Taylor and Ramos

7/25/2019 Taylor and Ramos

1/5

G.R. No. L-4977 March 22, 1910

DAVID TAYLOR,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT

COMPANY,defendant-appellant.

W. H. Lawrence, for appellant.

W. L. Wright, for appellee.

Facts:

Plaintiff David Taylor was 15 years old at the time he received theinjuries that ave rise to this complaint. !n "eptem#er $%, 1&%5,plaintiff and 'anuel (laparols, a#out 1) years of ae, went to thepower plant owned #y the defendant to visit one 'urphy, anemployee. *ot #ein a#le to find 'urphy on in+uiry, the #oys forcuriosity wandered around the premises and reached the placewhere the company dumped in the cinders and ashes from itsfurnaces. There they found some )%-$% fulminatin capsscattered on the round. The caps are intended for eplosion ofdynamites, and have in themselves eplosive power. The #oyspiced up the caps and carried them home. lon the way theymet /essie drian, a &-year old irl. The $ went to 'anuel0shouse and performed a little eperiment. They opened the capsand found yellowish su#stance. They lihted a match and appliedit on the contents. The irl #ecame frihtened and ran away. Thesu#stance eploded, causin a sliht cut on /essie0s nec, #urnson 'anuel, and loss of David0s eyesiht. Plaintiff sued thecompany for damaes.

ssue: 234T34 T34 (!'P*6 " 7874 F!T34 */96

3eld:

Fulminatin caps or detonators for the dischare #y electricity of#lastin chares #y dynamite are not articles in common use #ythe averae citien, and under all the circumstances, and in thea#sence of all evidence to the contrary, we thin that thediscovery of twenty or thirty of these caps at the place where theywere found #y the plaintiff on defendant;s premises fairly justifiesthe inference that the defendant company was either the ownerof the caps in +uestion or had the caps under its possession andcontrol. 2e thin also that the evidence tends to disclose thatthese caps or detonators were willfully and nowinly thrown #y

the company or its employees at the spot where they were found,with the epectation that they would #e #uried out of the siht #ythe ashes which it was enaed in dumpin in thatneih#orhood, they #ein old and perhaps defective< and,however this may #e, we are satisfied that the evidence issufficient to sustain a findin that the company or some of itsemployees either willfully or throuh an oversiht left themeposed at a point on its premises which the eneral pu#lic,includin children at play, where not prohi#ited from visitin, andover which the company new or ouht to have nown thatyoun #oys were liely to roam a#out in pastime or in play.

t is clear that the accident could not have happened and not thefulminatin caps #een left eposed at the point where they werefound, or if their owner had eercised due care in eepin them

in an appropriate place< #ut it is e+ually clear that plaintiff would

not have #een injured had he not, for his own pleasure aconvenience, entered upon the defendant;s premises, astrolled around thereon without the epress permission of tdefendant, and had he not piced up and carried away tproperty of the defendant which he found on its premises, ahad he not thereafter deli#erately cut open one of the caps aapplied a match to its contents.

(hildren are actuated #y similar childish instincts and impulsDrawn #y curiosity and impelled #y the restless spirit of you#oys here as well as there will usually #e found whenever tpu#lic is permitted to conreate. The movement of machineand indeed anythin which arouses the attention of the youand in+uirin mind, will draw them to the neih#orhood inevita#ly as does the manet draw the iron which comes withthe rane of its manetic influence. Th o!"r# o$ %r&'#(hr$or, !hro" (h'")# a((rac('* (o ch'+r" ar %o#or %o" !h'ch (h %/+'c ar %r##+ or '&%+'%r&'(( (o "(r or %o" !h'ch (h o!"r "o!# or o)(o "o! ch'+r" ar +'+ (o roa& a/o( $or %a#('& a"%+a, ( ca+c+a( %o" (h'#, a" (a %rca('oaccor'")+. I" #ch ca## (h o!"r o$ (h %r&'## c

"o( / har (o #a (ha( /ca# (h ch'+ ha# "(r %h'# %r&'## !'(ho( h'# %r## %r&'##'o" h '#(r#%a##r (o !ho& (h o!"r o!# "o ( or o/+')a('!ha(*r. The owner;s failure to tae reasona#le precautionsprevent the child from enterin his premises at a place where nows or ouht to now that children are accustomed to roaa#out of to which their childish instincts and impulses are lielyattract them is at least e+uivalent to an implied license to entand where the child does enter under such conditions towner;s failure to tae reasona#le precautions to uard the chaainst injury from unnown or unseen daners, placed upsuch premises #y the owner, is clearly a #reach of duresponsi#le, if the child is actually injured, without other fault its part than that it had entered on the premises of a stranwithout his epress invitation or permission. To hold otherw

would #e epose all the children in the community to unnoperils and unnecessary daner at the whim of the owners occupants of land upon which they miht naturally areasona#ly #e epected to enter. =DOCTRINE O3 IMPLIINVITATION

