JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. Vs. LWV Construction Corporation
G.R. No. 217426. December 4, 2017

1.    Petitions for review on certiorari deal only on questions of law. Provide exceptions when the Supreme Court allows review of facts.

“When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible"; or "when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based." Finding a confluence of certain exceptions in this case, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court would not apply, and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom

2.    Provide the basis for action for damages due to the negligence of another.

An action for damages due to the negligence of another may be instituted on the basis of Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

3.    What are the elements of quasi-delict?

The elements of a quasi-delict are: (1) an act or omission; (2) the presence of fault or negligence in the performance or non-performance of the act; (3) injury; (4) a causal connection between the negligent act and the injury; and (5) no pre-existing contractual relation.

4.    Define Negligence.

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

5.    What is the test to determine negligence?

As early as the case of Picart v. Smith, the Court elucidated that "the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence." Corollary thereto, the Court stated that "[t]he question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculation cannot here be of much value x   x x: Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence[,] they can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger."

6.    Who has the burden of proof of proving or disputing negligence?

Under Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular. In effect, negligence cannot be presumed, and thus, must be proven by him who alleges it.

In Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc.:

[T]he negligence or fault should be clearly established as it is the basis of her action. The burden of proof is upon [the plaintiff]. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that "burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." It is then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence.

7.    When would a change of emphasis not result in a change in theory of the case?

In Limpangco Sons v. Yangco77, the Court explained that "[t]here is a difference xx x between a change in the theory of the case and a shifting of the incidence of the emphasis placed during the trial or in the briefs." "Where xx x the theory of the case as set out in the pleadings remains the theory throughout the progress of the cause, the change of emphasis from one phase of the case as presented by one set of facts to another phase made prominent by another set of facts x  x  x does not result in a change of theory x  x x".

8.    Claiming that petitioner was reckless in issuing its Medical Report stating that Raguindin is "fit for employment" when a subsequent finding in Saudi Arabia revealed that he was positive for HCV based on the medical report dated March 24, 2008 or at least two months after petitioner issued the its report, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60 (MeTC). Respondent essentially averred that it relied on petitioner's declaration and incurred expenses as a consequence. Thus, respondent prayed for the award of damages in the amount of P84,373.41 representing the expenses it incurred in deploying Raguindin abroad.

Petitioner denied liability and claimed, among others, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as the Medical Report issued by petitioner had already expired on April 11, 2008, or three (3) months after its issuance on January 11, 2008. In the RTC, it raised the defense that respondent failed to comply with the requirements on the authentication and proof of documents under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, considering that respondent's evidence, particularly the April 28, 2008 Certification issued by the General Care Dispensary and the HCV Confirmatory Test Report issued by the Ministry of Health, are foreign documents issued in Saudi Arabia. The HCV Confirmatory Test Report, likewise, was not authenticated in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

In deciding the case, what is the applicable law that should govern the basis of damages, if any: Article 19, 20, 21 or 2176? Why?

Article 2176. The claimed negligent act of petitioner was premised on an act causing damage to another which does not constitute "a breach of an existing law or a pre-existing contractual obligation."

In the Alano case, Justice Leonen aptly elaborated on the distinctive applications of Articles 19, 20 and 21, which are general provisions on human relations, vis-a-vis Article 2176, which particularly governs quasi-delicts:

Article 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct of human relations. By itself, it is not the basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the degree of care required so that an actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together with Article 20 or Article 21.

Article 20 concerns violations of existing law as basis for an injury. It allows recovery should the act have been willful or negligent. Willful may refer to the intention to do the act and the desire to achieve the outcome which is considered by the plaintiff in tort action as injurious. Negligence may refer to a situation where the act was consciously done but without intending the result which the plaintiff considers as injurious.

Article 21, on the other hand, concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not necessarily proscribed by law. This article requires that the act be willful, that is, that there was an intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome. In cases under Article 21, the legal issues revolve around whether such outcome should be considered a legal injury on the part of the plaintiff or whether the commission of the act was done in violation of the standards of care required in Article 19.

Article 2176 covers situations where an injury happens through an act or omission of the defendant. When it involves a positive act, the intention to commit the outcome is irrelevant. The act itself must not be a breach of an existing law or a pre-existing contractual obligation. What will be considered is whether there is "fault or negligence" attending the commission of the act which necessarily leads to the outcome considered as injurious by the plaintiff. The required degree of diligence will then be assessed in relation to the circumstances of each and every case.

9.    May the Certification of the General Care Dispensary, which was written in an unofficial language, be admitted as evidence and given probative weight?

No.

Under the Rules of Court, Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. -Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.

Sans any translation in English or Filipino provided by respondent, the same should not have been admitted in evidence; thus their contents could not be given probative value, and deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein.

Moreover, Section 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker;

(c) Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

It has been settled that an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value.

In addition, case law states that "since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the medical certificate renders its contents suspect and of no probative value," as in this case.

10.  May the HCV Confirmatory Test Report issued by the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia be admitted as evidence?

Although the same may be considered a public document, being an alleged written official act of an official body of a foreign country, the same was not duly authenticated in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. While respondent provided a translation thereof from the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, Bureau of External Relations, Office of the President, the same was not accompanied by a certificate of the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in Saudi Arabia, where the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

11.  Using the facts from numbers 8 to 10, decide on the merit of the case.

In this case, negligence is not proven by respondent through credible and admissible evidence, thus, petitioner cannot be held liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.