torts and damages cases.doc

7/25/2019 torts and damages cases.doc

1/14

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977

PEDRO ELCANO an PATR!C!A ELCANO, "n #$%"& 'a(a'"#y a)A)'%nan#) o* A+a("#o E'ano, %'%a)%,plaintiffs-appellants,vs.REG!NALD !LL, "no&, an MAR/!N !LL, a) *a#$%& an Na#&aGa&"an o* )a" "no&, defendants-appellees.

Cruz & Avecilla for appellants.

Marvin R. Hill & Associates for appellees.

ARREDO, J.:

ppeal f!o" the o!de! of the Cou!t of #i!st Instance of $ue%on Cit& dated'anua!& (), *)+ in Civil Case No. $-*(, Ped!o Elcano et al. vs. Re/inald0ill et al. dis"issin/, upon "otion to dis"iss of defendants, the co"plaint of

plaintiffs fo! !ecove!& of da"a/es f!o" defendant Re/inald 0ill, a "ino!,"a!!ied at the ti"e of the occu!!ence, and his fathe!, the defendant Ma!vin0ill, 1ith 1ho" he 1as livin/ and /ettin/ subsistence, fo! the 2illin/ b&Re/inald of the son of the plaintiffs, na"ed /apito Elcano, of 1hich, 1hen

c!i"inall& p!osecuted, the said accused 1as ac3uitted on the /!ound that hisact 1as not c!i"inal, because of 4lac2 of intent to 2ill, coupled 1ith"ista2e.4

ctuall&, the "otion to dis"iss based on the follo1in/ /!ounds5

*. 6he p!esent action is not onl& a/ainst but a violation of

section *, Rule *7, 1hich is no1 Rule III, of the RevisedRules of Cou!t8

(. 6he action is ba!!ed b& a p!io! 9ud/"ent 1hich is no1final and o! in res-adjudicata8

:. 6he co"plaint had no cause of action a/ainst defendantMa!vin 0ill, because he 1as !elieved as /ua!dian of theothe! defendant th!ou/h e"ancipation b& "a!!ia/e.

;P. (:, Reco!d ?

1as fi!st denied b& the t!ial cou!t. It 1as onl& upon "otion fo!!econside!ation of the defendants of such denial, !eite!atin/ the above/!ounds that the follo1in/ o!de! 1as issued5

Conside!in/ the "otion fo! !econside!ation filed b& thedefendants on 'anua!& *=, *)+ and afte! tho!ou/hl&e@a"inin/ the a!/u"ents the!ein contained, the Cou!t findsthe sa"e to be "e!ito!ious and 1ell-founded.

A0ERE#ORE, the O!de! of this Cou!t on Dece"be! ,*)+= is he!eb& !econside!ed b& o!de!in/ the dis"issal of theabove entitled case.

SO ORDERED.

$ue%on Cit&, Philippines, 'anua!& (), *)+. ;p. =, Reco!d


2/14

606 SEC6ION :;c? O# RBE ***, RBES O# COR6IS PPBICBE8

II

60E C6ION IS RRED F PRIOR 'DMEN6A0IC0 IS NOA #INB OR RES-D'DIC68

III

60E PRINCIPBES O# $SI-DEBIC6S, R6ICBES (*7+6O (*)= O# 60E CIVIB CODE, RE INPPBICBE IN

60E INS6N6 CSE8 and

IV

606 60E COMPBIN6 S66ES NO CSE O#C6ION INS6 DE#ENDN6 MRVIN 0IBB

ECSE 0E AS REBIEVED S RDIN O# 60EO60ER DE#ENDN6 60RO0 EMNCIP6ION FMRRIE. ;pa/e =, Reco!d.?

It appea!s that fo! the 2illin/ of the son, /apito, of plaintiffs-appellants,defendant- appellee Re/inald 0ill 1as p!osecuted c!i"inall& in C!i"inalCase No. *( of the Cou!t of #i!st Instance of $ue%on Cit&. fte! due t!ial,he 1as ac3uitted on the /!ound that his act 1as not c!i"inal because of 4lac2of intent to 2ill, coupled 1ith "ista2e.4 Pa!entheticall&, none of the pa!tieshas favo!ed s 1ith a cop& of the decision of ac3uittal, p!esu"abl& becauseappellants do not dispute that such indeed 1as the basis stated in the cou!tGs

decision. nd so, 1hen appellants filed thei! co"plaint a/ainst appelleesRe/inald and his fathe!, tt&. Ma!vin 0ill, on account of the death of thei!

son, the appellees filed the "otion to dis"iss above-!efe!!ed to.

s Ae vie1 the fo!e/oin/ bac2/!ound of this case, the t1o decisive issuesp!esented fo! Ou! !esolution a!e5

*. Is the p!esent civil action fo! da"a/es ba!!ed b& the ac3uittal of Re/inaldin the c!i"inal case 1he!ein the action fo! civil liabilit&, 1as not !eve!sedH

(. Ma& !ticle (* ;(nd and last pa!a/!aphs? of the Civil Code he applieda/ainst tt&. 0ill, not1ithstandin/ the undisputed fact that at the ti"e of the

occu!!ence co"plained of. Re/inald, thou/h a "ino!, livin/ 1ith and /ettin/subsistenee f!o" his fathe!, 1as al!ead& le/all& "a!!iedH

6he fi!st issue p!esents no "o!e p!oble" than the need fo! a !eite!ation andfu!the! cla!ification of the dual cha!acte!, c!i"inal and civil, of fault o!

ne/li/ence as a sou!ce of obli/ation 1hich 1as fi!"l& established in this9u!isdiction inBarredo vs. Garcia, 7: Phil. +7. In that case, this Cou!t

postulated, on the basis of a schola!l& disse!tation b& 'ustice ocobo on thenatu!e of

culpa aquilianain !elation to culpa criminalo! delito and

"e!eculpa o! fault, 1ith pe!tinent citation of decisions of the Sup!e"e Cou!tof Spain, the 1o!2s of !eco/ni%ed civilians, and ea!lie! 9u!isp!udence of ou!

o1n, that the sa"e /iven act can !esult in civil liabilit& not onl& unde! thePenal Code but also unde! the Civil Code. 6hus, the opinion holds5

6he, above case is pe!tinent because it sho1s that the sa"eact "achinist. co"e unde! both the Penal Code and the Civil

Code. In that case, the action of the a/ent 2illeth un9ustifiedand f!audulent and the!efo!e could have been the sub9ect of a

c!i"inal action. nd &et, it 1as held to be also a p!ope!sub9ect of a civil action unde! a!ticle *)( of the Civil Code.

It is also to be noted that it 1as the e"plo&e! and not thee"plo&ee 1ho 1as bein/ sued. ;pp. +*-+*+, 7: Phil.?. 1

It 1ill be noticed that the defendant in the above case couldhave been p!osecuted in a c!i"inal case because his

ne/li/ence causin/ the death of the child 1as punishable b&the Penal Code. 0e!e is the!efo!e a clea! instance of the

sa"e act of ne/li/ence bein/ a p!ope! sub9ect "atte! eithe!of a c!i"inal action 1ith its conse3uent civil liabilit& a!isin/

f!o" a c!i"e o! of an enti!el& sepa!ate and independent civilaction fo! fault o! ne/li/ence unde! a!ticle *)( of the CivilCode. 6hus, in this 9u!isdiction, the sepa!ate individualit& ofa cuasi-delito o! culpa aquiliana, unde! the Civil Code has

been full& and clea!l& !eco/ni%ed, even 1ith !e/a!d to ane/li/ent act fo! 1hich the 1!on/doe! could have been

p!osecuted and convicted in a c!i"inal case and fo! 1hich,afte! such a conviction, he could have been sued fo! this civilliabilit& a!isin/ f!o" his c!i"e. ;p. +*7, 7: Phil.? 2

2


3/14

It is "ost si/nificant that in the case 9ust cited, this Cou!tspecificall& applied a!ticle *)( of the Civil Code. It is thus

that althou/h '. V. 0ouse could have been c!i"inall&p!osecuted fo! !ec2less o! si"ple ne/li/ence and not onl&

punished but also "ade civill& liable because of his c!i"inalne/li/ence, neve!theless this Cou!t a1a!ded da"a/es in anindependent civil action fo! fault o! ne/li/ence unde! a!ticle*)( of the Civil Code. ;p. +*, 7: Phil.? 3

6he le/al p!ovisions, autho!s, and cases al!ead& invo2edshould o!dina!il& be sufficient to dispose of this case. ut

inas"uch as 1e a!e announcin/ doct!ines that have beenlittle unde!stood, in the past, it "i/ht not he inapp!op!iate to

indicate thei! foundations.

