2. Presumptions of Negligence

When doctrine is applicable

The plaintiff need not present direct proof of the defendant’s specific negligent act if the established circumstances of the accident support an inference of negligence, including that the instrumentality was under the defendant’s control and that the occurrence ordinarily would not happen if due care were used. It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and not on presumption. (Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Sps. Sarangaya, G.R. No. 147746, October 25, 2005)

Some cases where doctrine was held inapplicable

• Where there is direct proof of absence or presence of negligence;
• Where other causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are not sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and
• When one or more requisites are absent.

Burden of proof

GR: Plaintiff alleging damage due to negligent acts in his complaint has the burden of proving such negligence.

XPN: When the rules or the law provide for cases when negligence is presumed.

Disputable presumptions of negligence

• Motor vehicle mishaps – a driver is presumed negligent if he:
• Was found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the preceding two months (NCC, Art. 2184); or
• Was violating any traffic regulation at the time of the mishap. (NCC, Art. 2185)
• Possession of dangerous weapons or substances, results in death or injury, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (NCC, Art. 2188)
• In case of a passenger’s death or injury, a common carrier is presumed at fault or negligent unless it proves that it observed the extraordinary diligence required by Articles 1733 and 1755. (Civil Code, Art. 1756)