2.

Civil Aeronautics Administration vs CA and Earnest Simke (TEST to determine the

existence of negligence)
Facts:
Ernest Simke, naturalized Filipino citizen and Honorary Consul General of Israel in the
Philippines, slipped over an elevation about 4 inches high at the far end of the viewing
deck/terrace of the airport while waiting for his future son-in-law. He fell on his back, broke his
thigh bone and was operated on for three hours the following day. He then filed an action for
damages against Civil Aeronautics Administration based on quasi-delict in the CFI of Rizal.
Judgment was rendered in favor of private respondent Simke; petitioner appealed to CA; CA
affirmed trial courts decision; Petitioner filed MR and was denied hence review on Certiorari.
CAA contends that the CA gravely erred in finding that the injuries of Simke were due to CAAs
negligence; that the MIA building is dangerous because private respondent tripped over and fell.
CAA also contends that private respondent was guilty of contributory negligence.
ISSUE: (1) WON CAA is liable for quasi-delict
(2)WON SIMKE is guilty of negligence
HELD: (1) YES. RA 776 provides that the CAA, in the discharge of its obligation, is duty bound
to exercise due diligence in overseeing the construction and maintenance of the viewing deck/
terrace of the airport.
With referemce to article 1173 of the civil code, CAAs obligation in maintaining the view deck
requires that it insure the safety of the viewers using it. CAA should have made sure that no
dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the floor of the deck to prevent undue harm to the
public.
(2)NO. The case made reference to PICART VS SMITH (Test to determine existence of
negligence):
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinary and prudent man would have used in the same situation?
If not: GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE
Question as to what constitutes conduct of prudent man: Determined in the light of human
experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case
Reasonable men: Conduct governed by circumstances which are before them or known to them
NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OMNISCIENT OF THE FUTURE
Private respondent could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would befall him,
considering the attendant factual circumstances.
From Largo:
Foreseeability of the harm: Indispensable requirement
SC ruled in this case that actor could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would
befall him;
NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE