GR L 12986; (March, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12986; March 31, 1966
THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA and SOLEDAD C. AFRICA, and the HEIRS OF DOMINGA ONG, petitioners-appellants, vs. CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., MATEO BOQUIREN and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo Street and Rizal Avenue, Manila. The fire started while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into an underground storage tank. The fire spread and burned several neighboring houses, including the properties of the petitioners. The owners sued Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and its alleged agent in charge, Mateo Boquiren, for damages under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the old Civil Code, attributing negligence as the cause. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, finding that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents exercised due care. Petitioners sought review, challenging the exclusion of certain police and fire department reports as hearsay and the non-application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
ISSUE
1. Whether the police and fire department reports on the fire were admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to presume negligence on the part of the respondents.
RULING
1. The police and fire department reports were properly excluded as hearsay and did not qualify as an exception under the rules. For official records to be admissible as prima facie evidence, the public officer must have sufficient knowledge of the facts stated, acquired personally or through official information. The facts in the reports (e.g., cause of fire from a thrown matchstick, presence of a cigarette stand) were not within the officers’ personal knowledge, and the informants (e.g., station employees, truck driver) had no legal duty to report, thus the information was not “official information” as required.
2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable. The Supreme Court held that where the thing which causes injury is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those in control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of care. The fire occurred during a transfer of gasoline, an operation under the exclusive control and management of the respondents. Gasoline is a highly combustible substance, and fires do not ordinarily occur during such transfers if proper care is used. The doctrine shifts the burden of evidence to the defendants to show they observed due diligence. The respondents failed to rebut this presumption. Caltex was held liable as the true operator of the station, not merely a lessor, and Boquiren as its agent. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and held respondents solidarily liable for damages: P9,005.80 to the spouses Africa and P10,000.00 to the heirs of Dominga Ong, with interest from the filing of the complaint.