Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. v. RODELIO ALBERTO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
The application of this rule requires: (1) that the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive: control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) that the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution from the injured person.[38] The concurrence of these elements creates a presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted, overcomes the plaintiffs burden of proof.
	GR No. 182705 2014-07-18	VICENTE JOSEFA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY BRION, J.
The procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in quasi-delict cases is that the defendant's negligence is presumed. In other words, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to prove that he did not act with negligence.[50] This doctrine thus effectively furnishes a bridge by which the complainant, without knowledge of the cause of the injury, reaches over to the defendant, who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised by him to prevent the injury.[51] For this doctrine to apply, the complainant must show that: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
	GR No. 176897 2013-12-11	ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION v. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION BRION, J.
The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible, and the court cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence.[85] When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, it must so state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for the first time on appeal. Because of a party's failure to timely object, the evidence becomes part of the evidence in the case. Thereafter, all the parties are considered bound by any outcome arising from the offer of evidence properly presented.[86]
	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Yet, even with the exclusion of Marine Certificate No. 708-8006717-4, the Subrogation Receipt, on its own, is adequate proof that petitioner Philam paid the consignee's claim on the damaged goods. Petitioners ATI and Westwind failed to offer any evidence to controvert the same. In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto,[40] the Court explained the effect of payment by the insurer of the insurance claim in this wise: We have held that payment by the insurer to the insured operates as an equitable assignment to the insurer of all the remedies that the insured may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract. It accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim. The doctrine of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is designed to promote and accomplish justice; and is the mode that equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who, in justice, equity, and good conscience, ought to pay.[41]