Phoenix claimed that the accident could have been avoided if Cordero exercised due care as the driver of the Chevrolet and if Guerrero exercised the required diligence in supervising Cordero.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Phoenix and held Guerrero and Cordero solidarily liable to pay Phoenix the amount of P425,100.00 representing the losses incurred by Phoenix, reimbursement for Gaticales' participation fee, attorney's fees, and cost of suit. Guerrero and Cordero appealed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the trial court properly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

  2. Whether or not the police certificate is admissible as evidence.

  3. Whether the police blotter entry and the pictures presented by Phoenix are admissible in evidence.

  4. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies based on the picture of the damaged vehicle alone.

  5. Whether or not the police certificate and pictures are admissible as evidence.

  6. Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for damages.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The appellate court found that the requirements for the operation of the said doctrine were met, i.e., (1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of Cordero - the negligent party as pointed out by Phoenix; and (3) there is no possibility of contributory negligence on the part of Gaticales. Coupled with Cordero's act of fleeing the scene of the accident, Cordero and Guerrero (as Cordero's employer) were found liable to Phoenix and Gaticales for the amounts previously awarded by the trial court.

  2. The Court of Appeals held that the police certificate is admissible as evidence. Citing Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, the appellate court found that the requisites for the admissibility of the police certificate were complied with, namely: (1) the entry was made by a public officer specially enjoined by law to do so; (2) it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties; (3) the public officer had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him, which was acquired through official information based on the investigation conducted by a police investigator (i.e., PO2 Diestro). The CA thus concluded that the police certificate, as well as the pictures of the insured vehicle, established a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of Cordero.

  3. The police blotter entry and the pictures presented by Phoenix are inadmissible in evidence. The Certification of the police blotter did not state that the issuing officer was the legal custodian of the police blotter, and the Certification was not properly identified or authenticated by a competent witness. As for the pictures, they were not identified or explained by the photographer or any other competent witness who was familiar with the scene or objects depicted in the pictures.

  4. Since the police blotter entry and the pictures are inadmissible, they cannot be used as a basis for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the nature of the accident itself suggests that it was caused by someone's negligence. However, in this case, there is no admissible evidence to establish the negligence of the defendant.

  5. The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals' decision and resolution are reversed and set aside. The complaint in Civil Case No. 09-122267 is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that enables an injured party to recover on the basis of a presumed negligence of the defendant. It applies when: (1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (3) it is not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. (Ruling on the issue of the application of res ipsa loquitur).

  • Under Section 46 of the Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of his or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Ruling on the admissibility of the police certificate as evidence).

  • A police blotter entry or a certification thereof is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule if properly presented, either by presenting the police blotter itself or a certified copy of the entry. The Certification should be identified by the issuing officer or a representative to attest to its contents and authenticity.

  • Photographs presented in evidence must be identified and authenticated by the photographer or someone competent to testify on their accuracy. The witness must assure the court that they know or are familiar with the scenes or objects shown in the pictures and that the photographs depict them correctly.

  • The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the nature of the accident itself suggests that it was caused by someone's negligence. However, there must be admissible evidence to establish the defendant's negligence.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party who makes an allegation or relies on a particular fact. Failure to discharge this burden results in the denial of the claim made.

  • Hearsay evidence, such as police certificates and pictures, is inadmissible in court unless it falls under an exception provided by law.

  • To hold a party liable for damages, it must be established that such party's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Additionally, the claimant must not be guilty of any contributory negligence.