Case Digest (G.R. No. 132601)
Facts:
In Spouses Bernabe Africa and Soledad C. Africa, and the Heirs of Dominga Ong v. Caltex (Phil.) Inc. et al., decided on March 31, 1966 under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, petitioners challenged a fire that broke out on March 18, 1948 at the Caltex service station located at the corner of Antipolo Street and Rizal Avenue, Manila. While Leandro Flores was transferring gasoline from a tank truck into the underground storage, an unknown person allegedly discarded a lit match near the receiving tank, causing fumes to ignite. The fire spread to adjacent residences, damaging personal property of the Africas and of the Ong heirs. Petitioners filed a second amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila for damages under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the old Civil Code, attributing negligence to Caltex (owner of the station) and to Mateo Boquiren (its agent in charge). At trial, petitioners offered investigative reports prepared by the Manila Police and Fire Departments and bCase Digest (G.R. No. 132601)
Facts:
- Background and Parties
- On March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station located at the corner of Antipolo Street and Rizal Avenue, Manila, while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into an underground storage tank.
- The fire spread to adjacent residences, destroying property owned by petitioners Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa and the heirs of Dominga Ong.
- Petitioners sued Caltex (Phil.) Inc. (station owner) and Mateo Boquiren (its agent in charge), alleging negligence under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the old Civil Code.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Petitioners filed their second amended complaint and offered as evidence reports from the Manila Police Department, the Fire Department, and Captain Tinio of the Armed Forces.
- Respondents objected to the reports as hearsay. The trial court admitted only certain exhibits; it excluded the disputed reports.
- Both the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and that respondents had exercised due care. They dismissed the complaint.
- Evidence and Contracts
- Petitioners invoked exceptions to the hearsay rule (Rule 130, § 35) for official records.
- Petitioners urged application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, citing Espiritu v. Philippine Power & Development Co. and Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corp.
- A retroactive “license agreement” between Caltex and Boquiren, dated November 29, 1948 but made effective January 1, 1948, purported to characterize Boquiren as an independent contractor and absolve Caltex of liability.
- Petitioners claimed damages: P9,005.80 (Africas) and P7,500 (heirs of Ong, assessed value), with contention that fair market value was higher.
Issues:
- Are the police, fire department, and Captain Tinio reports admissible under the hearsay exceptions of Rule 130, § 35?
- Should the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to presume negligence on the part of respondents?
- Is Mateo Boquiren an agent of Caltex (making Caltex liable) or an independent contractor?
- What is the proper measure of damages for the Africas and the heirs of Dominga Ong?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)