#i!stl&, the Revised Penal Code in a!ticles :+ punishes not

onl& !ec2less but also si"ple ne/li/ence. If 1e 1e!e to holdthat a!ticles *)( to *)* of the Civil Code !efe! onl& to

fault o! ne/li/ence not punished b& la1, acco!din/l& to thelite!al i"po!t of a!ticle *): of the Civil Code, the le/al

institution of

culpa aquiliana 1ould have ve!& little scopeand application in actual life. Death o! in9u!& to pe!sons and

da"a/e to p!ope!t&- th!ou/h an& de/!ee of ne/li/ence - eventhe sli/htest - 1ould have to be Ide"nified onl& th!ou/h the

p!inciple of civil liabilit& a!isin/ f!o" a c!i"e. In such astate of affai!s, 1hat sphe!e 1ould !e"ain fo! cuasi-delitoo! culpa aquilianaH Ae a!e loath to i"pute to thela1"a2e! an& intention to b!in/ about a situation so absu!dand ano"alous. No! a!e 1e, in the inte!p!etation of the la1s,

disposed to uphold the lette! that 2illeth !athe! than the spi!itthat /iveth life. Ae 1ill not use the lite!al "eanin/ of the la1to s"othe! and !ende! al"ost lifeless a p!inciple of suchancient o!i/in and such full-/!o1n develop"ent as culpaaquilianao! cuasi-delito , 1hich is conse!ved and "adeendu!in/ in a!ticles *)( to *)* of the Spanish Civil Code.

Seconda!&, to find the accused /uilt& in a c!i"inal case,p!oof of /uilt be&ond !easonable doubt is !e3ui!ed, 1hile in acivil case, p!eponde!ance of evidence is sufficient to "a2ethe defendant pa& in da"a/es. 6he!e a!e nu"e!ous cases of

c!i"inal ne/li/ence 1hich can not be sho1n be&ond!easonable doubt, but can be p!oved b& a p!eponde!ance of

evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be"ade !esponsible in a civil action unde! a!ticles *)( to

*)* of the Civil Code. Othe!1ise. the!e 1ould be "an&instances of unvindicated civil 1!on/s. 4Ui jus !demnifiedremedium.4 ;p. +(,7: Phil.?

#ou!thl&, because of the b!oad s1eep of the p!ovisions of

both the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this sub9ect,1hich has /iven !ise to the ove!lappin/ o! concu!!ence of

sphe!es al!ead& discussed, and fo! lac2 of unde!standin/ ofthe cha!acte! and efficac& of the action fo! culpa aquiliana,

the!e has /!o1n up a co""on p!actice to see2 da"a/es onl&b& vi!tue of the civil !esponsibilit& a!isin/ f!o" a c!i"e,fo!/ettin/ that the!e is anothe! !e"ed&, 1hich is b& invo2in/a!ticles *)(-*)* of the Civil Code. lthou/h this habitual"ethod is allo1ed b&, ou! la1s, it has neve!theless !ende!ed

p!acticall& useless and nu/ato!& the "o!e e@peditious andeffective !e"ed& based on culpa aquiliana or culpa e"tra-contractual. In the p!esent case, 1e a!e as2ed to help

pe!petuate this usual cou!se. ut 1e believe it is hi/h ti"e1e pointed out to the ha!"s done b& such p!actice and to!esto!e the p!inciple of !esponsibilit& fo! fault o! ne/li/enceunde! a!ticles *)( et se3. of the Civil Code to its full !i/o!.It is hi/h ti"e 1e caused the st!ea" of 3uasi-delict o! culpaaquilianato flo1 on its o1n natu!al channel, so that its1ate!s "a& no lon/e! be dive!ted into that of a c!i"e unde!the Penal Code. 6his 1ill, it is believed, "a2e fo! the bette!safe/ua!din/ o! p!ivate !i/hts because it !ealto!, an ancientand additional !e"ed&, and fo! the fu!the! !eason that anindependent civil action, not dependin/ on the issues,li"itations and !esults of a c!i"inal p!osecution, and enti!el&di!ected b& the pa!t& 1!on/ed o! his counsel, is "o!e li2el&to secu!e ade3uate and efficacious !ed!ess. ;p. +(*, 7: Phil.?

Cont!a!& to an i""ediate i"p!ession one "i/ht /et upon a !eadin/ of thefo!e/oin/ e@ce!pts f!o" the opinion in a!cia that the concu!!ence of thePenal Code and the Civil Code the!ein !efe!!ed to conte"plate onl& acts ofne/li/ence and not intentional volunta!& acts - deepe! !eflection 1ould !eveal

3


4/14

that the th!ust of the p!onounce"ents the!ein is not so li"ited, but that in factit actuall& e@tends to fault o! culpa. 6his can be seen in the !efe!ence "ade

the!ein to the Sentence of the Sup!e"e Cou!t of Spain of #eb!ua!& *=, *)*),sup!a, 1hich involved a case of f!aud o! estafa, not a ne/li/ent act. Indeed,

!ticle *): of the Civil Code of Spain, in fo!ce he!e at the ti"e of a!cia,p!ovided te@tuall& that obli/ations 41hich a!e de!ived f!o" acts o! o"issionsin 1hich fault o! ne/li/ence, not punis#ale $ la%, inte!vene shall be thesub9ect of Chapte! II, 6itle V of this boo2 ;1hich !efe!s to 3uasi-delicts.?4nd it is p!ecisel& the unde!line 3ualification, 4not punishable b& la14, that'ustice ocobo e"phasi%ed could lead to an ulti"o const!uction o!inte!p!etation of the lette! of the la1 that 42illeth, !athe! than the spi!it that/iveth lift- hence, the !ulin/ that 4;A?e 1ill not use the lite!al "eanin/ of thela1 to s"othe! and !ende! al"ost lifeless a p!inciple of such ancient o!i/inand such full-/!o1n develop"ent as culpa aquilianao!quasi-delito , 1hich isconse!ved and "ade endu!in/ in a!ticles *)( to *)* of the Spanish CivilCode.4 nd so, because 'ustice acobo 1as Chai!"an of the CodeCo""ission that d!afted the o!i/inal te@t of the ne1 Civil Code, it is to benoted that the said Code, 1hich 1as enacted afte! the a!cia doct!ine, nolon/e! uses the te!", ** not punishable b& la1,4 the!eb& "a2in/ it clea! thatthe concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts 1hich a!e c!i"inal in cha!acte!o! in violation of the penal la1, 1hethe! volunta!& o! "atte!. 6hus, theco!!espondin/ p!ovisions to said !ticle *): in the ne1 code, 1hich is!ticle **+(, si"pl& sa&s, 4Obli/ations de!ived f!o" quasi-delicto shall be/ove!ned b& the p!ovisions of Chapte! (, 6itle VII of this oo2, ;on quasi-delicts? and b& special la1s.4 Mo!e p!ecisel&, a ne1 p!ovision, !ticle (*77of the ne1 code p!ovides5

R6. (*77. Responsibilit& fo! fault o! ne/li/ence unde! thep!ecedin/ a!ticle is enti!el& sepa!ate and distinct f!o" thecivil liabilit& a!isin/ f!o" ne/li/ence unde! the Penal Code.ut the plaintiff cannot !ecove! da"a/es t1ice fo! the sa"eact o! o"ission of the defendant.

cco!din/ to the Code Co""ission5 46he fo!e/oin/ p!ovision ;!ticle (*77?th!ou/h at fi!st si/ht sta!tlin/, is not so novel o! e@t!ao!dina!& 1hen 1econside! the e@act natu!e of c!i"inal and civil ne/li/ence. 6he fo!"e! is aviolation of the c!i"inal la1, 1hile the latte! is a 4culpa a3uiliana4 o! 3uasi-delict, of ancient o!i/in, havin/ al1a&s had its o1n foundation andindividualit&, sepa!ate f!o" c!i"inal ne/li/ence. Such distinction bet1eenc!i"inal ne/li/ence and 4culpa e@t!acont!actual4 o! 4cuasi-delito4 has been

sustained b& decision of the Sup!e"e Cou!t of Spain and "aintained as clea!,sound and pe!fectl& tenable b& Mau!a, an outstandin/ Spanish 9u!ist.

6he!efo!e, unde! the p!oposed !ticle (*77, ac3uittal f!o" an accusation ofc!i"inal ne/li/ence, 1hethe! on !easonable doubt o! not, shall not be a ba! to

a subse3uent civil action, not fo! civil liabilit& a!isin/ f!o" c!i"inalne/li/ence, but fo! da"a/es due to a 3uasi-delict o! Gculpa a3uilianaG. utsaid a!ticle fo!estalls a double !ecove!&.4, ;Repo!t of the Code? Co""ission,

p. *+(.?

lthou/h, a/ain, this !ticle (*77 does see" to lite!all& !efe! to onl& acts ofne/li/ence, the sa"e a!/u"ent of 'ustice acobo about const!uction that

upholds 4the spi!it that /iveth lift- !athe! than that 1hich is lite!al that 2illeththe intent of the la1"a2e! should be obse!ved in appl&in/ the sa"e. nd

conside!in/ that the p!eli"ina!& chapte! on hu"an !elations of the ne1 CivilCode definitel& establishes the sepa!abilit& and independence of liabilit& in acivil action fo! acts c!i"inal in cha!acte! ;unde! !ticles () to :(? f!o" thecivil !esponsibilit& a!isin/ f!o" c!i"e fi@ed b& !ticle * of the RevisedPenal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Cou!t, unde! Sections ( and : ;c?,Rule ***, conte"plate also the sa"e sepa!abilit&, it is 4"o!e con/!uent 1iththe spi!it of la1, e3uit& and 9ustice, and "o!e in ha!"on& 1ith "ode!n

p!o/!ess4- to bo!!o1 the felicitous !elevant lan/ua/e inRaes vs. Atlantic.Gulf and 'acific Co., 7 Phil. :), to hold, as Ae do hold, that !ticle (*7+,1he!e it !efe!s to 4fault o! ne/li/encia cove!s not onl& acts 4not punishable

b& la14 but also acts c!i"inal in cha!acte!, 1hethe! intentional and volunta!&o! ne/li/ent. Conse3uentl&, a sepa!ate civil action lies a/ainst the offende! ina c!i"inal act, 1hethe! o! not he is c!i"inall& p!osecuted and found /uilt& o!ac3uitted, p!ovided that the offended pa!t& is not allo1ed, if he is actuall&cha!/ed also c!i"inall&, to !ecove! da"a/es on both sco!es, and 1ould beentitled in such eventualit& onl& to the bi//e! a1a!d of the t1o, assu"in/ thea1a!ds "ade in the t1o cases va!&. In othe! 1o!ds, the e@tinction of civilliabilit& !efe!!ed to in Pa!. ;e? of Section :, Rule ***, !efe!s e@clusivel& tocivil liabilit& founded on !ticle * of the Revised Penal Code, 1he!eas thecivil liabilit& fo! the sa"e act conside!ed as a quasi-delictonl& and not as ac!i"e is not estin/uished even b& a decla!ation in the c!i"inal case that thec!i"inal act cha!/ed has not happened o! has not been co""itted b& the

accused. !iefl& stated, Ae he!e hold, in !eite!ation of a!cia, thatculpaaquiliana includes volunta!& and ne/li/ent acts 1hich "a& be punishable b&

la1.4

4


5/14

It !esults, the!efo!e, that the ac3uittal of Re/inal 0ill in the c!i"inal case hasnot e@tin/uished his liabilit& fo! quasi-delict, hence that ac3uittal is not a ba!

to the instant action a/ainst hi".

Co"in/ no1 to the second issue about the effect of Re/inaldGs e"ancipationb& "a!!ia/e on the possible civil liabilit& of tt&. 0ill, his fathe!, it is alsoOu! conside!ed opinion that the conclusion of appellees that tt&. 0ill is

al!ead& f!ee f!o" !esponsibilit& cannot be upheld.

Ahile it is t!ue that pa!ental autho!it& is te!"inated upon e"ancipation of thechild ;!ticle :(7, Civil Code?, and unde! !ticle :)7, e"ancipation ta2es

place 4b& the "a!!ia/e of the "ino! ;child?4, it is, ho1eve!, also clea! thatpu!suant to !ticle :)), e"ancipation b& "a!!ia/e of the "ino! is not !eall&full o! absolute. 6hus 4;E?"ancipation b& "a!!ia/e o! b& volunta!&concession shall te!"inate pa!ental autho!it& ove! the childGs pe!son. It shallenable the "ino! to ad"iniste! his p!ope!t& as thou/h he 1e!e of a/e, but he

cannot bo!!o1 "one& o! alienate o! encu"be! !eal p!ope!t& 1ithout theconsent of his fathe! o! "othe!, o! /ua!dian. 0e can sue and be sued in cou!t

onl& 1ith the assistance of his fathe!, "othe! o! /ua!dian.4

No1 unde! !ticle (*, 4;6?he obli/ation i"posed b& a!ticle (*7+ isde"andable not onl& fo! oneGs o1n acts o! o"issions, but also fo! those of

pe!sons fo! 1ho" one is !esponsible. 6he fathe! and, in case of his death o!incapacit&, the "othe!, a!e !esponsible. 6he fathe! and, in case of his death o!incapacit&, the "othe!, a!e !esponsible fo! the da"a/es caused b& the "ino!

child!en 1ho live in thei! co"pan&.4 In the instant case, it is not cont!ove!tedthat Re/inald, althou/h "a!!ied, 1as livin/ 1ith his fathe! and /ettin/

subsistence f!o" hi" at the ti"e of the occu!!ence in 3uestion. #actuall&,the!efo!e, Re/inald 1as still subse!vient to and dependent on his fathe!, a

situation 1hich is not unusual.

It "ust be bo!ne in "ind that, acco!din/ to Man!esa, the !eason behind the9oint and solida!& liabilit& of p!esuncion 1ith thei! offendin/ child unde!!ticle (* is that is the obli/ation of the pa!ent to supe!vise thei! "ino!

child!en in o!de! to p!event the" f!o" causin/ da"a/e to thi!d pe!sons. Onthe othe! hand, the clea! i"plication of !ticle :)), in p!ovidin/ that a "ino!

e"ancipated b& "a!!ia/e "a& not, neve!theless, sue o! be sued 1ithout theassistance of the pa!ents, is that such e"ancipation does not ca!!& 1ith it

f!eedo" to ente! into t!ansactions o! do an& act that can /ive !ise to 9udicialliti/ation. ;See Man!esa, Id., Vol. II, pp. 7++-7+7, 77+.? nd su!el&, 2illin/

so"eone else invites 9udicial action. Othe!1ise stated, the "a!!ia/e of a"ino! child does not !elieve the pa!ents of the dut& to see to it that the child,

1hile still a "ino!, does not /ive ans1e!able fo! the bo!!o1in/s of "one&and alienation o! encu"be!in/ of !eal p!ope!t& 1hich cannot be done b& thei!

"ino! "a!!ied child 1ithout thei! consent. ;!t. :))8 Man!esa, supra.?

cco!din/l&, in Ou! conside!ed vie1, !ticle (* applies to tt&. 0ill

not1ithstandin/ the e"ancipation b& "a!!ia/e of Re/inald. 0o1eve!,inas"uch as it is evident that Re/inald is no1 of a/e, as a "atte! of e3uit&,

the liabilit& of tt&. 0ill has beco"e "illin/, subsidia!& to that of his son.

A0ERE#ORE, the o!de! appealed f!o" is !eve!sed and the t!ial cou!t iso!de!ed to p!oceed in acco!dance 1ith the fo!e/oin/ opinion. Costs a/ainstappellees.

(ernando )C#airman*+ Antonio+ and Martin+ ,,.+ concur.

Concepcion ,r.+ ,+ is on leave.

Martin+ ,+ %as desinated to sit in t#e econd /ivision.

5


6/14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN NC

G.R. No. L-1120 A+)# 31, 1948

!NOCENC!O ROSETE,petitione!,vs.

TE AUD!TOR GENERAL,!espondent.

0uijano+ Rosete and 1izon for petitioner.

(irst Assistant olicitor General ,ose B. 2. Re$es and olicitor Manuel

1omacruz for respondent.

ER!A, J.

6his is an appeal f!o" the decision of the Insula! udito! den&in/ the clai"

of Inocencio Rosete and othe!s a/ainst the ove!n"ent in the a"ount of

P:,:7+, fo! da"a/es caused to buildin/s belon/in/ to the clai"ant, 1hich

acco!din/ to the appellantGs clai" 1e!e dest!o&ed b& fi!e that ca"e f!o" the

conti/uous 1a!ehouse of the E"e!/enc& Cont!ol d"inist!ation, EC,

located at No. ((+( %ca!!a/a, due to the ne/li/ence of a ce!tain 'ose #!a&no

& Panlilio in i/nitin/ !ec2lessl& his ci/a!ette-li/hte! nea! a five /allon d!u"

into 1hich /asoline 1as bein/ d!ained, and of the office!s of the said EC,

1hich is an office o! a/enc& of the ove!n"ent, in sto!in/ /asoline in said1a!ehouse cont!a!& to the p!ovisions of O!dinances of the Cit& of Manila.

It is not necessa!& fo! us to pass upon the facts alle/ed b& the appellant, but

onl& on the 3uestion 1hethe!, assu"in/ the" to be t!ue, the Insula! udito!

e!!ed in den&in/ o! dis"issin/ the appellantGs clai".

6he clai"ant contends that the udito! ene!al e!!ed in not findin/ that the

/ove!n"ent a/enc& o! inst!u"entalit& 2no1n as the E"e!/enc& Cont!ol

d"inist!ation of the office!s the!eof, 1e!e /uilt& of ne/li/ence in sto!in/ a

hi/hl& co"bustible and infla""able substance in its 1a!ehouse on bode/a in

Manila in violation of Cit& O!dinances, and the!efo!e the /ove!n"ent is

liable fo! the da"a/es sustained b& the clai"ant unde! a!ticle *): of the

Civil Code, 1hich in its pe!tinent pa!t !eads as follo1s5

R6. *):. 6he obli/ation i"posed b& the p!ecedin/ a!ticle is enfo!ceable

not onl& fo! pe!sonal acts and o"issions but also fo! those pe!sons fo! 1ho"

anothe! is !esponsible.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

6he state is liable in the scene 1hen it acts th!ou/h a special a/ent, but not

1hen the da"a/e should have been caused b& the official to 1ho" it

p!ope!l& pe!tained to do the act pe!fo!"ed, in 1hich case the p!ovisions of

the p!ecedin/ a!ticle shall be applicable.

In the case ofMerritt vs. Government of t#e '#ilippine !slands;:= Phil.,

:**?, this Cou!t held the follo1in/5

. . . Pa!a/!aph of a!ticle *): of the Civil Code !eads5

46he state is liable in this sense 1hen it acts th!ou/h a special a/ent, but not

1hen the da"a/e should have been caused b& the official to 1ho" p!ope!l&

it pe!tained to do the act pe!fo!"ed, in 1hich cast the p!ovisions of the

p!ecedin/ a!ticle shall be applicable.4

6he sup!e"e cou!t of Spain in definin/ the scope of this pa!a/!aph said5

46hat the obli/ation to inde"nif& fo! da"a/es 1hich a thi!d pe!son causes toanothe! b& his fault o! ne/li/ence is based, as is evidenced b& the sa"e Ba1

:, 6itle *, Pa!tida 7, on that the pe!son obli/ated, b& his o1n fault o!

ne/li/ence, ta2es pa!t in the act o! o"ission of the thi!d pa!t& 1ho caused the

da"a/e. It follo1s the!ef!o" that the state, b& vi!tue of such p!ovisions of

la1, is not !esponsible fo! the da"a/e suffe!ed b& p!ivate individuals in

conse3uence of acts pe!fo!"ed b& its e"plo&ees in the discha!/e of the

functions pe!tainin/ to thei! office, because neithe! fault no! even ne/li/ence

can be p!esu"ed on the pa!t of the state in the o!/ani%ation of b!anches of the

public se!vice and the appoint"ent of its a/ents8 on the cont!a!&, 1e "ust

6


7/14

p!esuppose all fo!esi/ht hu"anl& possible on its pa!t in o!de! that each

b!anch of se!vice se!ves the /ene!al 1eal and that of p!ivate pe!sons

inte!ested in its ope!ation. et1een these latte! and the state, the!efo!e, no

!elations of a p!ivate natu!e /ove!ned b& the civil la1 can a!ise e@cept in a

case 1he!e the state acts as a 9udicial pe!son capable of ac3ui!in/ !i/hts and

cont!actin/ obli/ations.4 ;Sup!e"e Cou!t of Spain, 'anua!& 7, *)8 : 'u!.

Civ., (=.?.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

46hat the !esponsibilit& of the state is li"ited b& a!ticle *): to the case

1he!ein it acts t#rou# a special aent;and a special a/ent, in the sense in

1hich these 1o!ds a!e e"plo&ed, is one 1ho !eceives a definite and fi@ed

o!de! o! co""ission, fo!ei/n to the e@e!cise of the duties of his office if he is

a special official? so that in !ep!esentation of the state and bein/ bound to act

as an a/ent the!eof, he e@ecutes the t!ust confided to hi". 6his concept does

not appl& to an& e@ecutive a/ent 1ho is an e"plo&ee of the active

ad"inist!ation and 1ho on his o1n !esponsibilit& pe!fo!"s the functions1hich a!e inhe!ent in and natu!all& pe!tain to his office and 1hich a!e

!e/ulated b& la1 and the !e/ulations.4 ;Sup!e"e Cou!t of Spain, Ma& *,

*)=8 ) 'u!. Civ., :), :).?.

46hat acco!din/ to pa!a/!aph of a!ticle *): of the Civil Code and the

p!inciple laid do1n in a decision, a"on/ othe!s, of the *th of Ma&, *)=, in

a da"a/e case, the !esponsibilit& of the state is li"ited to that 1hich it

cont!acts th!ou/h a special a/ent, dul& e"po1e!ed b& a definite order or

commission to perform some act or c#ared %it# some definite purpose

%#ic# ives rise to t#e claim, and not 1he!e the clai" is based on acts o!

o"issions i"putable to a public official cha!/ed 1ith so"e ad"inist!ative o!

technical office 1ho can be held to the p!ope! !esponsibilit&. Conse3uentl&,

the t!ial cou!t in not so decidin/ and in sentencin/ the said entit& to the

pa&"ent of da"a/es, caused b& an official of the second class !efe!!ed to,

has b& e!!oneous inte!p!etation inf!in/ed the p!ovisions of a!ticle *)( and

*): of the Civil Code.G ;Sup!e"e Cou!t of Spain, 'ul& :, *)**8 *(( 'u!.

Civ., *=+.?4

6he!e bein/ no sho1in/ that 1hateve! ne/li/ence "a& be i"puted to the

E"e!/enc& Cont!ol d"inist!ation o! its office!s, 1as done b& an special

a/ent, because the office!s of the E"e!/enc& Cont!ol d"inist!ation did not

act as special a/ents of the /ove!n"ent 1ithin the above defined "eanin/ of

that 1o!d in a!ticle *): of the Civil Code in sto!in/ /asoline in 1a!ehouse

of the EC, the /ove!n"ent is not !esponsible fo! the da"a/es caused

th!ou/h such ne/li/ence.

6he case of Ma!ine 6!adin/ vs. ove!n"ent, :) Phil., (), cited b& the

appellant, is inapplicable, because the plaintiff in that case !ecove!ed unde!

the special p!ovisions of a!ticles +(, (7, ( and : of the Code of

Co""e!ce and the Philippine Ma!ine Re/ulations of the Collecto! of

Custo"s, !e/a!din/ collision of vessels, and not on the /!ound of to!t in

/ene!al p!ovided fo! in a!ticle *): of the Civil Code.

ct No. :(7, in autho!i%in/ the filin/ of clai"s a/ainst the ove!n"ent 1ith

the Insula! udito!, and appeal b& the p!ivate pe!sons o! entities f!o" the

latte!Gs decision to the Sup!e"e Cou!t, does not "a2e an& and all clai"sa/ainst the ove!n"ent allo1able, and the latte! !esponsible fo! all clai"s

1hich "a& be filed 1ith the Insula! udito! unde! the p!ovisions of said ct.

In vie1 of the fo!e/oin/, the decision appealed f!o" is affi!"ed.

'aras+ Act. C.,.+ 'alo Benzon+ Briones+ 'adilla+ and 1uason+ ,,.+concu!.

7


8/14

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

#IRS6 DIVISION

G.R. No. L-29993 O'#o5%& 23, 1978

LAUDENC!O TOR!O, GU!LLERMO E/ANGEL!STA, MANUEL DEGUMAN, ALONSO R. MAGSANOC, ESUS MACARANAS,MA!MO MANANGAN, !DEL MONTEMAOR, MELCOR/!RA, RAMON TULAGAN, a M%5%&) o* #$% Mn"'"(a Con'" o*Maa)":" "n 199, Maa)":", Pan+a)"nan,petitione!s,vs.

ROSAL!NA, ANGEL!NA, LEONARDO, EDUARDO, ARTEM!O,ANGEL!TA, AN!TA, ERNESTO, NORMA, /!RG!N!A, REMED!OSan ROERTO, a )&na% ONTAN!LLA, an TE ONORALECOURT O APPEALS,!espondents.

G.R. No. L-30183 O'#o5%& 23, 1978

MUN!C!PAL!T O MALAS!;U!,petitione!,vs.

ROSAL!NA, ANGEL!NA, LEONARDO, EDUARDO, ARTEM!O,ANGEL!TA, AN!TA, ERNESTO, NORMA, /!RG!N!A, REMED!OSan ROERTO, a )&na% ONTAN!LLA, an #$% ono&a5%

COURT O APPEALS,!espondents.

,ulian M. Armas+ Assistant 'rovincial (iscal for petitioners.

!sidro 2. 'adilla for respondents.

MU


9/14

6he hei!s of Vicente #ontanilia filed a co"plaint 1ith the Cou!t of #i!st

Instance of Manila on Septe"be! **, *)) to !ecove! da"a/es. Na"ed pa!t&-

defendants 1e!e the Municipalit& of Malasi3ui, the Municipal Council of

Malasi3ui and all the individual "e"be!s of the Municipal Council in *)).

ns1e!in/ the co"plaint defendant "unicipalit& invo2ed inte! alia the

p!incipal defense that as a le/all& and dul& o!/ani%ed public co!po!ation it

pe!fo!"s sove!ei/n functions and the holdin/ of a to1n fiesta 1as ane@e!cise of its /ove!n"ental functions f!o" 1hich no liabilit& can a!ise to

ans1e! fo! the ne/li/ence of an& of its a/ents.

6he defendant councilo!s intu!n "aintained that the& "e!el& acted as a/ents

of the "unicipalit& in ca!!&in/ out the "unicipal o!dinance p!ovidin/ fo! the

"ana/e"ent of the to1n fiesta celeb!ation and as such the& a!e li2e1ise not

liable fo! da"a/es as the unde!ta2in/ 1as not one fo! p!ofit8 fu!the!"o!e,

the& had e@e!cised due ca!e and dili/ence in i"ple"entin/ the "unicipal

o!dinance. 2

fte! t!ial, the P!esidin/ 'ud/e, 0on. !e/o!io 6. Bantin na!!o1ed the issue

to 1hethe! o! not the defendants e@e!cised due dili/ence G" the const!uction

of the sta/e. #!o" his findin/s he a!!ived at the conclusion that the E@ecutive

Co""ittee appointed b& the "unicipal council had e@e!cised due dili/ence

and ca!e li2e a /ood fathe! of the fa"il& in selectin/ a co"petent "an to

const!uct a sta/e st!on/ enou/h fo! the occasion and that if it collapsed that

1as due to fo!ces be&ond the cont!ol of the co""ittee on ente!tain"ent,

conse3uentl&, the defendants 1e!e not liable fo! da"a/es fo! the death of

Vicente #ontanilla. 6he co"plaint 1as acco!din/l& dis"issed in a decision

dated 'ul& *, *)+(. 3

6he #ontanillas appealed to the Cou!t of ppeals. In a decision P!o"ul/ated

on Octobe! :*, *)+, the Cou!t of ppeals th!ou/h its #ou!th Division

co"posed at the ti"e of 'ustices Salvado! V. Es/ue!!a, Nicasio . Fatco and

Eulo/io S. Se!!ano !eve!sed the t!ial cou!tGs decision and o!de!ed all the

defendants-appellees to pa& 9ointl& and seve!all& the hei!s of Vicente

#ontanilla the su"s of P*(,. b& 1a& of "o!al and actual da"a/es5

P*(. its atto!ne&Gs fees8 and the costs. 4

6he case is no1 befo!e s on va!ious assi/n"ents of e!!o!s all of 1hich

cente! on the p!oposition stated at the sentence of this Opinion and 1hich Ae

!epeat5

Is the celeb!ation of a to1n fiesta an unde!ta2in/ in the e@ce!cise of a

"unicipalit&Gs /ove!n"ental o! public function o! is it o! a p!ivate o!

p!op!ieta!& cha!acte!H

*. nde! Philippine la1s "unicipalities a!e political bodies co!po!ate and as

such a/ endo1ed 1ith the faculties of "unicipal co!po!ations to be e@e!cised

b& and th!ou/h thei! !espective "unicipal /ove!n"ents in confo!"it& 1ith

la1, and in thei! p!ope! co!po!ate na"e, the& "a& inte! alia sue and be sued,

and cont!act and be cont!acted 1ith.

6he po1e!s of a "unicipalit& a!e t1ofold in cha!acte! public, /ove!n"ental

o! political on the one hand, and co!po!ate, p!ivate, o! p!op!ieta!& on the

othe!. ove!n"ental po1e!s a!e those e@e!cised b& the co!po!ation in

ad"iniste!in/ the po1e!s of the state and p!o"otin/ the public 1elfa!e andthe& include the le/islative, 9udicial public, and political Municipal po1e!s

on the othe! hand a!e e@e!cised fo! the special benefit and advanta/e of the

co""unit& and include those 1hich a!e "iniste!ial p!ivate and co!po!ate. 6

s to 1hen a ce!tain activit& is /ove!n"ental and 1hen p!op!ieta!& o!

p!ivate, that is /ene!all& a difficult "atte! to dete!"ine. 6he evolution of the

"unicipal la1 in "e!ican 'u!isp!udence, fo! instance, has sho1n that8 none

of the tests 1hich have evolved and a!e stated in te@tboo2s have set do1n a

conclusive p!inciple o! !ule, so that each case 1ill have to be dete!"ined on

the basis of attendin/ ci!cu"stances.

