Res Ipsa Loquitor is not one of the spells from Harry Potter. It is a Latin phrase which represents a legal doctrine which is applicable in our jurisdiction. In English it means “the thing speaks or itself” however when applied by our courts, it has a deeper meaning. Although it sounds intimidating, but try asking for its legal meaning and the one who uttered it might find it difficult to explain. And indeed the doctrine cannot be sufficiently explained without using actual decided case by the Supreme Court since ultimately it is the legal authority that decides on the meaning of legal words, phrases, or concepts. The UCPB vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 242328, April 26, 2021) is about the claim of the insurer who having paid the claim of the insured and now subrogated to the rights of the insured sued the persons who caused the injury or damage. A traffic accident transpired along a highway and the insured car was totally damaged. Relying on the police report of the incident, UCPB which is an insurance company paid the claim and thereafter sued the persons who caused the damage on the insured. The case was decided in favor of UCPB but when the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), the decision was reversed and the collection case was dismissed based on the ground that the lower courts relied on the incident alone without the police officer who made it testifying in open court. The CA excluded the report since it considers it as hearsay which is excluded under the rules of evidence and since the claim of UCPB is largely based on it, dismissed the same. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA and decided in favor of Pascual. In gist, the SC said that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor which is applicable here, makes for an exception of the admissibility of a hearsay evidence.
The Doctrine Makes Hearsay Admissible
As explained by the Court: “The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that “where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.” In other words, if the manager or owner of the thing had been very careful, then the damaged might not have happened. It is then the “manager” who has the burden of proving that he was not negligent. It is as if in the event of an accident, there is already an inference of negligence until and unless the owner proves otherwise. “In cases involving vehicular accidents, it is sufficient that the accident itself be established, and once established through the admission of evidence, whether hearsay or not, the rule on res ipsa loquitor already starts to apply.” Now with regard to the admissibility of the hearsay evidence which is the indent report the SC stated: “while as a general rule, hearsay evidence does not have probative value whether it be objected to or not, an exception to this is a hearsay evidence that seeks to prove negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, which carries probative weight when not objected to.” In addition, the Supreme Court said that the doctrine proved the negligence of the defendant and it laid the elements of res ipsa loquitur: “(1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.”