TORRES, Ma. Rafaella Ruth A.

28. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works Inc.

Facts:
Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. repaired marine vessels while the Prudential is in the non-life
insurance business. William Lines, Inc., the owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury passenger-cargo vessel,
which caught fire and sank. At the time of the incident, subject vessel was insured with Prudential for
P45M for hull and machinery. CSEW was insured for only Php 10 million for the shiprepairers liability
policy. They entered into a contract where negligence was the only factor that could make CSEW liable
for damages. Moreover, liability of CSEW was limited to only Php 1million for damages. The Hull Policy
included an Additional Perils (INCHMAREE) Clause covering loss of or damage to the vessel through
the negligence of, among others, ship repairmen. William brought Manila City to the dry dock of CSEW for
repairs. The officers and cabin crew stayed at the ship while it was being repaired. After the vessel was
transferred to the docking quay, it caught fire and sank, resulting to its total loss. William brought suit
against CSEW alleging that it was through the latters negligence that the ship caught fire and sank.
Prudential was impleaded as co-plaintiff after it had paid the value of insured items. It was subrogated to
45 million, or the value it claimed to indemnify. The trial court brought judgment against CSEW 45 million
for the ship indemnity, 65 million for loss of income, and more than 13 million in other damages. The CA
affirmed the TC decision. CSEW contended that the cause of the fire was due to Williams hotworks on
the said portion of the ship which they didnt ask CSEW permission for. Prudential, on the other hand,
blamed the negligence of the CSEW workers in the instance when they didnt mind rubber insulation wire
coming out of the air-conditioning unit that was already burning. Hence this MFR.

Issue:
Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies against the crew

Ruling:
Yes. For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply to a given situation, the following conditions must
concur: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; and
(2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person charged with negligence.
The facts and evidence reveal the presence of these conditions. First, the fire would not have happened
in the ordinary course of things if reasonable care and diligence had been exercised.
Second, the agency charged with negligence, as found by the trial court and the CA and as shown by the
records, is CSEW, which had control over subject vessel when it was docked for annual repairs. What is
more, in the present case the trial court found direct evidence to prove that the workers didnt exercise
due diligence in the care of subject vessel. The direct evidence substantiates the conclusion that CSEW
was really negligent even without applying such doctrine.
TORRES, Ma. Rafaella Ruth A.

56. Ramos vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Plaintiff Erlinda Ramos was, until the afternoon of June 17, 1985 a 47-year old robust woman. Except for
occasional complaints of discomfort due to pains allegedly caused by presence of a stone in her gall
bladder, she was as normal as any other woman. Married to Rogelio Ramos, an executive of Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), she has three children whose names are Rommel, Roy
Roderick, and Ron Raymond. Because of the discomforts somehow interfered with her normal ways, she
sought professional advice. She was told to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall
bladder. She underwent series of examination which revealed that she was fit for the said surgery.
Through the intercession of a mutual friend, she and her husband met Dr. Osaka for the first time and she
was advised by Dr. Osaka to go under the operation called cholecystectomy and the same was agreed to
be scheduled on June 17,1985 at 9:00am at the Delos Santos Medical Center. Rogelio asked Dr. Osaka
to look for a good anesthesiologist to which the latter agreed to. A day before the scheduled operation,
she was admitted at the hospital and on the day of the operation, Erlindas sister was with her insider the
operating room. Dr. Osaka arrived at the hospital late, Dr. Guttierez, the anesthesiologist, started to
intubate Erlina when Herminda heard her say that intubating Erlinda is quite difficult and there were
complications. This prompt Dr. Osaka to order a call to another anesthesiologist, Dr. Caldron who
successfully intubated Erlina. The patients nails became bluish and the patient was placed in a
trendelenburg position. After the operation, Erlina was diagnosed to be suffering from diffuse cerebral
parenchymal damage and that the petitioner alleged that this was due to lack of oxygen supply to
Erlindas brain which resulted from the intubation.

Issue:
Whether or not the doctors and the hospital are liable for damages against petitioner for the result to
Erlinda of the said operation.

Held:
Yes. The private respondents were unable to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the
care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate case of her piteous condition.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa liquitor has been measurably enlarged, it does
not automatically follow that it apply to all cases of medical negligence as to mechanically shift the burden
of proof to the defendant to show that he is not guilty of the ascribed negligence. Res ipsa liquitor is not a
rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the
circumstances of each case. It is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is
able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional
care were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. A distinction
must be made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of something more unusual and
not ordinarily found if the service or treatment rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in
that particular practice. It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor can have no application in
a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.

Scientific studies point out that intubation problems are responsible for 1/3 of deaths and serious injuries
associated with anesthesia. Nevertheless, 98% or the vast majority of difficult intubation may be
anticipated by performing a thorough evaluation of the patients airway prior to the operation. As stated
beforehand, respondent, Dra. Guttierez failed to observe the proper pre-operative protocol which could
have prevented this unfortunate incident. Had appropriate diligence and reasonable care been used in the
pre-operative evaluation, respondent physician could have been more prepared to meet the contingency
brought about by the perceived atomic variations in the patients neck and oral area; defects which could
have been easily overcome by a prior knowledge of those variations together with a change in technique.
In other words, an experienced anesthesiologist, adequately alerted by a thorough pre-operative
evaluation, would have had little difficulty going around the short neck and protruding teeth. Having failed
to observe common medical standards in pre-operative management and intubation, respondent, Dra.
Guttierez negligence resulted in cerebral anoxia and eventual coma of Erlinda.
TORRES, Ma. Rafaella Ruth A.

