TORTS - 42. Macalinao v.

Ong|1

740 have been accurately taken and are proved to be faithful and clear
representation of the subject.—Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED manifestation of truth which ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
Macalinao vs. Ong evidence. In this case, while there is a dearth of testimonial evidence to
enlighten us about what actually happened, photographs depicting the
G.R. No. 146635. December 14, 2005.* relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the accident took place
MARCELO MACALINAO, Substituted by ESPERANZA MACALINAO and _______________
ANTONIO MACALINAO, petitioners, vs. EDDIE MEDECIELO ONG and
GENOVEVO SEBASTIAN, respondents.
Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Appeals; The issue of negligence is factual * SECOND DIVISION.
and, in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of damages; As a rule factual 741
findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed to be conclusive in cases brought
before the Supreme Court on appeal; Exceptions.—The issue of negligence is
factual and, in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of damages. In the case at
bar, the crux of the controversy is the sufficiency of the evidence presented VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005
to support a finding of negligence against Ong. Given the contradictory 741
conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court on this issue, this Court
is impelled to ascertain for itself which court made the correct determination. Macalinao vs. Ong
While as a rule factual findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed conclusive do exist. It is well established that photographs, when duly verified and
in cases brought to us on appeal, we have also consistently pronounced that shown by extrinsic evidence to be faithful representations of the subject as
we may review its findings of fact in the following instances, among others: of the time in question, are, in the discretion of the trial court, admissible in
(i) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a evidence as aids in arriving at an understanding of the evidence, the situation
misapprehension of facts; (ii) when the factual findings are conflicting; (iii) or condition of objects or premises or the circumstances of an accident.
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately
different conclusion; and (iv) where the findings of fact of the Court of taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject,
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light
without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence,
petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be
of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are authenticated or verified first. In the case at bar, the photographer testified
contradicted by the evidence on record. in open court and properly identified the pictures as the ones he took at the
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Photographs; Physical evidence is a mute but scene of the accident.
an eloquent manifestation of truth which ranks high in the hierarchy of Same; Same; Same; Police Blotters; Although police blotters are of little
trustworthy evidence; According to American courts, photographs are probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and considered in the
admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein.—Another
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|2

piece of evidence which supports a finding of negligence against Ong is the all of them could have given their testimony to shed light on what actually
police report of the incident denoted as Entry No. 04-229 of the Sta. Maria transpired, yet not one of them was presented to substantiate the claim that
Police Station. The report states that the Isuzu truck was the one which hit Ong was not negligent. Since respondents failed to refute the contents of the
the left front portion of the private jeepney. This piece of evidence was police blotter, the statement therein that the Isuzu truck hit the private
disregarded by the Court of Appeals on the ground that entries in police jeepney and not the other way around is deemed established. The prima facie
blotters should not be given significance or probative value as they do not nature of the police report ensures that if it remains unexplained or
constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof. While true in most instances, uncontradicted, it will be sufficient to establish the facts posited therein.
it must still be remembered that although police blotters are of little
probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and considered in the Same; Same; Same; Res Ipsa Loquitor; Words and Phrases; Res Ipsa Loquitor
absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. Entries in is a Latin phrase which literally means “the thing or the transaction speaks for
police records made by a police officer in the performance of the duty itself”—it recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence
especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, without direct proof allowing the principle to substitute for specific proof of
and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other negligence; The doctrine can be invoked only when under the circumstances,
competent evidence. direct evidence is absent and not readily available.—While not constituting
direct proof of Ong’s negligence, the foregoing pieces of evidence justify the
Same; Same; Same; Same; The prima facie nature of police report ensures application of res ipsa loquitur, a Latin phrase which literally means “the thing
that if it remains unexplained or uncontradicted, it will be sufficient to or the transaction speaks for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur recognizes that parties
establish the facts posited therein.—In this case, the police blotter was may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the
identified and formally offered as evidence and the person who made the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff
entries thereon was likewise presented in court. On the other hand, aside to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending
from a blanket allegation that the driver of the other vehicle was the one at circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of
fault, respondents did not present any evidence to back up their charge and negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that
show that the conclusion of the police investigator was false. Given the there was no negligence on his part. The doctrine can be invoked only when
paucity of details in the report, the investigator’s observation could fs under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.
This is based in part upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the
742
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the
accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it while the plaintiff has
no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in
742 general terms and rely upon the proof of the happening of the accident in
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED order to establish negligence. The inference which the doctrine permits is
grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether
Macalinao vs. Ong culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but
inaccessible to the injured person.
have been easily refuted and overturned by respondents through the simple
expedient of supplying the missing facts and showing to the satisfaction of Same; Same; Same; Same; Requisites.—Under local jurisprudence, the
the court that the Isuzu truck was blameless in the incident. Ong was driving following are the requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur: (1)
the truck while the two other truck helpers also survived the accident. Any or
743
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|3

tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in

the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its
VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005 employees.—Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury
743 to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa
Macalinao vs. Ong in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid
The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must
someone’s negligence; (2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised
exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (3) The possibility of the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is supervision of his employee.
eliminated. 744
Same; Same; Same; Same; No two motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes
will collide as a matter of course unless someone is negligent.—No two motor
vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of course unless 744
someone is negligent, thus, the first requisite for the application of the SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
doctrine is present. Ong was driving the Isuzu truck which, from the evidence
adduced, appears to have precipitated the collision with the private jeepney. Macalinao vs. Ong
Driving the Isuzu truck gave Ong exclusive management and control over it, a
fact which shows that the second requisite is also present. No contributory Same; Same; Same; Due Diligence; Words and Phrases; Due diligence in
negligence could be attributed to Macalinao relative to the happening of the supervision requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance
accident since he was merely a passenger in the Isuzu truck. Respondents’ of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual
allegation that Macalinao was guilty of contributory negligence for failing to implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.—
take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety while onboard the truck Due diligence in supervision requires the formulation of rules and regulations
is too specious for belief particularly as respondents did not even present any for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well
evidence to prove such allegation. The last requisite is, therefore, likewise as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the
present. There exists a fourth requisite under American jurisprudence, that rules. Admonitions to drive carefully without the corresponding guidelines
is, that the defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the and monitoring of the employee do not satisfy the due diligence required by
injury was caused by his or her want of due care. In this case, while law either.
respondents claimed that Ong drove cautiously and prudently during the Same; Same; Same; Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes no distinction
time in question, no evidence was proffered to substantiate the same. In fact, whatsoever whether the claimant is an employee or a third person relative
Ong did not bother to testify to explain his actuations and to show that he to the employer.—Article 2180 makes no distinction whatsoever whether the
exercised due care when the accident happened, so even this requisite is claimant is an employee or a third person relative to the employer. Ubi lex
fulfilled. non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.Where the law does not
Same; Same; Same; Presumptions; Whenever an employee’s negligence distinguish, neither should we.
causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|4

Same; Same; Same; Damages; The relatives of the victim who incurred characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not proscribed from recovering moral situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
damages in meritorious cases; The award of moral damages is aimed at a intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other
restoration within the limits possible, of spiritual status quo ante, and persons may be affected. Ong’s gross negligence in driving the Isuzu truck
therefore, must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.—Additionally, precipitated the accident. This is lucidly portrayed in the photographs on
respondents postulated that since it was Macalinao who sustained physical record and it justifies the award of exemplary damages in petitioners’ favor.
injuries and died, he was the one who suffered pain, not petitioners so moral However, the trial court’s award of P10,000.00 is insufficient, thus the Court
damages are not recoverable in this case. The relatives of the victim who deems it proper to increase the award to P25,000.00 under the
incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not proscribed from recovering circumstances.
moral damages in meritorious cases. To hold otherwise would give rise to the
ridiculous scenario where a defendant may be compelled to pay moral PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
damages in a quasi-delict causing physical injuries but will be relieved from of Appeals.
doing so should those same injuries cause the victim’s death. In the case of
Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, we held that in quasi-delicts: . . . . the award
of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of
the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no Acsay, Pascual & Associates Law Office for respondents.
relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.
TINGA, J.:
Same; Same; Same; Same; Gross Negligence; Words and Phrases; Gross
negligence is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1
and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals dated 31 May 2000 and 7 September
745
2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 52963. The Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the complaint for damages filed
by Marcelo Macalinao (Macalinao) against Eddie Medecielo Ong (Ong) and
VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005 Genovevo Sebastian (Sebastian) for insufficiency of evidence. The antecedent
745 facts follow.

