You are on page 1of 3

3.

PARTICULAR ACT OF NEGLIGENCE latter assumed sole responsibility for damages which may be
suffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it.
a. PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
The City of Manila also argues that under the Revised Charter
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for of Manila, it “shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the
Municipal Board, or any other City Officer, to enforce the
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from
public buildings, and other public works under their control or
negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or any other officers
supervision. (n) while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.”

(City of Manila vs. Teotico) Issue: Whether the City of Manila is liable for the injuries
suffered by the petitioner despite the contract and the Revised
Facts: On January 27, 1958, Teotico was at the corner of the Charter of Manila.
Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and
unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped down Held: Yes.
from the curb to board the jeepney he hailed, and took a few
steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or 1. The Revised Charter of Manila establishes a general rule
manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, Teotico suffered regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages or injury
injuries. Teotico filed with the CFI Mla complaint against the City to persons or property arising from the failure of city officers" to
enforce the provisions of said Act, "or any other law or ordinance
which dismissed the same. On appeal, CA sentenced the City
or from negligence" of the City "Mayor, Municipal Board, or other
of Manila to pay damages. officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."

Issue: WON the City of Manila have control or supervision over On the other hand, Art. 2189 of the Civil Code provides that
P. Burgos Ave making it responsible for the damages suffered “Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages
by Teotico. for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings
Ruling: Decision affirmed. and other public works under their control or supervision.”

In its answer to the complaint, the City, alleged that "the streets The said article constitutes a particular prescription making
aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good "provinces, cities and municipalities ... liable for damages for the
condition…and manholes thereof covered by the defendant City death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason" —
specifically — "of the defective condition of roads, streets,
and the officers concerned…" Thus, the City had, in effect,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and
control or supervision." In other words the Revised Charter of
supervision. Manila refers to liability arising from negligence, in general,
regardless of the object, thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil
Under Article 2189 CC, it is not necessary for the liability therein Code governs liability due to "defective streets, public buildings
established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong and other public works" in particular and is therefore decisive on
to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is this specific case.
exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or
municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street Under article 2189, it is not necessary for the liability therein
or road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were, therefore, a national established to attach, that the defective public works belong to
highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is
the City's "control or supervision." exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or
municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public
building in question.
(Jimenez vs. City of Manila)
2. The City of Manila, per the contract, remained in control of
Facts Asiatic, hence the former must be held liable for petitioner’s
injuries.
Petitioner Bernardino Jimenez bought bagoong in the Sta. Ana
Public Market on a rainy day. It was flooded by ankle-deep and The fact of supervision and control of the City over subject public
dirty rainwater. When petitioner turned around, he stepped on market was admitted by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing in his letter to
an uncovered drainange opening, causing a 4-inch rusty nail to Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata.
penetrate his leg. Petitioner fell sick and was unable to supervise
his bus business for a long time. He sued the City of Manila and In fact, the City of Manila employed a market master for the Sta.
Asiatic Integrated Corp. as administrator of the said public Ana Public Market whose primary duty is to take direct
market. The trial court sentenced the City of Manila and Asiatic supervision and control of that particular market, more
solidarily liable for damages. On appeal, the CA modified and specifically, to check the safety of the place for the public.
held that only Asiatic is liable. Hence this petition.
3. On defense:
HELD—City of Manila liable under article 2189 of the Civil Code.
“As a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-
Argument delict, one must have exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family. (Art. 1173 of the Civil Code).
The City of Manila argues that it cannot be held liable because
under the Management and Operating Contract with Asiatic, the
“There is no argument that it is the duty of the City of a. [SAN JUAN] San Juan tried to defend itself by citing
Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market Section 149(1)(z) of BP 337 (the LGC of 1983) and Section
reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their 8, Ordinance 82-01.
marketing needs. i. Using Sec. 149, San Juan tried arguing that it is only
responsible for municipal roads, Santolan, being a
“While it may be conceded that the fulfillment of such national road is therefore beyond its responsibility.
duties is extremely difficult during storms and floods, it must ii. San Juan also contended that the aforesaid ordinance,
however, be admitted that ordinary precautions could have been only the project engineer of KC and MWSS can be held
taken during good weather to minimize the dangers to life and liable for the same accident.
limb under those difficult circumstances.
b. [SC] San Juan is liable. Article 2189 of the Civil Code states
“For instance, the drainage hole could have been that it is sufficient that a province, city or municipality has
placed under the stalls instead of on the passage ways. Even control of a road for it to be liable for torts caused by the
more important is the fact, that the City should have seen to it same.
that the openings were covered. Sadly, the evidence indicates i. San Juan's argument that per Section 149 of LGC 1983
that long before petitioner fell into the opening, it was already it has only control or supervision over municipal roads
uncovered, and five (5) months after the incident happened, the is erroneous. Nowhere in this section is its control or
opening was still uncovered. Moreover, while there are findings supervision modified by the term "municipal road".
that during floods the vendors remove the iron grills to hasten Neither can it be inferred that the same provision only
the flow of water, there is no showing that such practice has ever applies to activities to be performed in municipal roads.
been prohibited, much less penalized by the City of Manila. ii. The municipality's liability for injuries caused by its
Neither was it shown that any sign had been placed thereabouts failure to regulate the drilling and excavation of the
to warn passersby of the impending danger. ground for the laying of gas, water, sewer, and other
pipes, attaches regardless of whether the drilling or
“To recapitulate, it appears evident that the City of excavation is made on a national or municipal road, for
Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the as long as the same is within its territorial jurisdiction.
Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and iii. San Juan's use of Section 8 of Ordinance 82-01 also
supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tortfeasor does not hold water. Such Ordinance makes the
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. excavator liable for injury or death or damages caused
by non-completion of works or failure to implement
“Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no precautionary measures. However, nowhere in said
openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that they Ordinance does it state that municipalities in Metro
were adequately covered. Had the opening been covered, Manila are exempt from liabilities caused by their own
petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of negligent acts. Therefore, nothing prevents the
the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered, municipality from being liable by the application of
the City is therefore liable for the injury suffered by the petitioner. other laws.

“Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated b. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE


Corporation being joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable under
Article 2194 of the Civil Code.” Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have,
(Municipality of San Juan vs. CA) by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
MWSS entered into a contract for water service connections with found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
KC Waterworks System Construction ("KC"). Part of this project least twice within the next preceding two months.
was to excavate a portion of the corner of M. Paterno and
Santolan Road in San Juan (a national road). By the end of the If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article
day, only ¾ of the job was finished. Between 10:00 to 11:00 PM 2180 are applicable. (n)
that same day, Priscilla Chan was driving her car with a speed
of 30 KPH on the right side of Santolan Road, towards (Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai)
Pinaglabanan, San Juan. With her in the car was private
respondent Asst. City Prosec. Laura Biglang-awa. It was raining, (Gelisan vs Alday)
and the road was flooded. Suddenly, the left front wheel of the
car fell on a manhole which the KC workers excavated earlier. (Gaid vs. People)
Biglang-awa fractured her humerus (bone extending from
shoulder to elbow) on her right arm due to this. Hence, she filed c. PROPRIETOR/OWNER OF BUILDING OR
before the RTC a complaint for damages against MWSS, KC, STRUCTURE OR THING
the Municipality of San Juan as well as a number of San Juan
municipal officials. The RTC ruled in favor of Biglang-awa and Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
held MWSS and the Municipality of San Juan solidarily liable to demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
her. On appeal, such decision was upheld by the CA and the for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
SC.
xxxxx
ISSUE: WON petitioner Municipality of San Juan is liable for the
injury sustained by Biglang-awa. – YES, SAN JUAN IS LIABLE. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in
the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or
on the occasion of their functions. (Cang vs. Cullen)

Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible g. DOCTORS


for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907) (Bondoc vs. Mantala)

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages B. GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR REASONABLE
caused: PRUDENT MAN

(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care C. GENERAL STANDARD OF CARE (meaning)
of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate 1. NCC, ART. 1173
place;
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
property; obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph
if not caused by force majeure; 2, shall apply.

(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
place. (1908) father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles (Wright vs. Manila Electric Railroad)
should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned
in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed (Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Company)
only against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (Arada vs. CA)
(1909)
(Cruz vs. CA)
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or (Canlas vs Asian Savings Bank)
falling from the same. (1910)
(Anonuevo vs. CA)
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any What are the attributes of a “REASONABLE PERSON”
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
(1101) The “Captain of the Ship Doctrine”

(US vs. Zabala) (Ramos vs. CA)

2. EMERGENCY RULE OR SUDDEN PERIL DOCTRINE

(YHT Realty Corporation vs. CA) (Marikina Autoline Transport Corporation vs. People)

3. FACTORS AFFECTING ITS APPLICATION

d. HEAD OF FAMILY (57A Am Jur 2d, Sec 900)

Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part


thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (1910)

e. ATTORNEYS

(90 ALR4th 1033)

(Isaac vs. Mendoza)

f. EMPLOYERS