In Mc$uillin on Municipal Co!po!ations, the !ule is stated thus5 4

"unicipal co!po!ation p!ope! has ... a public cha!acte! as !e/a!ds the state at

la!/e insofa! as it is its a/ent in /ove!n"ent, and p!ivate ;so-called? insofa!

as it is to p!o"ote local necessities and conveniences fo! its o1n

co""unit&. 7

nothe! state"ent of the test is /iven in Cit$ of 3oomo v. 2o$, decided b&

the Sup!e"e Cou!t of Indiana in *)*+, thus5

9


10/14

Municipal co!po!ations e@ist in a dual capacit&, and thei! functions a!e t1o

fold. In one the& e@e!cise the !i/ht sp!in/in/ f!o" sove!ei/nt&, and 1hile in

the pe!fo!"ance of the duties pe!tainin/ the!eto, thei! acts a!e political and

/ove!n"ental 6hei! office!s and a/ents in such capacit&, thou/h elected o!

appointed b& the a!e neve!theless public functiona!ies pe!fo!"in/ a public

se!vice, and as such the& a!e office!s, a/ents, and se!vants of the state. In the

othe! capacit& the "unicipalities e@e!cise a p!ivate. p!op!ieta!& o! co!po!ate

!i/ht, a!isin/ f!o" thei! e@istence as le/al pe!sons and not as public a/encies.

6hei! office!s and a/ents in the pe!fo!"ance of such functions act in behalf

of the "unicipalities in thei! co!po!ate o! in. individual capacit&, and not fo!

the state o! sove!ei/n po1e!. ;**( N. E ))=-))?

In the ea!l& Philippine case ofMendoza v. de 2eon*)*+, the Sup!e"e Cou!t,

th!ou/h 'ustice !ant 6. 6!ent, !el&in/ "ainl& on "e!ican 'u!isp!udence

classified ce!tain activities of the "unicipalit& as /ove!n"ental, e./.5

!e/ulations a/ainst fi!e, disease, p!ese!vation of public peace, "aintenance of

"unicipal p!isons, establish"ent of schools, post-offices, etc. 1hile the

follo1in/ a!e co!po!ate o! p!op!ieta!& in cha!acte!, vi%5 "unicipal

1ate!1o!2, slau/hte! houses, "a!2ets, stables, bathin/ establish"ents,

1ha!ves, fe!!ies, and fishe!ies. 8Maintenance of pa!2s, /olf cou!ses,

ce"ete!ies and ai!po!ts a"on/ othe!s, a!e also !eco/ni%ed as "unicipal o!

cit& activities of a p!op!ieta!& cha!acte!. 9

(. 6his distinction of po1e!s beco"es i"po!tant fo! pu!poses of dete!"inin/

the liabilit& of the "unicipalit& fo! the acts of its a/ents 1hich !esult in an

in9u!& to thi!d pe!sons.

If the in9u!& is caused in the cou!se of the pe!fo!"ance of a /ove!n"entalfunction o! dut& no !ecove!&, as a !ule, can be. had f!o" the "unicipalit&

unless the!e is an e@istin/ statute on the "atte!, 10no! f!o" its office!s, so

lon/ as the& pe!fo!"ed thei! duties honestl& and in /ood faith o! that the& did

not act 1antonl& and "aliciousl&. 11In'alafo"+ et al.+ v. 'rovince of !locos

4orte+ et al.+ *), a t!uc2 d!ive! e"plo&ed b& the p!ovincial /ove!n"ent of

Ilocos No!te !an ove! P!oceto Palafo@ in the cou!se of his 1o!2 at the

const!uction of a !oad. 6he Sup!e"e Cou!t in affi!"in/ the t!ial cou!tGs

dis"issal of the co"plaint fo! da"a/es held that the p!ovince could not be

"ade liable because its e"plo&ee 1as in the pe!fo!"ance of a /ove!n"ental

function K the const!uction and "aintenance of !oads K and ho1eve! t!a/ic

and deplo!able it "a& be, the death of Palafo@ i"posed on the p!ovince no

dut& to pa& "oneta!& conside!ation. 12

Aith !espect to p!op!ieta!& functions, the settled !ule is that a "unicipal

co!po!ation can be held liable to thi!d pe!sons e" contract 13o! e" delicto. 14

Municipal co!po!ations a!e sub9ect to be sued upon cont!acts and in to!t. ...

@@@ @@@ @@@

6he !ule of la1 is a /ene!al one, that the supe!io! o! e"plo&e! "ust ans1e!

civill& fo! the ne/li/ence o! 1ant of s2ill of its a/ent o! se!vant in the cou!se

o! fine of his e"plo&"ent, b& 1hich anothe!, 1ho is f!ee f!o" cont!ibuto!&

fault, is in9u!ed. Municipal co!po!ations unde! the conditions he!ein stated,

fall 1ithin the ope!ation of this !ule of la1, and a!e liable, acco!din/l&, to

civil actions fo! da"a/es 1hen the !e3uisite ele"ents of liabilit& co-e@ist. ...

;Dillon on Municipal Co!po!ations, th ed. Sec. *+*,*+=7, cited in Mendo%a

v. de Beon,supra. *=?

:. Co"in/ to the ca" befo!e s, and appl&in/ the /ene!al tests /iven above,

Ae hold that the ho of the to1n fiesta in *)) b& the "unicipalit& of

Malsi3ui Pan/asinan 1as an e@e!cise of a p!ivate o! p!op!ieta!& function of

the "unicipalit&.

Section ((( of the Chatte! on Municipal Ba1 of the Revised d"inist!ative

Code p!ovides5

Section (((. Celeration of fiesta. 5fiesta "a& be held in each

"unicipalit& not oftene! than once a &ea! upon a date fi@ed b& the "unicipal

council fiesta s not be held upon an& othe! date than that la1full& fi@ed

the!efo!, e@cept 1hen, fo! 1ei/ht& !easons, such as t&phoons, foundations,

ea!th3ua2es, epide"ics, o! othe! public ties, the fiesta cannot be hold in the

date fi@ed in 1hich case it "a& be held at a late! date in the sa"e &ea!, b&

!esolution of the council.

10


11/14

6his p!ovision si"pl& /ives autho!it& to the "unicipalit& to acceleb!ate a

&ea!l& fiesta but it does not i"pose upon it a dut& to obse!ve one. 0oldin/ a

fiesta even if the pu!pose is to co""e"o!ate a !eli/ious o! histo!ical event of

the to1n is in essence an act fo! the special benefit of the co""unit& and not

fo! the /ene!al 1elfa!e of the public pe!fo!"ed in pu!suance of a polic& of

the state. 6he "e!e fact that the celeb!ation, as clai"ed 1as not to secu!e

p!ofit o! /ain but "e!el& to p!ovide ente!tain"ent to the to1n inhabitants is

not a conclusive test. #o! instance, the "aintenance of pa!2s is not a sou!ce

of inco"e fo! the nonetheless it is p!ivate unde!ta2in/ as distin/uished f!o"

the "aintenance of public schools, 9ails, and the li2e 1hich a!e fo! public

se!vice.

s stated ea!lie!, the!e can be no ha!d and fast !ule fo! pu!poses of

dete!"inin/ the t!ue natu!e of an unde!ta2in/ o! function of a "unicipalit&8

the su!!oundin/ ci!cu"stances of a pa!ticula! case a!e to be conside!ed and

1ill be decisive. 6he basic ele"ent, ho1eve! beneficial to the public the

unde!ta2in/ "a& be, is that it is /ove!n"ental in essence, othe!1ise. the

function beco"es p!ivate o! p!op!ieta!& in cha!acte!. Easil&, no ove!n"ental

o! public polic& of the state is involved in the celeb!ation of a to1n fiesta. 1

=. It follo1s that unde! the doct!ine of !espondent supe!io!, petitione!-

"unicipalit& is to be held liable fo! da"a/es fo! the death of Vicente

#ontanilia if that 1as at- t!ibutable to the ne/li/ence of the "unicipalit&Gs

office!s, e"plo&ees, o! a/ents.

