Practice question
A claimant did not call a separate expert, but a properly qualified defense physician’s admitted testimony establishes the relevant standard and supports the alleged departure and causal injury. The court finds the required elements proved on all the evidence. The defendant argues that only witnesses formally called by the claimant can ever satisfy the proof burden. Which is correct?
- The party label on the witness always makes the testimony legally nonexistent.
- A defendant’s expert can never provide relevant admissions or evidence.
- The claimant’s burden concerns proof of the elements; relevant qualified evidence does not become unusable solely because it came from the defense.
- The claimant automatically wins without any evidence whenever the defense calls a physician.
- Every defense expert creates strict hospital liability.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_268308_2025.html — Que v Philippine Heart Center, GR 268308, April 2 2025, MAIN decision: duty, breach, injury, proximate causation, and expert proof.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_246489_2024.html — Spouses Nuñez v Daz, GR 246489, January 29 2024, main opinion: expert evidence and qualified res ipsa loquitur.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_250919_2021.html — Supreme Court GR 250919, November 2021, main opinion: technical standards, defense-expert evidence qualification, and exceptional res ipsa loquitur.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.