8ut while we hold that the entry of the plaintiff upon defendanproperty without defendant;s epress invitation or permisswould not have relieved defendant from responsi#ility for injurincurred there #y plaintiff, without other fault on his part, if suinjury were attri#uta#le to the nelience of the defendant, ware of opinion that under all the circumstances of this case tnelience of the defendant in leavin the caps eposed on premises was not the proimate cause of the injury received the plaintiff, which therefore was not, properly speai>attri#uta#le to the nelience of the defendant,> and, on tother hand, we are satisfied that plaintiffs action in cuttin opthe detonatin cap and puttin match to its contents was tproimate cause of the eplosion and of the resultant injurinflicted upon the plaintiff, and that the defendant, therefore is ncivilly responsi#le for the injuries thus incurred.

s was said in case of ailroad (o. vs. "tout, >2hile it is teneral rule in reard to an adult that to entitle him to recovdamaes for an injury resultin from the fault or nelienceanother he must himself have #een free from fault, such is n


2/5

the rule in reard to an infant of tender years. The care andcaution re+uired of a child is accordin to his maturity andcapacity only, and this is to #e determined in each case #y thecircumstances of the case.> n the case at #ar, %+a'"('$$ a( (h('& o$ (h acc'"( !a# a !++-)ro!" o(h o$ 15, &or&a(r /o(h &"(a++ a" %h#'ca++ (ha" (h a*ra) /o o$h'# a). Th *'"c o$ rcor +a*# "o roo& $or o/(

(ha(, #%'( h'# "'a+# o" (h !'("## #(a", h !++ "!(h %+o#'* charac(r o$ (h ca% !'(h !h'ch h !a#a'") h'+$. Th #r'# o$ %r'&"(# &a / h'& '"h'# a((&%( (o %roc a" %+o#'o" a&'( o$ "o o(hr%+a"a('o". H'# a((&%( (o '#char) (h ca% / (h # o$+c(r'c'(, $o++o! / h'# $$or(# (o %+o '( !'(h a #(o"or a ha&&r, a" (h $'"a+ #cc## o$ h'# "a*or# /ro)h(a/o( / (h a%%+'ca('o" o$ a &a(ch (o (h co"("(# o$ (hca%#, #ho! c+ar+ (ha( h "! !ha( h !a# a/o(.

2e are satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had sufficientcapacity and understandin to #e sensi#le of the daner to whichhe eposed himself when he put the match to the contents of the

cap< that he was sui juris in the sense that his ae and hiseperience +ualified him to understand and appreciate thenecessity for the eercise of that deree of caution which wouldhave avoided the injury which resulted from his own deli#erateact< and that the injury incurred #y him must #e held to have#een the direct and immediate result of his own willful andrecless act, so that while it may #e true that these injuries wouldnot have #een incurred #ut for the nelience act of thedefendant in leavin the caps eposed on its premises,nevertheless plaintiff;s own act was the proimate and principalcause of the accident which inflicted the injury.

G.R. No. 124654 Dc&/r 29, 1999

ROGELIO E. RAMO a" ERLINDA RAMO, '" (h'r o!"

/ha+$ a" a# "a(ra+ )ar'a"# o$ (h &'"or#, ROMMEL

RAMO, ROY RODERIC8 RAMO a" RON RAYMOND

RAMO, petitioners,

vs.

CORT O3 APPEAL, DELO ANTO MEDICAL CENTER,

DR. ORLINO HOA8A a" DRA. PER3ECTA

GTIERRE:, respondents.

Facts:

4rlinda amos, a ?@-year old ro#ust woman, was normal ecept

for her eperiencin occasional pain due to the presence of stonein her all #ladder. "he was advised to undero an operation for

its removal. The results in the eaminations she underwent

indicate that she was fit for the operation. "he and her hus#and

oelio met Dr. 3osaa, one of the defendants, who advised that

she should undero cholecystectomy. Dr. 3osaa assured them

that he will et a ood anaesthesioloist. t @:$% a.m. on the day

of the operation at Delos "antos 'edical (enter, 3erminda (ru,

4rlinda0s sister-in-law and the dean of the (ollee of *ursin in

(apitol 'edical (enter, was there to provide moral support. Dr.

Perfecta Autierre was to administer the anaesthesia. Dr.