!t. (*7+, Civil Code5 Ahoeve! b& act o! o"ission causes da"a/e to

anothe!, the!e bein/ fault o! ne/li/ence, is obli/ed to pa& fo! the da"a/e

done. . .

!t. (*, Civil Code5 6he obli/ation i"posed b& a!ticle (*7+ is de"andable

not onl& fo! oneGs o1n acts o! o"ission, but also fo! those of pe!sons fo!

1ho" one is !esponsible. . .

On this point, the Cou!t of ppeals found and held that the!e 1as ne/li/ence.

6he t!ial cou!t /ave c!edence to the testi"on& of n/el Novado, a 1itness of

the defendants ;no1 petitione!s?, that a "e"be! of the 4e@t!ava/an%a t!oupe

!e"oved t1o p!incipal b!aces located on the f!ont po!tion of the sta/e and u

the" to han/ the sc!een o! 4telon4, and that 1hen "an& people 1ent up the

sta/e the latte! collapsed. 6his testi"on& 1as not believed ho1eve! b&

!espondent appellate cou!t, and !i/htl& so. cco!din/ to said defendants,

those t1o b!aces 1e!e 4"othe!4 o! 4p!incipal4 b!aces located se"i-

dia/onall& f!o" the f!ont ends of the sta/e to the f!ont posts of the tic2et

booth located at the !ea! of the sta/e and 1e!e fastened 1ith a ba"boo

t1ine. 166hat bein/ the case, it beco"es inc!edible that an& pe!son in his

!i/ht "ind 1ould !e"ove those p!incipal b!aces and leave the f!ont po!tion

of the sta/e p!acticall& unsupo!ted Mo!eove!, if that did happen, the!e 1as

indeed ne/li/ence as the!e 1as lac2 of suspension ove! the use of the sta/e to

p!event such an occu!!ence.

t an& !ate, the /uita!ist 1ho 1as pointed to b& Novado as the pe!son 1ho

!e"oved the t1o ba"boo b!aces denied havin/ done /o. 6he Cou!t of

ppeals said 4"o! b& hi"self alone could not have !e"oved the t1o b!aces

1hich "ust be about ten "ete!s lon/ and fastened the" on top of the sta/s

fo! the cu!tain. 6he sta/e 1as onl& five and a half "ete!s 1ide. Su!el&, it,

1ould be i"p!actical and un1ield& to use a ten "ete! ba"boo pole, "uch

"o!e t1o poles fo! the sta/e cu!tain. 17

6he appellate cou!t also found that the sta/e 1as not st!on/ enou/h

conside!in/ that onl& P*. 1as app!op!iate fo! the const!uction of t1o

sta/es and 1hile the floo! of the 4%a!%uela4 sta/e 1as of 1ooden plan2s, the

Post and b!aces used 1e!e of ba"boo "ate!ial Ae li2e1ise obse!ve that

althou/h the sta/e 1as desc!ibed b& the Petitione!s as bein/ suppo!ted b&

4(=4 posts, neve!theless the!e 1e!e onl& = in f!ont, = at the !ea!, and on

each side. Ahe!e 1e!e the !estH

6he Cou!t of ppeals thus concluded

6he cou!t a quo itself att!ibuted the collapse of the sta/e to the /!eat nu"be!

of onloo2e!s 1ho "ounted the sta/e. 6he "unicipalit& andLo! its a/ents had

the necessa!& "eans 1ithin its co""and to p!event such an occu!!ence.

0avin/ filed to ta2e the necessa!& steps to "aintain the safet& of the sta/e fo!

the use of the pa!ticipants in the sta/e p!esentation p!epa!ed in connection

11


12/14

1ith the celeb!ation of the to1n fiesta, pa!ticula!l&, in p!eventin/ non

pa!ticipants o! spectato!s f!o" "ountin/ and accu"ulatin/ on the sta/e

1hich 1as not const!ucted to "eet the additional 1ei/ht- the defendant-

appellees 1e!e ne/li/ent and a!e liable fo! the death of Vicente #ontanilla .

;pp. :-:*, !ollo, B-())):?

6he findin/s of the !espondent appellate cou!t that the facts as p!esented to it

establish ne/li/ence as a "atte! of la1 and that the Municipalit& failed toe@e!cise the due dili/ence of a /ood fathe! of the fa"il&, 1ill not distu!bed

b& s in the absence of a clea! sho1in/ of an abuse of disc!etion o! a /!oss

"isapp!ehension of facts.4 18

Biabilit& !ests on ne/li/ence 1hich is 4the 1ant of such ca!e as a pe!son of

o!dina!& p!udence 1ould e@e!cise unde! the ci!cu"stances of the case.4 19

6hus, p!ivate !espondents a!/ue that the 4Midas E@t!ava/an%a4 1hich 1as to

be pe!fo!"ed du!in/ the to1n fiesta 1as a 4donation4 offe!ed b& an

association of Malasi3ui e"plo&ees of the Manila Rail!oad Co. in Caloocan,and that 1hen the Municipalit& of Malasi3ui accepted the donation of

se!vices and const!ucted p!ecisel& a 4%a!%uela sta/e4 fo! the pu!pose, the

pa!ticipants in the sta/e sho1 had the !i/ht to e@pect that the Municipalit&

th!ou/h its 4Co""ittee on ente!tain"ent and sta/e4 1ould build o! put up a

sta/e o! platfo!" st!on/ enou/h to sustain the 1ei/ht o! bu!den of the

pe!fo!"ance and ta2e the necessa!& "easu!es to insu!e the pe!sonal safet& of

the pa!ticipants. 20Ae a/!ee.

$uite !elevant to that a!/u"ent is the "e!ican case of anders v. Cit$ of

2on Beac#, *)=(, 1hich 1as an action a/ainst the cit& fo! in9u!ies sustainedf!o" a fall 1hen plaintiff 1as descendin/ the steps of the cit& audito!iu".

6he cit& 1as conductin/ a 4no1 &ou! Cit& Aee24 and one of the featu!es

1as the sho1in/ of a "otion pictu!e in the cit& audito!iu" to 1hich the

/ene!al public 1as invited and plaintiff Sande!s 1as one of those 1ho

attended. In sustainin/ the a1a!d fo! Da"a/es in favo! of plaintiff, the

Dist!ict Cou!t of ppeal, Second dist!ict, Califo!nia, held inter alia that the

4no1 &ou! Cit& Aee24 1as a 4p!op!ieta!& activit&4 and not a

4/ove!n"ental one4 of the cit&, that defendant o1ed to plaintiff, an invitee

the dut& of e@e!cisin/ o!dina!& ca!e fo! he! safet&, and plaintiff 1as entitled

to assu"e that she 1ould not be e@posed to a dan/e! ;1hich in this case

consisted of lac2 of sufficient illu"ination of the p!e"ises? that 1ould co"e

to he! th!ou/h a violation of defendant dut&. 21

Ae can sa& that the deceased Vicente #ontanilla 1as si"ila!l& situated as

Sande! 6he Municipalit& of Malasi3ui !esolved to celeb!ate the to1n fiesta in

'anua!& of *))8 it c!eated a co""ittee in cha!/e of the ente!tain"ent andsta/e8 an association of Malasi3ui !esidents !esponded to the call fo! the

festivities and voluntee!ed to p!esent a sta/e sho18 Vicente #ontanilla 1as

one of the pa!ticipants 1ho li2e Sande!s had the !i/ht to e@pect that he 1ould

be e@posed to dan/e! on that occasion.