15. Lito Corpus vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:

Petitioner seeks reversal of the lower courts decision finding him guilty for malversation of public funds.
The accused was the acting supervising cashier at the Provincial Treasurers office. He denied having
misused the whole amount of P72,823.08 which was discovered to be a shortage from the government
funds contending that the P50,000.00 was the unliquidated withdrawal made by their paymaster Pineda
thru the 4 checks he issued while the petitioner was on leave and that he was forced by their Provincial
Treasurer Aluning to post said amount in his cash book despite not actually receiving theamount.

Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in observing the presumption of innocence of the accused of the charge
against him

Held:
It is held that presumption of innocence of the accused should yield to the positive findings that he
malversed the government funds considering all the evidences presented that point out to his guilt on the
charge imputed against him. Records shows that the checks issued for the paymaster were duly
liquidated to the accused and there were inconsistent entries on his cash books and that he was not really
on leave on the day the said checks were disbursed by the paymaster.

9. Ricardo C. Honrado vs. GMA Network Films, INC.

Facts:
On 11 December 1998, respondent GMA Network Films, Inc. (GMA Films) entered into a "TV Rights
Agreement" (Agreement) with petitioner under which petitioner, as licensor of 36 films, granted to GMA
Films, for a fee of P60.75 million, the exclusive right to telecast the 36 films for a period of three years.
Under Paragraph 3 of the Agreement, the parties agreed that "all betacam copies of the [films] should
pass through broadcast quality test conducted by GMA-7," the TV station operated by GMA Network, Inc.
(GMA Network), an affiliate of GMA Films. The parties also agreed to submit the films for review by the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) and stipulated on the remedies in the
event that MTRCB bans the telecasting of any of the films (Paragraph 4):

The PROGRAMME TITLES listed above shall be subject to approval by the Movie and Television Review
and Classification Board (MTRCB) and, in the event of disapproval, LICENSOR [Petitioner] will either
replace the censored PROGRAMME TITLES with another title which is mutually acceptable to both
parties or, failure to do such, a proportionate reduction from the total price shall either be deducted or
refunded whichever is the case by the LICENSOR OR LICENSEE [GMA Films]. (Emphasis supplied)
Two of the films covered by the Agreement were Evangeline Katorse and Bubot for which GMA Films paid
P1.5million each.

In 2003, GMA Films sued petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (trial court) to collect P1.6
million representing the fee it paid for Evangeline Katorse (P1.5 million) and a portion of the fee it paid
for Bubot (P350,000). GMA Films alleged that it rejected Evangeline Katorse because "its running time
was too short for telecast" and petitioner only remitted P900,000 to the owner of Bubot(Juanita Alano
[Alano]), keeping for himself the balance of P350,000. GMA Films prayed for the return of such amount
on the theory that an implied trust arose between the parties as petitioner fraudulently kept it for him.

Petitioner denied liability, counter-alleging that after GMA Films rejected Evangeline Katorse, he replaced
it with another film, Winasak na Pangarap, which GMA Films accepted. As proof of such acceptance,
petitioner invoked a certification of GMA Network, dated 30 March 1999, attesting that such film "is of
good broadcast quality" (Film Certification). Regarding the fee GMA Films paid for Bubot, petitioner
alleged that he had settled his obligation to Alano. Alternatively, petitioner alleged that GMA Films, being a
TORRES, Ma. Rafaella Ruth A.

stranger to the contracts he entered into with the owners of the films in question, has no personality to
question his compliance with the terms of such contracts. Petitioner counterclaimed for attorney's fees

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding petitioner liable for breach of the Agreement and breach of trust.

Ruling:
We grant the petition. We find GMA Films' complaint without merit and accordingly reinstate the trial
court's ruling dismissing it with the modification that the award of attorney's fees is deleted.
The parties do not quarrel on the meaning of Paragraph 4 of the Agreement which states:

The PROGRAMME TITLES listed [in the Agreement] shall be subject to approval by the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) and, in the event of disapproval, LICENSOR
[Petitioner] will either replace the censored PROGRAMME TITLES with another title which is mutually
acceptable to both parties or, failure to do such, a proportionate reduction from the total price shall either
be deducted or refunded whichever is the case by the LICENSOR OR LICENSEE [GMA Films].
Under this stipulation, what triggers the rejection and replacement of any film listed in the Agreement is
the "disapproval" of its telecasting by MTRCB.

Nor is there any dispute that GMA Films rejected Evangeline Katorse not because it was disapproved by
MTRCB but because the film's total running time was too short for telecast (undertime). Instead of
rejecting GMA Films' demand for falling outside of the terms of Paragraph 4, petitioner voluntarily
acceded to it and replaced such film with Winasak na Pangarap. What is disputed is whether GMA Films
accepted the replacement film offered by petitioner.