17. Jimenez vs. City of Manila
Teotico:
G.R. No. 71049 May 29, 1987
FACTS:
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the decision of IAC
Aug. 15, 1974 - Jimenez went to the public market (Sta. Ana Public Market)
with his neighbors to buy bagoong. It was flooded with ankle deep
rainwater.
o He stepped on an uncovered opening (cannot be seen because of
dirty rainwater) with a dirty and rusty, four-inch nail to pierce his
left leg. It penetrated about one and a half inches.
o First aid was administered to him in a nearby drug store.
He had fever so he sought the aid of a doctor and medicine was
administered to him. Despite this, his leg swelled. He was taken to Veterans
Memorial Hospital. He was confined for 20 days.
Upon discharge, he had to walk with crutches for 15 days. This prevented
him from attending to his business (school bus operator). He had to pay
another person 900 pesos to take care of his business.
He sued City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation (in charge of the
administration of the market under a Management and Operating contract)
for Damages.
o Lower court: DISMISSED the complaint for lack of sufficient
evidence. In favor of Asiatic and City of Manila.
o IAC: Held Asiatic LIABLE but ABSOLVED the City of Manila.
ISSUE: W/N City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic for the
injuries Jimenez suffered
HELD: YES Despite the contract with Asiatic, the public market is still under the
control of City of Manila.
City of Manilas contentions:
It cannot be held liable for the injuries sustained by the petitioner because
under the Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic assumed all
responsibility for damages which may be suffered by third persons for any
cause attributable to it.
Also, Article 1, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 as amended (Revised
Charter of Manila) provides: The City shall not be liable or held for damages
or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the
Municipal Board, or any other City Officer, to enforce the provisions of this
chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence of said Mayor,
Municipal Board, or any other officers while enforcing or attempting to
enforce said provisions.
In the case of City of Manila vs.
Republic Act No. 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the
City of Manila for "damages or injury to persons or property arising from the
failure of city officers" to enforce the provisions of said Act, "or any other
law or ordinance or from negligence" of the City "Mayor, Municipal Board,
or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."
On the other hand, Art. 2189 CC establishes that: Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or
supervision.
In other words, Art. 1, sec. 4, R.A. No. 409 refers to liability arising from
negligence, in general, regardless of the object, thereof, while Art. 2189 CC
governs liability due to "defective streets, public buildings and other public
works" in particular and is therefore decisive on this specific case.
o Therefore, making City of Manila liable because the public market
remained under its control.
Evidence that City of Manila has control over the public market: Admitted in
the letter of Mayor Bagatsing to Secretary of Finance Virata, City of Manila
employed a market master for the said public market
Defense against a quasi-delict Defendant should have exercised diligence
of a good father City of Manila did NOT in this case.
Unimportant stuff: City of Manila attributed negligence to Jimenez He should not
have gone to the market when there is a storm UNTENABLE
Damages granted to Jimenez:
Actual medical expenses 221.90
For operation of his school bus business 900
Moral damages due to pain, sufferings and sleepless nights 20000
Attorneys fees - 10000