Guerrero v. Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 31, 2008, a vehicular accident occurred between an Isuzu Sportivo owned by Atty. Joseph Agustin Gaticales and a Chevrolet pick-up truck owned by Vicente T. Guerrero, driven by Rogelio Cordero. The Isuzu sustained extensive damages. The police report indicated that Guerrero's Chevrolet overlapped the center line, resulting in a head-on collision, and that Cordero fled the scene. Procedural History: Gaticales filed an own damage claim with his insurer, Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. (Phoenix), which paid P810,000.00. Gaticales subrogated Phoenix to his rights. Phoenix, after selling the damaged Isuzu for P399,050.00, filed a complaint for damages against Guerrero and Cordero for the balance, reimbursement of Gaticales' participation fee, attorney's fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Guerrero and Cordero solidarily liable, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding the police certificate admissible as an official record and that res ipsa loquitur was applicable even if the certificate were inadmissible. The Petition: Guerrero filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argued that he was denied his right to cross-examine the police investigator and questioned the probative value of the police report and photographs. He also questioned the application of res ipsa loquitur based solely on a picture of the damaged vehicle.
Issue(s)
Whether the police certificate and photographs presented by Phoenix are admissible in evidence. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied by the lower courts. Whether petitioner Vicente T. Guerrero is solidarily liable with Rogelio Cordero for the damages arising from the vehicular accident.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint filed by Phoenix. The Court found that the police certificate and the photographs were inadmissible in evidence due to failure to comply with the rules on admissibility and authentication. Consequently, Phoenix failed to discharge its burden of proving its case by a preponderance of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the police certificate and photographs: The Court held that while a police blotter entry or certification thereof is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, it must be properly presented in evidence. The Certification dated January 5, 2009, issued by the Chief of Police of Zarraga Municipal Police Station, was inadmissible because it was not identified by the issuing officer or his representative. The claims manager of Phoenix was incompetent to testify on its authenticity and due execution. Therefore, the Certification could not be used as a basis for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Court found the photographs inadmissible because Phoenix failed to prove their due execution and authenticity. The photographer was not presented to testify on the circumstances of their production, and the witness who identified them was not competent to do so. The witness was not at the scene of the crime and thus had no personal knowledge of the scenes or objects depicted. Furthermore, the photographs did not show the Chevrolet pick-up truck, making it impossible to presume it was the instrumentality that caused the accident or to assess contributory negligence. On the application of res ipsa loquitur and the failure to prove negligence: Since both the police certificate and the photographs were declared inadmissible, the Court found that the lower courts erred in assigning any probative value to them. Consequently, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied based on these inadmissible pieces of evidence. The Court noted that the essential elements for the application of res ipsa loquitur could not be established without proper evidence, particularly regarding the exclusive control of the instrumentality and the absence of contributory negligence. The Court concluded that Phoenix failed to discharge its burden of proving its case by a preponderance of evidence due to the inadmissibility of its primary evidence. Without admissible evidence establishing the negligence of Cordero or Guerrero, the complaint for damages must be dismissed. The Court also denied Guerrero's prayer for moral and exemplary damages for lack of factual or legal basis. On vicarious liability: The Court reiterated that for vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code to attach, the employer must be proven to have been negligent in the selection or supervision of the employee. In this case, Phoenix failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the negligence of Cordero, which is a prerequisite for holding Guerrero, as the employer, solidarily liable.
Main Doctrine
A police blotter entry, or a certification thereof, is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, provided it is properly presented in evidence. Similarly, photographs presented in evidence must be identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. Failure to properly present and authenticate evidence renders it inadmissible and devoid of probative value.