Macalinao vs. Ong _______________

inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to

consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.—Respondents claim 1 Penned by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now the Court
that exemplary damages is not warranted in this case. Under the law, Administrator of the Supreme Court), concurred in by Associate Justices
exemplary damages may be granted in quasi-delicts if the defendant acted Bernardo Ll. Salas and Edgardo P. Cruz; Rollo, pp. 104-113.
with gross negligence. Gross negligence has been defined as negligence
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|5

2 Id., at pp. 126-127. Before he died, Macalinao was able to file an action for damages against both
Ong and Sebastian before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
746 Branch 81.7 After his death, Macalinao was
_______________
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 3 RTC Records, pp. 333, 336.
Macalinao vs. Ong 4 Id., at p. 336.
Macalinao and Ong were employed as utility man and driver, respectively, at 5 Ibid.
the Genetron International Marketing (Genetron), a single proprietorship
owned and operated by Sebastian. On 25 April 1992, Sebastian instructed 6 Id., at pp. 336-337.
Macalinao, Ong and two truck helpers to deliver a heavy piece of
machinery—a reactor/motor for mixing chemicals, to Sebastian’s 7 Id., at pp. 7-10.
manufacturing plant in Angat, Bulacan. While in the process of complying 747
with the order, the vehicle driven by Ong, Genetron’s Isuzu Elf truck with
plate no. PMP-106 hit and bumped the front portion of a private jeepney with
plate no. DAF-922 along Caypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan at around 11:20 in VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005
the morning.3
747
Both vehicles incurred severe damages while the passengers sustained
physical injuries as a consequence of the collision.4 Macalinao incurred the Macalinao vs. Ong
most serious injuries among the passengers of the truck. He was initially
substituted by his parents in the action.8 A criminal case for reckless
brought to the Sta. Maria District Hospital for first aid treatment but in view
imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries9 had also been instituted
of the severity of his condition, he was transferred to the Philippine
earlier against Ong but for reasons which do not appear in the records of this
Orthopedic Center at the instance of Sebastian. He was again moved to the
case, trial thereon did not ensue.10
Capitol Medical Center by his parents, petitioners herein, for medical reasons
and later to the Philippine General Hospital for financial considerations.5 After trial in the civil action, the RTC held that based on the evidence, Ong
drove the Isuzu truck in a reckless and imprudent manner thereby causing
Macalinao’s body was paralyzed and immobilized from the neck down as a
the same to hit the private jeepney. It observed that while respondents
result of the accident and per doctor’s advice, his foot was amputated. He
claimed that Ong was driving cautiously and prudently at the time of the
also suffered from bed sores and infection. His immedicable condition,
mishap, no evidence was presented to substantiate the claim.11 It declared
coupled with the doctor’s recommendation, led his family to bring him home
Ong negligent and at the same time, it held that Sebastian failed to exercise
where he died on 7 November 1992.6
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
Ong. Consequently, the trial court pronounced the two of them jointly liable
to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as civil indemnity for
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|6

Macalinao’s death. The trial court subsequently increased the monetary SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
award12 upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration thereof.
Macalinao vs. Ong
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court. It held
fully scant to support a verdict of negligence against Ong. And since
that the evidence presented by petitioners was woe-
respondents’ liability hinged squarely on proof of Ong’s negligence, neither
_______________ of them could be held liable for damages to petitioners.13
Aggrieved at the ruling, petitioners elevated the case to this Court. They
herein contend that contrary to the conclusion reached by the Court of
8 Id., at p. 333. Appeals, the evidence conclusively establish fault or negligence on the part
9 Id., at p. 182. of Ong and justify the award of damages in their favor.

