Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dela Llana Vs Biong

    Uploaded by

    Ran Mendoza
    66 views1 page
    1) A car accident occurred where the petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle struck from behind. 2) Weeks later, the petitioner experienced neck and shoulder pain and was diagnosed with whiplash injury. 3) However, the petitioner failed to conclusively establish a causal link between the accident and her injury through the evidence presented, which did not prove the requisite elements for a quasi-delict claim. Courts also cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was denied.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    48. Dela Llana vs Biong

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) A car accident occurred where the petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle struck from behind. 2) Weeks later, the petitioner experienced neck and shoulder pain and was diagnosed with whiplash injury. 3) However, the petitioner failed to conclusively establish a causal link between the accident and her injury through the evidence presented, which did not prove the requisite elements for a quasi-delict claim. Courts also cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    66 views1 page

    Dela Llana Vs Biong

    Uploaded by

    Ran Mendoza
    1) A car accident occurred where the petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle struck from behind. 2) Weeks later, the petitioner experienced neck and shoulder pain and was diagnosed with whiplash injury. 3) However, the petitioner failed to conclusively establish a causal link between the accident and her injury through the evidence presented, which did not prove the requisite elements for a quasi-delict claim. Courts also cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    DRA. LEILA A. DELA LLANA, petitioner, vs . REBECCA BIONG, III.

    RATIO:
    doing business under the name and style of Pongkay Dra. dela Llana failed to establish her case by
    Trading,respondent | Brion, J (2012) preponderance of evidence. Requisites to establish a quasi –
    delict: 1) damages to the plaintiff; 2) negligence of the
    TOPIC: Judicial Notice, When Discretionary defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant
    must respond; and 3) the connection of cause and effect
    DOCTRINE: Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular between such negligence and the damages
    accidents cause whiplash injuries. This proposition is not
    public knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable He who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation by
    demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible
    their judicial functions. evidence. Reason: Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
    evidence, are not equivalent to proof.
    EVIDENCE: 1) pictures of petitioner’s damaged car; 2)
    medical cert by a certain Dr. Milla; and 3) Petitioner’s own ITCAB, none of the three pieces of evidence presented by
    testimony as an ordinary witness dela Llana show the causal relation between the vehicular
    accident and the whiplash injury:
    I. FACTS : Car Accident. On Mar 30, 2000, a dump truck
    driven Joel Primero collided with the rear end of a Toyota  Pictures of the damaged car – only demonstrate the
    Corolla driven by a Juan dela Llana, as the latter’s car impact of the collision, not her whiplash injury
    stopped at a red traffic light. Due to the impact, the rear end  Medical Certificate – it was not even admitted in Court
    of the Toyota collapsed and its rear window shattered. for being hearsay. Dr. Milla, who made the certificate
    Petitioner Dra dela Llana was seated in front. Aside from few and had knowledge of the report, was not presented to
    glass splinters, she did not suffer from other physical injuries. testify. Nonetheless, the med cert did not even explain
    the chain of causation in fact between Joel's reckless
    Weeks later, Dra dela Llana felt pain in her neck, shoulders, driving and Dra. dela Llana's whiplash injury
    and left arm. She consulted with a certain Dr. Milla who told  Dr dela Llana’s own testimony - has no probative value;
    her she suffered from whiplash injury (compression of nerve) even though she’s a doctor, she testified merely as an
    and needed to do therapy. Her condition did not improve ordinary witness.
    even after 3 months of therapy. She eventually underwent
    surgery. The operation removed the impingement of the Ordinary witness may only testify in the ff matters: a) the
    nerve, but it incapacitated dela Llana from practicing her identity of a person about whom he has adequate
    profession. knowledge; b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient
    familiarity; c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is
    She filed a case for damages against respondent Rebecca sufficiently acquainted; and d) his impressions of the
    Biong, the employer of the truck driver. In her defense, Biong emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
    said dela Llana failed to prove a reasonable connection
    between the accident and the injury. Expert Witness: on matters requiring special knowledge,
    skill, experience or training. The weight of an expert
    During trial, dela Llana presented herself as an ordinary testimony lies in the demonstration of facts which serve as a
    witness and a medical certificate by Dr. Milla, stating that basis for the expert opinion and the reasons on which the
    dela Llana suffered from whiplash injury and chronicled her logic of its conclusions is founded.
    examination.
    Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents
    RTC ruled in favor of dela Llana and ruled that her injury cause whiplash injuries. This proposition is not public
    resulted from the Primero’s reckless driving. The CA knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable demonstration,
    reversed, ruling that there was no evidence or the evidence or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
    was too slight to warrant an inference establishing the fact in functions. We have no expertise in the field of medicine.
    issue. Courts will not take judicial notice that vehicular Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the
    accidents cause whiplash injury. law on the basis of the parties' pieces of evidence and their
    corresponding legal arguments
    II. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner was able to prove a reasonable
    connection between the accident and her injury – NO IV. DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED.

    You might also like