OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR., vs GERONIMO BACOY, Guardian and representing the hi!

dren,
na"e!# MARY MARJORIE B. MONSAL$D, ERIC B. MONSAL$D, ME%&IE ANN B.
MONSAL$D, 'AREEN B. MONSAL$D, LEONARDO B. MONSAL$D, JR.
and CRIS%INA B. MONSAL$D
G.R. N(. )*+,*-, Apri! ./, .-).
0ats1
The Spouses Monsalud and their daughter Glenda were on their way home when they were run
over by a passenger jeep driven by Allan Maglasang. The jeep was registered in the name of
Oscar del Carmen r. as a result of which a criminal case was filed against Allan wherein he was
declared guilty of rec!less imprudence resulting in multiple homicide. "uring the pendency of
the case# an independent civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana was filed against Allan#
his employers Spouses Oscar Sr. and $orma del Carmen and Oscar r. who was the registered owner of
the jeep.
Oscar r. clarified that Allan was his jeep conductor and that it was the latter%s brother# &odrigo
Maglasang '&odrigo(# who was employed as the driver. )n any event# Allan%s employment as conductor
was already severed before the mishap occurred since he served as such conductor only for a wee!. The
&TC e*culpated the Spouses Oscar Sr. and $orma del Carmen from civil liability however# Oscar r. was
held civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity. The &TC anchored its ruling primarily on the principle of res
ipsa loquitur# i.e.# that a presumption of negligence on the part of a defendant may be inferred if the thing
that caused an injury is shown to be under his management and that in the ordinary course of things# the
accident would not have happened had there been an e*ercise of care. The ruling however of the &TC
was reversed on motion for reconsideration. On appeal# the CA granted the same and reinstated the initial
findings of the &TC.
Issue1
+hether or not the presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa lo,uitur applies
2e!d1
The SC held that the doctrine of res ipsa lo,uitur is applicable in this case. The re,uisites of the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur as established by jurisprudence are as follows-
.. the accident is of a !ind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
/. the cause of the injury was under the e*clusive control of the person in charge and
0. the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured.
)n this case# all the above re,uisites are present and having met the same# there now arises a presumption
of negligence against Oscar r. which he could have overcome by evidence that he e*ercised due care and
diligence in preventing strangers from using his jeep. 1nfortunately# he failed to do so.