Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Torts Case Digest 3
Torts Case Digest 3
Torts Case Digest 3
Y
W
III NEGLIGENCE
B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
CIVIL CODE
Art. 2231. n quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS V WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
99 PHL 48 BENGZON; June 30, 1956
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the WCC
FACTS
- A truck driven by Procopio Macunat, belonging to
Marinduque, turned over and hit a coconut tree resulting in the
death of Pedro Mamador and injury to the other laborers.
- Macunat was prosecuted, convicted and was sentenced to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased. He has paid nothing,
however, to the latter.
- Deceased's wife now seeks compensation by Marinduque as
the employer.
ISSUE
1. WON Mamador has a right to compensation by Marinduque
2. WON there was notorious negligence by the deceased for
having violated the employer's prohibition to ride haulage
trucks
HELD
1. YES
- Petitioner alleges that the criminal case sentencing Macunat
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased was a suit for damages
against a third person, thereby having the effect of releasing
the employer from liability.
- The criminal case, however, was not a suit for damages
against third persons because the heirs did not intervene
therein and they have not received the indemnity ordered by
the court.
- At any rate, even if the case was against a third person, the
court already decided in Nava vs. nchausti that criminal
prosection of the "other person" does not affect the liability of
the employer.
- Petitioner also contends that the amicable settlement entered
into by Mamador's widow and Macunat barred the widow's
claim against the employer because she has already elected
one of the remedies.
- This contention cannot be sustained because what the widow
waived was the offender's criminal proscution and not all civil
action for damages.
2. NO
- Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is
not negligence, ordinarily. t couldn't be, because
transportation by truck is not dangerous per se.
- Although the employer prohibited its employees to ride the
haulage trucks, its violation does not constitute negligence per
se, but it may be an evidence of negligence.
- Under the circumstance, however, it cannot be declared
negligence because the proibition had nothing to do with the
personal safety of the riders.
- Notorious negligence means the same as gross negligence
which implies "conscious indifferenece to consequences",
"pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and
probably result in injury".
Disposition Award for compensation by WCC affirmed
C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
1. BURDEN OF PROOF
RULES OF COURT
RULE 131 Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Section 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)
Section 2. onclusive presumptions. The following are instances of
conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord
at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (3a)
Section 3. isputable presumptions. The following presumptions
are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid
the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of
jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like
manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and
passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
before the instrument was overdue and at the place where
the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead
for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening
his succession till after an absence of ten years. f he disappeared after
the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the
division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not
been heard of for four years since the loss of the
vessel or aircraft;
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
%
BATIQUIN V CA (ViIIegas)
258 SCRA 334 DAVDE; July 5, 1996
NATURE: Petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals
FACTS
- Mrs. Villegas submitted to Dr. Batiquin for prenatal care as
the latter's private patient sometime before September 21,
1988. n the morning of September 21, 1988 Dr. Batiquin,
along with other physicians and nurses, performed a caesarian
operation on Mrs. Villegas and successfully delivered the
latter's baby.
- After leaving the hospital, Mrs. Villegas began to suffer
abdominal pains and complained of being feverish. She also
gradually lost her appetite, so she consulted Dr. Batiquin at the
latter's polyclinic who prescribed for her certain medicines.
However, the pains still kept recurring. She then consulted Dr.
Ma. Salud Kho. After examining her, Dr Kho suggested that
Mrs. Villegas submit to another surgery.
- When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas she
found whitish-yellow discharge inside, an ovarian cyst on each
of the left and right ovaries which gave out pus, dirt and pus
behind the uterus, and a piece of rubber material on the right
side of the uterus, embedded on the ovarian cyst. The piece of
rubber appeared to be a part of a rubber glove. This was the
cause of all of the infection of the ovaries and consequently of
all the discomfort suffered by Mrs. Villegas
- The piece of rubber allegedly found was not presented in
court, and Dr. Kho testified that she sent it to a pathologist in
Cebu City for examination. Aside from Dr. Kho's testimony, the
evidence which mentioned the piece of rubber are a Medical
Certificate, a Progress Record, an Anesthesia Record, a
Nurse's Record, and a Physician's Discharge Summary. The
trial court, however, regarded these documentary evidence as
mere hearsay, "there being no showing that the person or
persons who prepared them are deceased or unable to testify
on the facts therein stated
- There was also doubts as to the whereabouts of the piece of
rubber, as 2 versions arose from Dr. Kho's testimony: 1) that it
was sent to the Pathologist in Cebu as testified to in Court by
Dr. Kho and (2) that Dr. Kho threw it away as told by her to
Defendant. The failure of the Plaintiffs to reconcile these two
different versions served only to weaken their claim against
Defendant Batiquin. The trial court ruled in favor of the
defendants. The CA reversed the decision.
ISSUES
Procedural: WON the court can review questions of fact
Substantive: WON Dr. Batiquin is liable
HELD
Procedural: YES
- While the rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a
petition for review on certiorari, there are exceptions, among
which are when the factual findings of the trial court and the
appellate court conflict, when the appealed decision is clearly
contradicted by the evidence on record, or when the appellate
court misapprehended the facts
Substantive
- The focal point of the appeal is Dr. Kho's testimony. There
were inconsistencies within her own testimony, which led to the
different decision of the RTC and CA. The CA was correct in
saying that the trial court erred when it isolated the disputed
portion of Dr. Kho's testimony and did not consider it with
other portions of Dr. Kho's testimony. Also, the phrase relied
upon by the trial court does not negate the fact that Dr. Kho
saw a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas' abdomen,
and that she sent it to a laboratory and then to Cebu City for
examination by a pathologist. Furthermore, Dr. Kho's
knowledge of the piece of rubber could not be based on other
than first hand knowledge for, as she asserted before the trial
court.
- t is also worth noting that the trial court paid heed to Dr.
Batiquin's testimony, that there was neither any tear on Dr.
Batiquin's gloves after the operation nor blood smears on her
hands upon removing her gloves. But the trial court failed to
recognized that these were mere denials or negative
testimonies. Well-settled is the rule that positive testimony is
stronger than negative testimony.
- While the petitioners claim that contradictions and falsities
punctured Dr. Kho's testimony, a reading of the said testimony
reveals no such infirmity and establishes Dr. Kho as a credible
witness. Dr. Kho was frank throughout her turn on the witness
stand. Furthermore, no motive to state any untruth was ever
imputed against Dr. Kho, leaving her trustworthiness
unimpaired. The trial court's following declaration shows that
while it was critical of the lack of care with which Dr. Kho
handled the piece of rubber, it was not prepared to doubt Dr.
Kho's credibility, thus only supporting out appraisal of Dr. Kho's
trustworthiness.
- Considering that we have assessed Dr. Kho to be a credible
witness, her positive testimony prevails over the negative
testimony in favor of the petitioners. As such, the rule of res
ipsa loquitur comes to fore.
- This doctrine is stated thus: "Where the thing which causes
injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant,
and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not happen if those who have the management use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from
want of care."
- n the instant case, all the requisites for recourse to the
doctrine are present. First, the entire proceedings of the
cesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr.
