www.lawyerphilippines.

org 1

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally means the thing or the transaction speaks for
itself. It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or
establishes the plaintiffs’ prima facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and not on
presumption.

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. vs. SPOUSES SARANGAYA, G.R. No. 147746,
October 25, 2005.

F.F. CRUZ and CO., INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREGORIO MABLE as
substituted by his wife LUZ ALMONTE MABLE and children DOMING, LEONIDAS,
LIGAYA, ELENA, GREGORIO, JR., SALOME, ANTONIO, and BERNARDO all
surnamed MABLE

G.R. No. L-52732 August 29, 1988

The pivotal issue in this case is the applicability of the common law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
the issue of damages being merely consequential. In view thereof, the errors assigned by
petitioner shall be discussed in the reverse order.

1. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, whose application to the instant case petitioner objects to,
may be stated as follows:

Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or
control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. [Africa v.
Caltex (Phil.), Inc., G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 448.]

Thus, in Africa, supra, where fire broke out in a Caltex service station while gasoline from a tank
truck was being unloaded into an underground storage tank through a hose and the fire spread to
and burned neighboring houses, this Court, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, adjudged
Caltex liable for the loss.

The facts of the case likewise call for the application of the doctrine, considering that in the
normal course of operations of a furniture manufacturing shop, combustible material such as
wood chips, sawdust, paint, varnish and fuel and lubricants for machinery may be found thereon.

It must also be noted that negligence or want of care on the part of petitioner or its employees
was not merely presumed. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to construct a
firewall between its shop and the residence of private respondents as required by a city
ordinance; that the fire could have been caused by a heated motor or a lit cigarette; that gasoline
and alcohol were used and stored in the shop; and that workers sometimes smoked inside the
shop [CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 33.]
www.lawyerphilippines.org 2

Even without applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, petitioner's failure to construct a firewall
in accordance with city ordinances would suffice to support a finding of negligence.

Even then the fire possibly would not have spread to the neighboring houses were
it not for another negligent omission on the part of defendants, namely, their
failure to provide a concrete wall high enough to prevent the flames from leaping
over it. As it was the concrete wall was only 2-1/2 meters high, and beyond that
height it consisted merely of galvanized iron sheets, which would predictably
crumble and melt when subjected to intense heat. Defendant's negligence,
therefore, was not only with respect to the cause of the fire but also with respect to
the spread thereof to the neighboring houses. [Africa v. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., supra;
Emphasis supplied.]

In the instant case, with more reason should petitioner be found guilty of negligence since it had
failed to construct a firewall between its property and private respondents' residence which
sufficiently complies with the pertinent city ordinances. The failure to comply with an ordinance
providing for safety regulations had been ruled by the Court as an act of negligence [Teague v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-29745, June 4, 1973, 51 SCRA 181.]

The Court of Appeals, therefore, had more than adequate basis to find petitioner liable for the
loss sustained by private respondents.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. NATIVIDAD and ENRIQUE AGANA, G.R. No.
126297, January 31, 2007

Literally, res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. It is the rule that the fact of the
occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or
raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. Stated differently, where the thing
which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose
from the defendants want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he
has observed due care and diligence.

From the foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the occurrence of an injury; (2) the thing which caused the injury was
under the control and management of the defendant; (3) the occurrence was such that in the
ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management
used proper care; and (4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing
www.lawyerphilippines.org 3

requisites, the most instrumental is the control and management of the thing which caused the
injury.

MELENCIO S. SY, Provincial Auditor, Tawi-Tawi vs. CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA,

Steno Clerk III, OIC, RTC, Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, A.M. No. P-94-1110, February 6,
1997

The evidence against Mongcupa, according to the Office of the Court Administrator, so
eloquently speaks of her criminal misdeed as to justify the application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur:

. . . [F]or several years now, "the Supreme Court applies the res ipsa loquitor [sic]
principle in removing judicial officers and personnel from office . . ." As can be gathered
from the cases decided in this jurisdiction, res ipsa loquitor [sic] has been defined as the
[sic] "the thing speaks for itself" and "the fact speaks for itself" (People vs. Valenzuela,
135 SCRA 712 and Padilla vs. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127). It is even asserted that in cases
like the one at bar, there is no more need for any further investigation.

Petitioner’s contention, however, loses relevance in the face of the

application of res ipsa loquitur by the CA. The effect of the doctrine is to warrant
a presumption or inference that the mere fall of the elevator was a result of the
person having charge of the instrumentality was negligent. As a rule of evidence,
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof
and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.

The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in this wise:

While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while

the mere happening of an accident or injury will not generally give rise to
an inference or presumption that it was due to negligence on defendant’s
part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the
thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing
or instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances
accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a presumption, or at least
permit an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, or some
other person who is charged with negligence.

x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which

caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of
the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as
in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those who had its
control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as
sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by
www.lawyerphilippines.org 4

the defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused by the defendant’s
want of care.

One of the theoretical bases for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e., that
necessary evidence is absent or not available.

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory that
the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury
either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and therefore
is compelled to allege negligence in general terms and to rely upon the
proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence.
The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that
the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is
practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured
person.

It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur furnishes a
bridge by which a plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause, reaches over
to defendant who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of
care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter of which the
plaintiff complains. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine, another court has said,
is a rule of necessity, in that it proceeds on the theory that under the
peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is applicable, it is within the
power of the defendant to show that there was no negligence on his part,
and direct proof of defendant’s negligence is beyond plaintiff’s power.
Accordingly, some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application
of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the further requirement that for the res
ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured party had no
knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that
the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or
opportunity for explanation of the accident.

D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 249, 253-254.

In these res ipsa loquitur resolutions, there was on the face of the assailed
decisions, an inexpliacable grave error bereft of any redeeming feature, a patent
railroading of a case to bring about an unjust decision, or a manifestly deliberate
intent to wreak (sic) an injustice against a hapless party. The facts themselves,
previously proven or admitted, were of such a character as to give rise to a strong
inference that evil intent was present. Such intent, in short, was clearly deducible
from what was already of record. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not except
or dispense with the necessity of proving the facts on which the inference of evil
intent is based. It merely expresses the clearly sound reasonable conclusion that
when such facts are admitted or are already shown by the record, and no credible
explanation that would negative the strong inference of evil intent is forthcoming,
no further hearing to establish them to support a judgment as to the culpability of
a respondents is necessary.

Thus, when asked to explain the clearly gross ignorance of law or the grave
misconduct irresistibly reflecting on their integrity, the respondent Judges were
www.lawyerphilippines.org 5

completely unable to give any credible explanation or to raise reasonable

doubt . . . (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, even granting that res ipsa loquitur is appreciable, complainant still has to present proof of
malice and bad faith. Respondent judge, on the other hand, may raise good faith as a defense.
That good faith is a defense to the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment remains to
be the law. He is also given the chance to explain his acts and if such explanation is credible, the
court may absolve him of the charge.

LOUIS VUITTON S.A. vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO DIAZ VILLANUEVA, A.M. No. MTJ-
92-643 November 27, 1992