DRA.
LEILA DELA LLANA v REBECCA BIONG negligence caused her whiplash injury was not established because of the
[GR No. 182356] | [Dec 4, 2013] | [BRION, J.]
DOCTRINE
Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; He who alleges has the burden of
proving his allegation by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible
evidence.—In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
He who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation by preponderance of
evidence or greater weight of credible evidence. The reason for this rule is that
bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In
short, mere allegations are not evidence. In the present case, the burden of
proving the proximate causation between Joel’s negligence and Dra. dela Llana’s
whiplash injury rests on Dra. dela Llana. She must establish by preponderance
of evidence that Joel’s negligence, in its natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced her whiplash injury, and
without which her whiplash injury would not have occurred.
Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; It is a basic rule that evidence, whether oral
or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on
the witness stand. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given
credence.—Even if we consider the medical certificate in the disposition of this
case, the medical certificate has no probative value for being hearsay. It is a
basic rule that evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on
the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand. Hearsay
evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence except in very
unusual circumstance that is not found in the present case. Furthermore,
admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. The
admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the
weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible,
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided by the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Judicial Notice; Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular
accidents cause whiplash injuries.—A perusal of the pieces of evidence presented
by the parties before the trial court shows that Dra. dela Llana did not present
any testimonial or documentary evidence that directly shows the causal relation
between the vehicular accident and Dra. dela Llana’s injury. Her claim that Joel’s
deficiency of the presented evidence during trial. We point out in this respect
that courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash
injuries. This proposition is not public knowledge, or is capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions. We have no expertise in the field of medicine. Justices and
judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties’
pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal arguments.
FACTS
● March 30, 2000, at around 11pm, Juan dela Llana was driving a 1997
Toyota Corolla car along North Ave
○ Sister Dra Leila was seated at the front passenger seat;
Calimlim was at the backseat
● Juan stopped the car across the Veterans Hospital when the signal light
turned red.
○ A few seconds later, a dump truck containing gravel and sand
rammed the car’s rear end.
○ Rear end collapsed, windshield shattered. Glass splinters flew,
puncturing Dra dela Llana
● Traffic investigation dated March 30 identified driver as Joel Primero
○ Recklessly imprudent in driving
○ Employer was Biong, under the business Pongkay Trading
● First week of May 2000, Dela Llana felt mild to moderate pain on the
left side of her neck and shoulder
○ Became more intense and severe
○ Health deteriorated that she could no longer move her left arm
● June 9, 2000, she consulted with Dr. Rosalinda Milla, rehab med
specialist
○ She suffered from a whiplash injury, caused by the
compression of the nerve running to her left arm and hand
○ Required to undergo PT
○ In 3 months of extensive PT, condition did not improve
● She consulted other doctors
○ Neuro-surgeon suggested that she undergo a cervical spine
surgery to release the compression of her nerve
○ Oct 19, 2000, Dr. Eric Flores, neuro-surgeon, operated on her
spine and neck
○ Although the operation released the impingement of the nerve,
she was incapacitated from the practice of her profession
● Oct 16, 2000. Leila demanded from Biong compensation. Rebecca
refused
● May 8, 2001. Dra Leila sued Rebecca for damages
○ Lost mobility of her arm as a result of the vehicular accident
○ Claimed Php150k for medical expenses
○ Average monthly income of Php30k since June 2000
● REBECCA: Leila had no cause of action as no reasonable relation existed
between the vehicular accident and the injury
○ Illness became manifest one month and one week from the
accident
● TRIAL. Dra Leila presented herself as an ordinary witness. Joel as
hostile witness.
○ She reiterated that she lost the mobility of her arm because of
the accident
○ She identified and authenticated a med cert dated Nov 20,
2000 issued by Dr. Milla
○ Med cert stated that she suffered from a whiplash injury
○ Joel testified that his truck hit the car because the brakes got
stuck.
○ REBECCA, in defense: Leila was physically fit and strong after
the accident
■ Diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of Joel
● Certification of Good moral character
● Brgy, police, and NBI clearances
● After driving skills test
■ Alberto Marcelo, licensed driver-mechanic testified
that he checked the truck and affirmed that it was in
good condition prior to the accident.
● RTC ruled in favor of Leila dela Llana.
○ Proximate cause of injury was Joel’s reckless driving
○ a whiplash injury is an injury caused by the sudden jerking of
the spine in the neck area
○ Joel had been driving for 15 hours on the day of the accident
○ Joel’s negligence gave rise to the presumption that Rebecca did
not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family
● CA reversed RTC ruling.
○ Dra Leila failed to establish a reasonable connection between
the vehicular accident and her whiplash injury by
preponderance of evidence
○ [Nutrimix Feeds Corp v CA] Courts will not hesitate to rule in
favor of the other party if there is no evidence or evidence is
too slight to warrant an inference establishing the fact in issue,
○ Noted the interval between collision and date when she began
to suffer the symptoms was lengthy
○ Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents
cause whiplash injuries.
