This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To successfully claim damages, the patient must lastly prove the causal relation between the negligence and the injury. This connection must be direct, natural, and should be unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.[44] The injury or damage is proximately caused by the physician's negligence when it appears, based on the evidence and the expert testimony, that the negligence played an integral part in causing the injury or damage, and that the injury or damage was either a direct result, or a reasonably probable consequence of the physician's negligence.[45] | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, in some cases where negligence is difficult to prove, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant or some other person who is charged with negligence where the thing or transaction speaks for itself.[48] This doctrine postulates that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience and in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence, the very nature of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury. In other words, res ipsa loquitur is grounded on the superior logic of ordinary human experience that negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.[49] | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that "where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."[24] It is simply "a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge."[25] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal,[30] not because of the strict application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness.[31] Basic considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court,[32] except when their factual bases would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised,[33] such as when the factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially admitted,[34] which do not obtain in this case. | |||||