3osaa arrived only at 1):15 p. m. 3erminda saw Dr. Autierre

intu#atin the patient, and heard the latter say Bn hirap ma-

intu#ate nito, mali yata an paaapaso. !, lumalai a

tiyan.C 3erminda saw #luish discoloration of the nail#eds of t

patient. "he heard Dr. 3osaa issue an order for someone to c

Dr. (alderon. The doctor arrived and placed the patient

trendelen#ur position, wherein the head of the patient

positioned lower than the feet, which indicates a decrease

#lood supply in the #rain. 3erminda new and told oelio thsomethin wron was happenin. Dr. (alderon was a#le

intu#ate the patient. 4rlinda was taen to the (9 and #ecam

comatose.

oelio filed a civil case for damaes. The trial court ruled in h

favor, findin Dr. Autierre, Dr. 3osaa, and the hospital, uilty

nelience, #ut the (ourt of ppeals reversed the decisio

3ence, petitioner filed a 'otion for econsideration, which t

(ourt of ppeals denied for havin #een filed #eyond t

relementary period. 3owever, it was found that the notice of t

decision was never sent to the petitioner0s counsel. ather, it w

sent to the petitioner, addressin him as tty. oelio amos,

if he was the leal counsel. The petitioner filed the instant petitfor certiorari. !n the procedural issue, the "upreme (ourt ru

that since the notice did not reach the petitioner0s then le

counsel, the motion was filed on time.

ssue: 234T34 "9A4!*,

*4"T34"!7!A"T, *D 3!"PT

"3!97D 84 'D4 7874

3eld:

R# I%#a Lo;'(or

es ipsa lo+uitur is a 7atin phrase which literally means >t

thin or the transaction speas for itself.> The phrase >res iplo+uitur;; is a maim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence

an injury, taen with the surroundin circumstances, may per

an inference or raise a presumption of nelience, or mae ou

plaintiff;s prima facie case, and present a +uestion of fact

defendant to meet with an eplanation. 2here the thin wh

caused the injury complained of is shown to #e under t

manaement of the defendant or his servants and the acciden

such as in ordinary course of thins does not happen if tho

who have its manaement or control use proper care, it affor

reasona#le evidence, in the a#sence of eplanation #y

defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused #y t

defendant;s want of care. t is rounded in the superior loic

ordinary human eperience and on the #asis of such eperien

or common nowlede, nelience may #e deduced from t

mere occurrence of the accident itself. 3owever, much has #e

said that res ipsa lo+uitur is not a rule of su#stantive law and,

such, does not create or constitute an independent or separ

round of lia#ility. 'ere invocation and application of the doctr

does not dispense with the re+uirement of proof of nelience

is simply a step in the process of such proof, permittin t

plaintiff to present alon with the proof of the accident, enouh

the attendin circumstances to invoe the doctrine, creatin

inference or presumption of nelience, and to there#y place

the defendant the #urden of oin forward with the proof. "t


3/5

#efore resort to the doctrine may #e allowed, the followin

re+uisites must #e satisfactorily shown.

=1 The accident is of a ind which ordinarily does not occur in

the a#sence of someone;s nelienceca%(a'" o$ (h #h'%,> it is the sureon;s

responsi#ility to see to it that those under him perform their tas

in the proper manner. espondent Dr. 3osaa;s nelience can

#e found in his failure to eercise the proper authority in not

determinin if his anesthesioloist o#served proper anesthesia

protocols. n fact, no evidence on record eists to show that

respondent Dr. 3osaa verified if respondent Dra. Autierre

properly intu#ated the patient. Furthermore, it does not escape

us that respondent Dr. 3osaa had scheduled another procedure

in a different hospital at the same time as 4rlinda;s

cholecystectomy, and was in fact over three hours late for the

latter;s operation. 8ecause of this, he had little or no time to

confer with his anesthesioloist reardin the anesthesiadelivery. This indicates that he was remiss in his professional

duties towards his patient. Thus, he shares e+ual responsi#ility

for the events which resulted in 4rlinda;s condition.

R#%o"#'/'+'( o$ (h Ho#%'(a+

3ospitals hire, fire and eercise real control over their attendin

and visitin >consultant> staff. 2hile >consultants> are not,

technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts

in denyin all responsi#ility for the patient;s condition, the control

eercised, the hirin, and the riht to terminate consultants all

fulfill the important hallmars of an employer-employ

relationship, with the eception of the payment of waes.

assessin whether such a relationship in fact eists, the cont

test is determinin. ccordinly, on the #asis of the foreoin,

rule that for the purpose of allocatin responsi#ility in medic

nelience cases, an employer-employee relationship in effe

eists #etween hospitals and their attendin and visitphysicians.

The #asis for holdin an employer solidarily responsi#le for t

nelience of its employee is found in rticle )1E% of the (i

(ode which considers a person accounta#le not only for his ow

acts #ut also for those of others #ased on the forme

responsi#ility under a relationship of patria potestas. "u

responsi#ility ceases when the persons or entity concerned pro

that they have o#served the dilience of a ood father of t

family to prevent damae. n the instant case, respond

hospital, apart from a eneral denial of its responsi#ility ov

respondent physicians, failed to adduce evidence showin tha

eercised the dilience of a ood father of a family in the hiriand supervision of the latter. t failed to adduce evidence w

reard to the deree of supervision which it eercised over

physicians. n nelectin to offer such proof, or proof of a simi

nature, respondent hospital there#y failed to dischare its #urd

under the last pararaph of rticle )1E%. 3avin failed to do th

respondent hospital is conse+uently solidarily responsi#le with

physicians for 4rlinda;s condition.