○ Failure to present expert witness was fatal to her claim
○ Med cert did not explain how and why the vehicular accident
caused the injury
● LEILA: Nutrimix does not apply. She has established by preponderance
of evidence that Joel’s negligent act was the proximate cause
○ Pics of damaged car show the collision was strong
○ Dr. Milla categorically stated in the med cert that she suffered
from whiplash injury
○ Testimony that the accident caused the injury is credible
because she was a surgeon
○ Uncorroborated med cert is credible if uncontroverted
○ Expert opinion is unnecessary if the opinion merely relates to
matters of common knowledge. Judge qualified as an expert to
determine the causation between reckless driving and injury.
● REBECCA: factual issues, beyond R45.
ISSUE AND RATIO
WON Joel’s reckless driving is the proximate cause of Dra. dela Llana’s
whiplash injury -
RE: burden of proof see: doctrine
Dra. dela Llana anchors her claim mainly on three pieces of evidence: (1) the
pictures of her damaged car, (2) the medical certificate dated November 20,
2000, and (3) her testimonial evidence. However, none of these pieces of
evidence show the causal relation between the vehicular accident and the
whiplash injury. In other words, Dra. dela Llana, during trial, did not adduce the
factum probans or the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum or the
ultimate fact can be established.
A. The pictures of the damaged car only demonstrate the impact of the
collision Dra. dela Llana contends that the pictures of the damaged car show
that the massive impact of the collision caused her whiplash injury. We are not
persuaded by this bare claim. Her insistence that these pictures show the
causation grossly belies common logic. These pictures indeed demonstrate the
impact of the collision. However, it is a far-fetched assumption that the whiplash
injury can also be inferred from these pictures.
B. The medical certificate cannot be considered because it w as not admitted in
evidence Furthermore, the medical certificate, marked as Exhibit “H” during
trial, should not be considered in resolving this case for the reason that it was
not admitted in evidence by the RTC in an order dated September 23, 2004.
Thus, the CA erred in even considering this documentary evidence in its
resolution of the case. It is a basic rule that evidence which has not been
admitted cannot be validly considered by the courts in arriving at their
judgments. However, even if we consider the medical certificate in the
disposition of this case, the medical certificate has no probative value for being
hearsay.
See Doctrine for more
During trial, Dra. dela Llana testified:
“Q: Did your physician tell you, more or less, what was the reason why you
were feeling that pain in your left arm?
A: Well, I got a certificate from her and in that certificate, she stated that
my condition was due to a compression of the nerve, which supplied my
left arm and my left hand.
Court: By the way, what is the name of this physician, Dra.?
Witness: Her name is Dra. Rosalinda Milla. She is a Rehabilitation Medicine
Specialist.
Atty. Yusingco: You mentioned that this Dra. Rosalinda Milla made or
issued a medical certificate. What relation does this medical certificate,
marked as Exhibit H have to do with that certificate, you said was made by
Dra. Milla?
Witness: This is the medical certificate that Dra. Milla made out for me.
It was Dr. Milla who had personal knowledge of the contents of the medical
certificate. But she was not presented to testify in court and was not able to
identify and affirm the contents of the med cert. Rebecca was deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Milla.
Med cert did not explain the chain of causation in fact between the reckless
driving and whiplash injury. It did not categorically state that the whiplash
injury was a result of the vehicular accident.
C. Dra. dela Llana’s opinion t hat Joel’s negligence caused h er whiplash
injury has no p robative value
Despite the fact that Dra. dela Llana is a physician and even assuming that she is
an expert in neurology, we cannot give weight to her opinion that Joel’s reckless
driving caused her whiplash injury without violating the rules on evidence.
Difference between an ordinary witness and an expert witness
Ordinary witness’ opinion may be received in evidence re:
a. identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge
B. handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity
C. the mental sanity of a person
Witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition
or appearance of a person
Expert witness opinion received in evidence on matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he has shown to possess.
Courts do not immediately accord probative value to an admitted expert
testimony, much less to an unobjected ordinary testimony respecting special
knowledge. The reason is that the probative value of an expert testimony does
not lie in a simple exposition of the expert’s opinion. Rather, its weight lies in
the assistance that the expert witness may afford the courts by demonstrating
the facts which serve as a basis for his opinion and the reasons on which the
logic of his conclusions is founded.
Dra. Leila’s medical opinion cannot be given probative value. As an ordinary
witness, she was not competent to testify on the nature, and cause and effects of
whiplash injury.
SC cannot take JN that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries
Dra. dela Llana did not present any testimonial or documentary evidence that
directly shows the causal relation between the vehicular accident and Dra. dela
Llana’s injury.
CA DECISION AFFIRMED.