Bastl&, petitione! o! appellant Municipalit& cannot evade abilit& andLo!

liabilit& unde! the c that it 1as 'ose Maca!ae/ 1ho const!ucted the sta/e. 6he

"unicipalit& actin/ th!ou/h its "unicipal council appointed Maca!ae/ as

chai!"an of the sub-co""ittee on ente!tain"ent and in cha!/e of the

const!uction of the 4%a!%uela4 sta/e. Maca!ae/ acted "e!el& as an a/ent ofthe Municipalit&. nde! the doct!ine of !espondent supe!io! "entioned

ea!lie!, petitione! is !esponsible o! liable fo! the ne/li/ence of its a/ent actin/

1ithin his assi/ned tas2s. 22

... 1hen it is sou/ht to !ende! a "unicipal co!po!ation liable fo! the act of

se!vants o! a/ents, a ca!dinal in3ui!& is, 1hethe! the& a!e the se!vants o!

a/ents of the co!po!ation. If the co!po!ation appoints o! elects the", can

cont!ol the" in the discha!/e of thei! duties, can continue o! !e"ove the can

hold the" !esponsible fo! the "anne! in 1hich the& discha!/e thei! t!ust, and

if those duties !elate to the e@e!cise of co!po!ate po1e!s, and a!e fo! thebenefit of the co!po!ation in its local o! special inte!est, the& "a& 9ustl& be

!e/a!ded as its a/ents o! se!vants, and the "a@i" of !espondent supe!io!

applies.4 ... ;Dillon on Municipal Co!po!ations, th Ed., Vol IV, p. (7)?

. 6he !e"ainin/ 3uestion to be !esolved cente!s on the liabilit& of the

"unicipal councilo!s 1ho enacted the o!dinance and c!eated the fiesta

co""ittee.

12


13/14

6he Cou!t of ppeals held the councilo!s 9ointl& and solida!it& liable 1ith the

"unicipalit& fo! da"a/es unde! !ticle (7 of the Civil Code 1hich p!ovides

that d an& pe!son suffe!in/ in/ "ate!ial o! "o!al loss because a public

se!vant o! e"plo&ee !efuses o! ne/lects, 1ithout 9ust cause to pe!fo!" his

official dut& "a& file an action fo! da"a/es and othe! !elief at the latte!. 23

In thei! Petition fo! !evie1 the "unicipal councilo!s alle/e that the Cou!t of

ppeals e!!ed in !ulin/ that the holdin/ of a to1n fiesta is not a/ove!n"ental function and that the!e 1as ne/li/ence on thei! pa!t fo! not

"aintainin/ and supe!visin/ the safe use of the sta/e, in appl&in/ !ticle (7

of the Civil Code a/ainst the" and in not holdin/ 'ose Maca!ae/ liable fo!

the collapse of the sta/e and the conse3uent death of Vicente #ontanilla. 24

Ae a/!ee 1ith petitione!s that the Cou!t of ppeals e!!ed in appl&in/ !ticle

(7 of the Civil Code a/ainst the fo! this pa!ticula! a!ticle cove!s a case of

nonfeasance o! non-pe!fo!"ance b& a public office! of his official dut&8 it

does not appl& to a case of ne/li/ence o! "isfeasance in ca!!&in/ out an

official dut&.

If Ae a!e led to set aside the decision of the Cou!t of ppeals insofa! as these

petitione!s a!e conce!ned, it is because of a plain e!!o! co""itted b&

!espondent cou!t 1hich ho1eve! is not invo2ed in petitione!sG b!ief.

InMiuel v. 1#e Court of appeal. et al., the Cou!t, th!ou/h 'ustice, no1

Chief 'ustice, #!ed Rui% Cast!o, held that the Sup!e"e Cou!t is vested 1ith

a"ple autho!it& to !evie1 "atte!s not assi/ned as e!!o!s in an appeal if it

finds that thei! conside!ation and !esolution a!e indispensable o! necessa!& in

a!!ivin/ at a 9ust decision in a /iven case, and that tills is autho! unde! Sec. 7,Rule * of the Rules of Cou!t. 2Ae believe that this p!onounce"ent can

1ell be applied in the instant case.

6he Cou!t of ppeals in its decision no1 unde! !evie1 held that the

celeb!ation of a to1n fiesta b& the Municipalit& of Malasi3ui 1as not a

/ove!n"ental function. Ae upheld that !ulin/. 6he le/al conse3uence the!eof

is that the Municipalit& stands on the sa"e footin/ as an o!dina!& p!ivate

co!po!ation 1ith the "unicipal council actin/ as its boa!d of di!ecto!s. It is

an ele"enta!& p!inciple that a co!po!ation has a pe!sonalit&, sepa!ate and

distinct f!o" its office!s, di!ecto!s, o! pe!sons co"posin/ it 26and the latte!

a!e not as a !ule co-!esponsible in an action fo! da"a/es fo! to!t o!

ne/li/ence culpa a3uilla co""itted b& the co!po!ationGs e"plo&ees o! a/ents

unless the!e is a sho1in/ of bad faith o! /!oss o! 1anton ne/li/ence on thei!

pa!t. 27

@@@ @@@ @@@

6he o!dina!& doct!ine is that a di!ecto!, "e!el& b& !eason of his office, is not

pe!sonall& Stable fo! the to!ts of his co!po!ation8 he Must be sho1n to have

pe!sonall& voted fo! o! othe!1ise pa!ticipated in the" ... #letche!

Enc&clopedia Co!po!ations, Vol : Chapt **, p. (7?

Office!s of a co!po!ation Ga!e not held liable fo! the ne/li/ence of the

co!po!ation "e!el& because of thei! official !elation to it, but because of

so"e 1!on/ful o! ne/li/ent act b& such office! a"ountin/ to a b!each of dut&

1hich !esulted in an in9u!& ... 6o "a2e an office! of a co!po!ation liable fo!

the ne/li/ence of the co!po!ation the!e "ust have been upon his pa!t such ab!each of dut& as cont!ibuted to, o! helped to b!in/ about, the in9u!&8 that is

to sa&, he "ust be a pa!ticipant in the 1!on/ful act. ... ;pp. (7-(, !id.?

@@@ @@@ @@@

Di!ecto!s 1ho "e!el& e"plo& one to /ive a fi!e1o!2s "bition on the

co!po!ate a!e not pe!sonall& liable fo! the ne/li/ent acts of the e@hibito!. ;p.

(**,!id.?

On these people Ae absolve se "unicipal councilo!s f!o" an& liabilit& fo!

the death of Vicente #ontanilla. 6he !eco!ds do not sho1 that said petitione!s

di!ectl& pa!ticipated in the defective const!uction of the 4%a!%uela4 sta/e o!

that the& pe!sonall& pe!"itted spectato!s to /o up the platfo!".

+. One last point Ae have to !esolve is on the a1a!d of atto!ne&Gs fees b&

!espondent cou!t. Petitione!-"unicipalit& assails the a1a!d.

nde! pa!a/!aph **, !t. (( of the Civil Code atto!ne&Gs fees and e@penses

of liti/ation "a& be /!anted 1hen the cou!t dee"s it 9ust and e3uitable. In

this case of Vicente #ontanilla, althou/h !espondent appellate cou!t failed to

13


14/14

state the /!ounds fo! a1a!din/ atto!ne&Gs fees, the !eco!ds sho1 ho1eve! that

atte"pts 1e!e "ade b& plaintiffs, no1 p!ivate !espondents, to secu!e an

e@t!a9udicial co"pensation f!o" the "unicipalit&5 that the latte! /ave

p!o!ases and assu!ances of assistance but failed to co"pl&8 and it 1as onl&

ei/ht "onth afte! the incident that the be!eaved fa"il& of Vicente #ontanilla

1as co"pelled to see2 !elief f!o" the cou!ts to ventilate 1hat 1as believed

to be a 9ust cause. 28

Ae hold, the!efo!e, that the!e is no e!!o! co""itted in the /!ant of atto!ne&Gs

fees 1hich afte! all is a "atte! of 9udicial disc!etion. 6he a"ount of

P*,(. is fai! and !easonable.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Ae ##IRM in totothe decision of the Cou!t

of ppeals insofa! as the Municipalit& of Malasi3ui is conce!ned ;B-:*:?,

and Ae absolve the "unicipal councilo!s f!o" liabilit& and SE6 SIDE the

9ud/"ent a/ainst the" ;B-))):?.

Aithout p!onounce"ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED,

14

Documents

torts and damages cases.doc