Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and the CA| Makalintal G.R. No.

L-12986, March 31, 1

966 | 16 SCRA 448
FACTS
A fire broke out at the Caltex service station in Manila. It started whi
le gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, righ
t at the opening of the receiving truck where the nozzle of the hose was inserte
d The fire then spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the p
ersonal properties and effects inside them.
The owners of the houses, among them petitioners here, sued Caltex (owne
r of the station) and Boquiren (agent in charge of operation).
Trial court and CA found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and
that respondents had exercised due care in the premises and with respect to the
supervision of their employees. Both courts refused to apply the doctrine of re
s ipsa loquitur on the grounds that as to its applicability xxx in the Philippine
s, there seems to be nothing definite, and that while the rules do not prohibit i
ts adoption in appropriate cases, in the case at bar, however, we find no practic
al use for such docrtrine.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N without proof as to the cause and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ip
sa loquitur should apply as to presume negligence on the part of the appellees.
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES. CALTEX LIABLE.
Res ipsa Loquitur is a rule to the effect that where the thing which caus
ed the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or
his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does n
ot happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it afford
s reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation of defendant, that the incident
happened because of want of care.
The aforesaid principle enunciated in Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and
Development Co. is applicable in this case. The gasoline station, with all its a
ppliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of appellees. A fire o
ccurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The person who
knew or could have known how the fire started were the appellees and their emplo
yees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is fair and reasonable
inference that the incident happened because of want of care.
The report by the police officer regarding the fire, as well as the stat
ement of the driver of the gasoline tank wagon who was transferring the contents
thereof into the underground storage when the fire broke out, strengthen the pr
esumption of negligence. Verily, (1) the station is in a very busy district and
pedestrians often pass through or mill around the premises; (2) the area is used
as a car barn for around 10
taxicabs owned by Boquiren; (3) a store where people hang out and possibly smoke
cigarettes is located one meter from the hole of the underground tank; and (4)
the concrete walls adjoining the neighborhood are only 2 meters high at most and
cannot prevent the flames from leaping over it in case of fire.
Decision REVERSED. Caltex liable.