Liabilities of Municipal Corporation – Exceptions f.
f. Due to the filing of this case, plaintiff has obligated himself to pay his counsel the
GR No. L-23052 (1968) – Teotico v. City of Manila
Concepcion, C.J.
Teotico fell into an uncovered manhole when he was about to board the jeepeney. He
suffered injuries that required hospitalization. He had to stop working for 20 days. He filed
for damages against the City of Manila for its negligence in leaving the manhole uncovered.
The City’s defense is that it was immune under its Charter because it would vigilant in
ensuring that a manhole is covered after every report it receives. However, Teotico argued
that the Civil Code applied because cities may be held liable for injuries arising from the
defective conditions of the streets. SC ruled that the Civil Code should apply because it was
specific in providing for a liability based on defective streets.
DOCTRINE
Section 4 [of Charter of Manila City] refers to liability arising from negligence from failure to
enforce the provisions of the Charter, in general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas
Article 2189 governs liability due to "defective streets," in particular.
FACTS
1. On January 27, 1958, at about 8PM, Genaro Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta
and P. Burgos Ave, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney
to take him down town.
2. After 5 minutes, he hailed a jeepney.
3. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell
inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue.
4. Due to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing
broken pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid and impaired his vision.
5. Several persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole.
6. One of them brought Teotico to PGH, where his injuries were treated, after which he
was taken home.
7. In addition to the lacerated wound in his left upper eyelid, Teotico suffered
a. contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip;
and
b. an abrasion on the right infra-patella region.
8. These injuries and the allergic eruption caused by anti-tetanus injections administered
to him in the hospital, required further medical treatment by a private practitioner who
charged him P1,400.
9. Teotico filed a complaint for damages with the CFI of Manila, against the City of Manila,
its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police.
a. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was a practicing public accountant, a
businessman and a professor in UE.
b. He held responsible positions in various business firms and was associated with
several civic organizations.
c. As a result of the incident, plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his customary
occupation for 20 days and lost a daily income of about P50.
d. He was also subjected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and
friends.
e. He was under constant fear and anxiety for the welfare of his minor children since
he was their only support.
sum of P2,000.
10. In its defense, the City of Manila interposed the following defense:
a. On January 24, 1958, the Storm Drain Section, Office of the City Engineer of
Manila, received a report of a missing cover of a catchbasin at the corner of
P. Burgos and Old Luneta Streets, Manila, but the same was covered on the
same day.
b. It was again reported missing on January 30, 1958, but the said cover was
replaced the next day.
c. The Office of the City Engineer never received any report to the effect that the
catch basin in question was not covered between January 25 and 29, 1968
d. It has always been a policy of the said office that whenever a report is received
from whatever source of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is
immediately attended to, either by immediately replacing the missing cover or
covering the catchbasin with steel matting
e. Because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailing, stealing of iron
catchbasin covers was rampant
f. The Office of the City Engineer has filed complaints in court resulting from
theft of said iron covers
g. In order to prevent such thefts, the city government has changed the position
and layout of catchbasins in the City by constructing them under the sidewalks
with concrete cement covers and openings on the side of the gutter and that
these changes had been undertaken by the city from time to time whenever
funds were available.
11. CFI dismissed the complaint.
12. CA affirmed CFI, but it ordered City of Manila to pay damages of P 6,750.
13. City of Manila is arguing that it is not liable based on RA 409, Section 4 (Charter of
Manila City).
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Whether Section 4 of RA 409, or Article 2189 of the Civil Code is controlling in this case
– CIVIL CODE
a. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 provides:
i. 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 other
officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.
b. Article 2189 of the Civil Code provides:
i. 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
road, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under
their control or supervision.
c. Section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence from failure to enforce the
provisions of the Charter, in general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas
Article 2189 governs liability due to "defective streets," in particular.
d. Since the present action is based upon the alleged defective condition of a road,
said Article 2189 is decisive thereon.
2. Whether the City of Manila may be held liable for damages – YES
a. The City of Manila argued that they should not be held liable because
i. the accident him took place in a national highway and
1
 ii. the City of Manila has not been negligent in connection therewith.
b. SC: the City actually admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control
and supervision because in its answer to Teotico’s complaint, it alleged that the
streets in question were kept in good condition and regularly inspected and the
storm drains and manholes were covered by the City and the officers concerned
and that they have been vigilant and zealous in the performance of their functions
and duties
c. Furthermore, the allegation that the road was a national highway was made for the
first time in the MR for the decision of the CA. This raises a question of fact that
should have been made in the trial court.
d. In addition, under Article 2189, it is not necessary for the liability therein
established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city
or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What it requires is that the
province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street
or road.
e. Sec 18(x) of RA 409 provides that the construction, maintenance and improvement
of national primary, national secondary and national and provincial and city roads
shall be accomplished by the Highway District Engineers and Highway City
Engineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of Public Highways.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition DENIED.

OTHER NOTES

DIGESTER: Sarah (updated by Lulu Querido).