10 TSN, 14 April 1993, pp. 15-17. The petition is meritorious.

11 RTC Records, p. 338. The issue of negligence is factual and, in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of
damages.14 In the case at bar, the crux of the controversy is the sufficiency
12 Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering of the evidence presented to support a finding of negligence against Ong.
defendants Eddie Medecielo Ong and Genovevo Sebastian doing business Given the contradictory conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court
under the name and style Genetron International Marketing to jointly and on this issue, this Court is impelled to ascertain for itself which court made
severally pay the plaintiffs the following amounts: the correct determination.
1. The total amount of P109,354.33 for medical and hospitalization expenses; While as a rule factual findings of the Court of Appeals are deemed conclusive
2. The amount of P11,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses; in cases brought to us on appeal, we have also consistently pronounced that
we may review its findings of fact in the following instances, among others:
3. The amount of P91,200.00 for loss of earning capacity;
“(i) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a
4. The amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death; misapprehension of facts; (ii) when the factual findings are conflicting; (iii)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
5. The amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages; and
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a
6. The sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. different conclusion; and (iv) where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions
No pronouncement as to costs. without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the
SO ORDERED. petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact

748 _______________

748 13 Rollo, pp. 110-112.

 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|7

14 Pleyto and Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, 16 June Contrary to the above conclusion of the appellate court, the evidence on
2004, 432 SCRA 329. record coupled with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur sufficiently establishes
Ong’s negligence.
749
We focus first on the evidence presented before the trial court.
The photographs of the accident which the appellate court cavalierly brushed
VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005 aside as insignificant deserve substantial cogitation. In Jose v. Court of
749 Appeals,17 we upheld the trial court’s reliance on

Macalinao vs. Ong _______________

of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradicted by the evidence on record.”15 15 Tugade v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 258; 407 SCRA 497 (2003) citing Twin
Said exceptions obtain in this case thus, a departure from the application of Towers Condominium Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552, 27
the general rule is warranted. February 2003, 398 SCRA 203.

In reversing the trial court and absolving respondents from liability, the 16 Rollo, pp. 110-111.
appellate court made the following pronouncement: 17 379 Phil. 30; 322 SCRA 25 (2000).
“The evidence presented is woefully scant. The pictures of the collision afford 750
no basis for concluding that it was the fault of the defendant driver, or that
he was driving recklessly. The police report contains no findings as to the road
conditions, estimates of the relative speed of the vehicles, or their exact
750
position at the time of the accident. And even so, entries in the police blotter
should not be given significance or probative value as they do not constitute SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
conclusive proof of the truth thereof. Nor were eyewitnesses presented, not
even affidavits or statements to give any indication as to what actually Macalinao vs. Ong
happened. The police investigator’s findings are sketchy at best, with only the photographs of the accident as opposed to a party’s obviously biased
phrase “Isuzu lost control” as his opinion, with no explanation how he testimony. In so doing, we stated:
reached it. Civil cases require evidence of a lesser degree than criminal cases,
but one sentence by one who did not even witness an event, is not conclusive “In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose
proof. his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally
upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In People v. Vasquez,18
... where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial
There was only the fact of the collision before the trial court. The attendant evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical evidence
circumstances were not established, and no fault could be determined using should prevail.”19
the evidence, both testimonial and documentary presented.”16
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|8

Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth which VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005
ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.20
751
In this case, while there is a dearth of testimonial evidence to enlighten us
Macalinao vs. Ong
about what actually happened, photographs21 depicting the relative
positions of the vehicles immediately after the accident took place do exist. been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear
It is well established that photographs, when duly verified and shown by representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of
extrinsic evidence to be faithful representations of the subject as of the time such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point.23 Before a photograph
in question, are, in the discretion of the trial court, admissible in evidence as may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be
aids in arriving at an understanding of the evidence, the situation or condition proved, and it must be authenticated or verified24 first. In the case at bar,
of objects or premises or the circumstances of an accident.22 the photographer testified in open court and properly identified the pictures
According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in as the ones he took at the scene of the accident.25
motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have An examination of said photographs clearly shows that the road where the
_______________ mishap occurred is marked by a line at the center separating the right from
the left lane. Based on the motorist’s right of way rule, the Isuzu truck which
was headed towards Norzagaray, Bulacan26 should have been occupying the
left lane while the private jeepney which was traversing the road to the town
18 280 SCRA 160 (1997). proper of Sta. Maria, Bulacan27 should have been in the right lane. Exhibits
19 Supra note 17. “L” and “L-4” among the photographs, however, reveal that in the aftermath
of the collision, the Isuzu truck usurped the opposite lane to such an extent
20 See Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135619, 15 January 2004, 419 that only its right rear wheel remained in the left lane, a few inches from the
SCRA 514; People v. Bonifacio, 426 Phil. 511; 376 SCRA 134 (2002); People v. demarcation line. Its two front wheels and left rear wheel were planted
Marquina, 426 Phil. 46; 375 SCRA 378 (2002); Tangan v. Court of Appeals, 424 squarely on the private jeepney’s lane and the Isuzu truck had rotated such
Phil. 139; 373 SCRA 119 (2002); People v. Whisenhunt, 420 Phil. 677; 368 that its front no longer pointed towards Norzagaray but partially faced the
SCRA 586 (2001); People v. Ubaldo, 419 Phil. 718; 367 SCRA 432 (2001); town proper of Sta. Maria instead.
People v. Palijon, 397 Phil. 545; 343 SCRA 486 (2000); People v. Candare, 388
Phil. 1010; 333 SCRA 338 (2000); People v. Roche, 386 Phil. 287; 330 SCRA 91 While ending up at the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in
(2000); People v. Arafiles, 282 Phil. 59; 325 SCRA 181 (2000); Jose v. Court of automobile collisions, the position of the two vehicles gives rise to the
Appeals, supra note 17. conclusion that it was the Isuzu truck which hit the private jeepney rather
than the other way around. The smashed front of the Isuzu truck is pressed
21 Exhibits “L” to “L-4,” RTC Records, pp. 205-209. against the private jeepney’s left front portion near the driver’s side. The
22 VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES, private jeepney is posi-
Vol. VII citing Aldanese v. Salutillo, 47 Phil. 548. _______________
751
 TORTS - 42. Macalinao v. Ong|9

23 Andersen v. Bee Line, Inc., 1 N.Y. 2d 169, 151 N.Y. S. 2d 633, 134 N.E. 2d Maria Police Station. The report states that the Isuzu truck was the one which
457 (1956); Hawes v. Atlantic Refining Co., 236 N.C. 643, 74 S.F. 2d 17 (1953), hit the left front portion of the private jeepney.31 This piece of evidence was
cited in 8 AM JUR 2d §1287. disregarded by the Court of Appeals on the ground that entries in police
blotters should not be given significance or probative value as they do not
24 8 AM JUR 2d §1287. constitute conclusive proof of the truth thereof.
25 TSN, 16 July 1993, p. 4. While true in most instances, it must still be remembered that although police
26 TSN, 19 May 1993, p. 3. blotters are of little probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and
considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated
27 Id., at p. 2. therein.32 Entries in police records made by a police officer in the
752 performance of the duty espe-
_______________

752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 28 Supra note 26.

