Title
D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 137873
Decision Date
Apr 20, 2001
A construction worker fell to his death due to a platform collapse; employer D.M. Consunji was held negligent under res ipsa loquitur and Article 2180, allowing widow to claim damages despite prior State Insurance benefits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148420)

Procedural History

Maria Juego sued D.M. Consunji for damages in the RTC of Pasig. The court awarded statutory and compensatory damages, loss of earning capacity, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. D.M. Consunji petitioned the Supreme Court.

Admissibility of the Police Report

D.M. Consunji challenged the police report as inadmissible hearsay. Under Rule 130, Section 44, entries in official records by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. Because PO3 Villanueva personally investigated, testified in court, and was cross-examined, those portions of the report reflecting his own observations were admissible. Statements in the report not based on his personal knowledge remained hearsay but were unnecessary to establish the accident and death.

Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the circumstances: the platform fell, resulting in death; the construction site was under the exclusive control of D.M. Consunji and its personnel; and there was no contributory negligence by Juego. Once the plaintiff establishes these requisites, the burden shifts to the defendant to explain, not to prevent the presumption from arising.

Hearsay and Inadmissibility of Fabro’s Sworn Statement

D.M. Consunji relied on a sworn statement of its leadman, Ferdinand Fabro, to prove due care. As an unsworn affidavit not given under oath in court, Fabro’s statement was hearsay and inadmissible. Consequently, petitioner failed to rebut the inference of negligence.

Election of Remedies and Waiver Doctrine

Under Article 173 of the Labor Code, state-insurance benefits generally bar other claims against the employer. However, in Floresca v. Philex Mining, the Court allowed a widow to sue under the Civil Code if she learned of employer negligence only after claiming compensation. The CA applied this exception: Maria Juego received monthly ECC benefits without knowledge

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.