Damaes

t current levels, the PE%%%monthly amount esta#lished #y t

trial court at the time of its decision would #e rossly inade+ua

to cover the actual costs of home-#ased care for a comato

individual. The calculated amount was not even arrived at

looin at the actual cost of proper hospice care for the patie

2hat it reflected were the actual epenses incurred and prov

#y the petitioners after they were forced to #rin home the patie

to avoid mountin hospital #ills. nd yet ideally, a comato

patient should remain in a hospital or #e transferred to a hospi

specialiin in the care of the chronically ill for the purpose

providin a proper milieu ade+uate to meet minimum standar

of care. Aiven these considerations, the amount of act

damaes recovera#le in suits arisin from nelience should

least reflect the correct minimum cost of proper care, not the co

of the care the family is usually compelled to undertae at hom

to avoid #anruptcy.

!ur rules on actual or compensatory damaes enerally assum

that at the time of litiation, the injury suffered as a conse+uen

of an act of nelience has #een completed and that the cost c

#e li+uidated. 3owever, these provisions nelect to tae in

account those situations, as in this case, where the resulti

injury miht #e continuin and possi#le future complicatio

directly arisin from the injury, while certain to occur, are diffic

to predict. Temperate damaes can and should #e awarded

top of actual or compensatory damaes in instances where t

injury is chronic and continuin. nd #ecause of the uni+


5/5

nature of such cases, no incompati#ility arises when #oth actual

and temperate damaes are provided for. The reason is that

these damaes cover two distinct phases. s it would not #e

e+uita#le - and certainly not in the #est interests of the

administration of justice - for the victim in such cases to

constantly come #efore the courts and invoe their aid in seein

adjustments to the compensatory damaes previously awarded -temperate damaes are appropriate. The amount iven as

temperate damaes, thouh to a certain etent speculative,

should tae into account the cost of proper care. n the instant

case, petitioners were a#le to provide only home-#ased nursin

care for a comatose patient who has remained in that condition

for over a decade. 3avin premised our award for compensatory

damaes on the amount provided #y petitioners at the onset of

litiation, it would #e now much more in step with the interests of

justice if the value awarded for temperate damaes would allow

petitioners to provide optimal care for their loved one in a facility

which enerally specialies in such care. They should not #e

compelled #y dire circumstances to provide su#standard care at

home without the aid of professionals, for anythin less would #erossly inade+uate. 9nder the circumstances, an award of

P1,5%%,%%%.%% in temperate damaes would therefore #e

reasona#le.

Petitioner 4rlinda amos was in her mid-forties when the incident

occurred. "he has #een in a comatose state for over fourteen

years now. The #urden of care has so far #een heroically

shouldered #y her hus#and and children, who, in the intervenin

years have #een deprived of the love of a wife and a mother.

'eanwhile, the actual physical, emotional and financial cost of

the care of petitioner would #e virtually impossi#le to +uantify.

4ven the temperate damaes herein awarded would #e

inade+uate if petitioner;s condition remains unchaned for the

net ten years. The hus#and and the children, all petitioners

this case, will have to live with the day to day uncertainty of t

patient;s illness, nowin any hope of recovery is close to

They have fashioned their daily lives around the nursin care

petitioner, alterin their lon term oals to tae into account th

life with a comatose patient. They, not the respondents, a

chared with the moral responsi#ility of the care of the victThe family;s moral injury and sufferin in this case is clearly

real one. For the foreoin reasons, an award of P),%%%,%%%

in moral damaes would #e appropriate.

Finally, #y way of eample, eemplary damaes in the amount

P1%%,%%%.%% are here#y awarded. (onsiderin the lenth a

nature of the instant suit we are of the opinion that attorney;s fe

valued at P1%%,%%%.%% are liewise proper.

2344F!4, the decision and resolution of the appellate co

appealed from are here#y modified so as to award in favor

petitioners, and solidarily aainst private respondents t

followin: 1 P1,$5),%%%.%% as actual damaes computed as

the date of promulation of this decision plus a monthly payme

of PE,%%%.%% up to the time that petitioner 4rlinda amos epir

or miraculously survives< ) P),%%%,%%%.%% as moral damaes,

P1,5%%,%%%.%% as temperate damaes< ? P1%%,%%%.%% each

eemplary damaes and attorney;s fees< and, 5 the costs of t

suit.

Documents

Taylor and Ramos