Macalinao vs. Ong 29 RTC Records, p. 181.

tioned diagonally in the right lane; its front at the rightmost corner of the 30 Supra note 26 at p. 4.
road while its rear remained a few feet from the demarcation line. Based on 31 Supra notes 26 and 28.
the angle at which it stopped, the private jeepney obviously swerved to the
right in an unsuccessful effort to avoid the Isuzu truck. This would support the 32 Lao v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 140023, 14 August 2003, 409
statement of the police investigator that the Isuzu truck lost control28 and SCRA 43.
hit the left front portion of the private jeepney.29 It would also explain why 753
the driver of the private jeepney died immediately after being brought to the
hospital,30 since in such a scenario, the brunt of the collision logically bore
down on him.
VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005
Moreover, the unequal size and weight of the two vehicles would make it
improbable for the relatively lighter private jeepney to have stricken the 753
heavier truck with such force as to push the latter to the former’s side of the Macalinao vs. Ong
road. Had that been the case, the two vehicles would have ended up crushed
together at the center of the road or at the Isuzu truck’s lane instead of rolling cially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated,33
to a stop at the private jeepney’s lane. and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other
competent evidence.34
Another piece of evidence which supports a finding of negligence against Ong
is the police report of the incident denoted as Entry No. 04-229 of the Sta. In this case, the police blotter was identified and formally offered as evidence
and the person who made the entries thereon was likewise presented in
 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 10

court. On the other hand, aside from a blanket allegation that the driver of SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the other vehicle was the one at fault, respondents did not present any
evidence to back up their charge and show that the conclusion of the police Macalinao vs. Ong
investigator was false. Given the paucity of details in the report, the Res ipsa loquitur recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence
investigator’s observation could have been easily refuted and overturned by without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific
respondents through the simple expedient of supplying the missing facts and proof of negligence.37 It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of
showing to the satisfaction of the court that the Isuzu truck was blameless in the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine,
the incident. Ong was driving the truck while the two other truck helpers also create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place on the
survived the accident. Any or all of them could have given their testimony to defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his part.38
shed light on what actually transpired, yet not one of them was presented to
substantiate the claim that Ong was not negligent. The doctrine can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct
evidence is absent and not readily available.39 This is based in part upon the
Since respondents failed to refute the contents of the police blotter, the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the
statement therein that the Isuzu truck hit the private jeepney and not the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
other way around is deemed established. The prima facie nature of the police ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore
report ensures that if it remains unexplained or uncontradicted, it will be compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the proof of
sufficient to establish the facts posited therein.35 the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence.40 The
While not constituting direct proof of Ong’s negligence, the foregoing pieces inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief
of evidence justify the application of res ipsa loquitur, a Latin phrase which evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically
literally means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.”36 accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.41

_______________ In this case, Macalinao could no longer testify as to the cause of the accident
since he is dead. Petitioners, while substituting their son as plaintiff, have no
actual knowledge about the event since they were not present at the crucial
moment. The driver of the private jeepney who could have shed light on the
33 Ibid. Sec. 44, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.
circumstances is likewise dead. The only ones left with knowledge about the
34 Lao v. Standard Insurance Co. Inc., supra note 32 citing U.S. v. Que Ping, cause of the mishap are the two truck helpers who survived, both employees
40 Phil. 17, 19 (1919). of Sebastian, and Ong, who is not only Sebastian’s previous employee but his
co-respondent in this case as well. In the circum-
35 Cometa v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 1187; 301 SCRA 459 (1999) citing
People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703, 720 (1998). _______________

36 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 1198; 302 SCRA 589 (1999).
754 37 Ludo and Luym Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125483 1
February 2001, 351 SCRA 35.
38 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, supra note 36.
754
 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 11

39 Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-73998, 14 November the private jeepney. Driving the Isuzu truck gave Ong exclusive management
1988, 167 SCRA 376. and control over it, a fact which shows that the second requisite is also
present. No contributory negligence could be attributed to Macalinao relative
40 D.M. Consunji v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137873, 20 April 2001, 357 to the happening of the accident since he was merely a passenger in the Isuzu
SCRA 249. truck. Respondents’ allegation that Macalinao was guilty of contributory
41 Ibid. negligence for failing to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety
while onboard the truck43 is too specious for belief particularly as
755 respondents did not even present any evidence to prove such allegation. The
last requisite is, therefore, likewise present.

