3. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Common Knowledge

The general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters of common knowledge. Ordinarily, only experienced physicians and surgeons are competent to testify on whether a patient has been treated with reasonable care. However, where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred if due care had been exercised (e.g. leaving gauzes inside the body of the patient after an operation, operating on the wrong part of the body, etc.), an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence. (Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, 1999)

Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur

• The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
• The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence;
• Injury suffered must have not been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the person injured (D.M. Consunji v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137873, 2001);
• It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident. (Malayan Insurance Co. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Reyes, G.R. No. 194320)

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur finds no application if there is direct proof of absence or presence of negligence. If there is sufficient proof showing the conditions and circumstances under which the injury occurred, then the creative reason for the said doctrine disappears. (Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc., G.R. No. 180440, 2012)

Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Common Knowledge

The general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters of common knowledge. Ordinarily, only experienced physicians and surgeons are competent to testify on whether a patient has been treated with reasonable care. However, where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred if due care had been exercised (e.g. leaving gauzes inside the body of the patient after an operation, operating on the wrong part of the body, etc.), an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence. (Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, 1999)

Elements of a malpractice claim based on the doctrine of informed consent

• The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
• He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
• As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to the treatment, which he or she would otherwise not have consented to; and
• The patient was injured by the proposed treatment. (Li v. Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, 2011)

__________________________________________________

Literally, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It is the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. (Professional Services Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007)

However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law and, as such, does not create nor constitute an independent or separate ground of liability. Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule. (Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007)

NOTE: It is also known as the “Doctrine of Common Knowledge.”

Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

Ordinarily, driving inside a relatively narrow driveway shared by two houses would not result to children being hit and their bones fractured. This is because a reasonably prudent man, especially an alleged experienced driver, would have foreseen that the residents of the houses may exit towards the common driveway anytime, including young and playful children who may suddenly run across or along said driveway. Thus, a reasonably prudent man is expected to drive with utmost caution when traversing the said driveway, even if given a "clear" signal by a guard. (Maitim v. Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, 21 Mar. 2022)

PRESCRIPTION