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005 _______________

755
Macalinao vs. Ong 42 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, supra note 36.

stances, evidence as to the true cause of the accident is, for all intents and 43 Rollo, p. 193.
purposes, accessible to respondents but not to petitioners. The witnesses left 756
are unlikely to divulge to petitioners what they knew about the cause of the
accident if the same militates against the interest of their employer. This
justifies the invocation of the doctrine. 756
Under local jurisprudence, the following are the requisites for the application SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of res ipsa loquitur:
Macalinao vs. Ong
(1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence; There exists a fourth requisite under American jurisprudence, that is, that the
defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the injury was
(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the caused by his or her want of due care.44 In this case, while respondents
defendant or defendants; and claimed that Ong drove cautiously and prudently during the time in question,
(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff no evidence was proffered to substantiate the same. In fact, Ong did not
responsible is eliminated.42 bother to testify to explain his actuations and to show that he exercised due
care when the accident happened, so even this requisite is fulfilled.
We are convinced that all the above requisites are present in the case at bar.
All the requisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur are
No two motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of present, thus a reasonable presumption or inference of Ong’s negligence
course unless someone is negligent, thus, the first requisite for the arises. In consonance with the effect of the doctrine, the burden of proving
application of the doctrine is present. Ong was driving the Isuzu truck which, due care at the time in question shifts to respondents. Unfortunately, as
from the evidence adduced, appears to have precipitated the collision with previously discussed, aside from blanket allegations that Ong exercised
 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 12

prudence and due care while driving on the day of the accident, respondents Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another,
proffered no other proof. As a consequence, the prima facie finding of there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to
negligence against Ong, remaining unexplained and/or uncontradicted, is exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or
deemed established. This in turn warrants a finding that Ong is liable for supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.45 To avoid liability for a
damages to petitioners. quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the
presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and
Such liability of Ong is solidary with Sebastian pursuant to Art. 2176 in relation diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his
to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code which provide: employee.46
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being In an attempt to exculpate himself from liability, Sebastian claimed that he
fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done . . . . exercised due care in selecting Ong as a driver. Before he hired Ong, he
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for allegedly required him to produce police and NBI clearances and he took into
one’s own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is account the recommendations of Ong’s previous employer and friends.47
responsible. Sebastian also stressed that he instructed Ong to drive slowly and carefully
and to take necessary precautions.48 He likewise admonished Ong to be
... careful after the latter had some minor accidents in the parking area.49
Employers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees and However, Sebastian’s statements are not sufficient to prove that he exercised
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of Ong. His testimony
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. is self-serving and devoid of corroboration as he did not bother to support
... the same with document evidence. Moreover, Sebastian could not even
remember whether the recommendation from Ong’s previous employer was
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons made verbally or in writing.50
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage. _______________

_______________
45 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. C & A Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156034, 1
October 2003, 412 SCRA 524.
44 Supra note 23 at p. 8.
46 Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, 445 Phil. 31; 397 SCRA 75 (2003);
757 Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 129; 386 SCRA 126
(2002) citing Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, G.R. No. 79050-51, 14
November 1989, 179 SCRA 384; Umali v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570, 30 January
VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005 1976, 69 SCRA 263.

757 47 TSN, 31 January 1995, pp. 5-6, 10-14.

Macalinao vs. Ong 48 Id., at p. 6.

 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 13

49 Id., at p. 14. employer. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Where the law
does not distinguish, neither should we.54
50 Id., at p. 10.
Moreover, petitioner’s claim against Sebastian is not based upon the fact of
758
Macalinao’s previous employment with him but on the solidary liability of the
latter for the negligent act of one of his

758 _______________

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Macalinao vs. Ong 51 Fabre v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 774; 259 SCRA 426 (1996).

On the other hand, due diligence in supervision requires the formulation of 52 Rollo, pp. 193, 200-202.
rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of 53 Id., at pp. 201-202.
proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of
consistent compliance with the rules.51 Admonitions to drive carefully 54 Recana v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123850, 5 January 2001, 349 SCRA
without the corresponding guidelines and monitoring of the employee do not 24.
satisfy the due diligence required by law either.
759
In short, Sebastian’s claims fall short of what is required by law to overcome
the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of his
employee. The trial court therefore correctly held him solidarily liable with VOL. 477, DECEMBER 14, 2005
Ong to petitioners.
759
In an obvious ploy to relieve himself from liability should the appellate court’s
decision be reversed, Sebastian averred that Macalinao is not entitled to Macalinao vs. Ong
damages. He anchored his claim on the novel argument that the provisions employees. Such is not precluded by prior claims with the government
of Art. 2180 apply only when the injured party is a third person but it has no agencies enumerated. One is based on compulsory coverage of government
application to an employee like Macalinao.52 He likewise postulated that benefits while the other is based on a cause of action provided by law.
recovery from the Social Security System, State Insurance Fund, Employee’s
Compensation Commission, and the Philippine Medical Care Act, the Additionally, respondents postulated that since it was Macalinao who
government agencies with which petitioners filed a claim in view of sustained physical injuries and died, he was the one who suffered pain, not
Macalinao’s injury and subsequent death, preclude pursuing alternate petitioners so moral damages are not recoverable in this case.55
recourse or recovering from other sources until the former claims have been
The relatives of the victim who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are
rejected.53
not proscribed from recovering moral damages in meritorious cases. To hold
Sebastian is grasping at straws. Art. 2180 makes no distinction whatsoever otherwise would give rise to the ridiculous scenario where a defendant may
whether the claimant is an employee or a third person relative to the be compelled to pay moral damages in a quasi-delict causing physical injuries
 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 14

but will be relieved from doing so should those same injuries cause the granted in quasi-delicts if the defendant acted with gross negligence.59 Gross
victim’s death. negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act,
In the case of Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon,56 we held that in quasi- not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference
delicts: to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.60
“. . . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits Ong’s gross negligence in driving the Isuzu truck precipitated the accident.
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be This is lucidly portrayed in the photographs on record and it justifies the
proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced award of exemplary damages in petitioners’ favor. However, the trial court’s
by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for award of P10,000.00 is insufficient, thus the Court deems it proper to increase
him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the the award to P25,000.00 under the circumstances.
offender.”57 (Emphasis Supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 but since dated 31 May 2000, as well as its Resolution dated 7 September 2000, are
prevailing jurisprudence has fixed the same at P50,000.00,58 there is a need hereby SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
to increase the award to reflect the recent rulings. Branch 81 dated 12 April 1996 as amended by the Order dated 23 May 1996
Lastly, respondents claim that exemplary damages is not warranted in this is hereby REINSTATED with the modifications that the award for moral
case. Under the law, exemplary damages may be damages is increased to P50,000.00 to conform with prevailing jurisprudence
and the award for exemplary damages is increased to P25,000.00. Costs
_______________ against respondents.
SO ORDERED.
55 Rollo, pp. 202-203. Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
56 G.R. No. 160709, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 285. concur.

57 Ibid., citing CESAR SANGCO, TORTS AND DAMAGES, 1994 ed., p. 986. Petition granted, petition and resolution set aside.

58 Id., citing Pestaño v. Sps. Sumayang, G.R. No. 139875, 4 December 2000, Note.—Children below nine (9) years old are conclusively presumed
346 SCRA 870, 879. incapable of contributory negligence. (Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court
of Appeals, 321 SCRA 375 [1999])
760
——o0o——

760
_______________
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Macalinao vs. Ong
59 Art. 2231, Civil Code.
 T O R T S - 4 2 . M a c a l i n a o v . O n g | 15

60 Fernando v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96183, 19 August 1992, 212 SCRA

680 citing BALLANTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY 3rd ed. p. 537.
761

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Macalinao vs.
Ong, 477 SCRA 740, G.R. No. 146635 December 14, 2005