Batiquin. n this light, the private respondents were bereft of
direct evidence as to the actual culprit or the exact cause of the
foreign object finding its way into private respondent Villegas'
body, which, needless to say, does not occur unless through
the intervention of negligence. Second, since aside from the
cesarean section, private respondent Villegas underwent no
other operation which could have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus, it stands to reason that such
could only have been a by-product of the cesarean section
performed by Dr. Batiquin. The petitioners, in this regard,
failed to overcome the presumption of negligence arising from
resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Batiquin is
therefore liable for negligently leaving behind a piece of rubber
in private respondent Villegas' abdomen and for all the adverse
effects thereof
DISPOSITION Decision affirmed
D.M. CONSUNJI V CA
357 SCRA 249 KAPUNAN; April 20, 2001
NATURE
Appeal from CA affirming decision of RTC ordering defendant
D.M. Consunji, nc. to pay damages to plaintiff Maria J. Juego
FACTS
- At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a
construction worker of D. M. Consunji, nc., fell 14 floors from
the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. nvestigation
disclosed that while victim Jose A. Juego together with Jessie
Jaluag and Delso Destajo were performing their work on board
a steel platform with plywood flooring and cable wires attached
to its four corners and hooked at the 5 ton chain block, when
suddenly, the bolt or pin which was merely inserted to connect
the chain block with the platform came loose causing the whole
platform assembly and the victim to fall down to the basement
of the elevator core of the building under construction, save his
2 companions who luckily jumped out for safety.
- On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego's widow, Maria, filed in the RTC
of Pasig a complaint for damages against D.M. Consunji, nc.
S
Y
W
%
S
Y
W
agua. Had the house owner followed the terms of the permit
given him by the city for the construction of his
"media agua, the distance from the wires to the edge of said
"media agua would have been 3ft and 11 3/8 inches.
- The company cannot be expected to be always on the
lookout for any illegal construction which reduces the distance
between its wires and said construction, and to change the
installation of its wires so as to preserve said distance.
- The violation of the permit for the construction was not the
direct cause of the accident. t merely contributed to it. The real
cause of the accident or death was the reckless or negligent
act of Magno himself. t is to be presumed that due to his age
and experience he was qualified to do so. He had training and
experience for the job. He could not have been entirely a
stranger to electric wires and the danger lurking in them.
- To hold the defendant liable in damages for the death of
Magno, such supposed negligence of the company must have
been the proximate and principal cause of the accident.
Disposition The appealed decision of the CA is reversed, and
complaint against the Company dismissed.
BERNARDO V LEGASPI
29 Phil 12 MORELAND; December 23, 1914
NATURE: Appeal from a judgment of CF Manila dismissing
the complaint on the merits filed in an action to recover
damages for injuries
FACTS
- Due to a collision between the respective automobiles of
Bernardo and Legaspi, the former filed an action to recover
damages for injuries sustained by his car which he alleged
were by reason of Legaspi's negligence in causing said
collision.
Legaspi, on the other hand, filed a cross-complaint alleging it
was Bernardo's fault. He also asks for damages.
- The lower court found upon the evidence that both the plaintiff
and the defendant were negligent in handling their automobiles
and that said negligence was of such a character and extent on
the part of both as to prevent either from recovering.
ISSUE
WON the parties may recover damages
HELD
1. NO
- Where two automobiles, going in opposite directions, collide
on turning a street corner, and it appears from the evidence
and is found by the trial court that the drivers thereof were
equally negligent and contributed equally to the principal
occurrence as determining causes thereof, neither can recover
of the other for damages suffered.
BERNAL V HOUSE
54 PHL 327 MALCOLM; January 30, 1930
FACTS
Fortunata Enverso with her daughter Purificacion Bernal
went to Tacloban, Leyte to attend the procession of Holy
Friday.
After the procession, they, accompanied by two other
persons, passed along a public street named Gran Capitan.
The little girl was allowed to get a short distance in advance
of her mother and her friends.
While in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric & ce
Plant, Ltd., an automobile appeared on which frightened the
child. She turned to run, but fell into the street gutter. At that
time there was hot water in this gutter or ditch coming from the
Electric ce Plant of J.V. House.
When the mother and her companions reached the child,
they found her face downward in the hot water.
The girl was taken to the provincial hospital. Despite his
efforts, the child died that same night.
t was certified that the cause of death was "Burns, 3rd
Degree, whole Body", and that the contributory causes were
"Congestion of the Brain and visceras of the chest &
abdomen.
The defense was that the hot water was permitted to flow
down the side of the street Gran Captain with the knowledge
and consent of the authorities; that the cause of death was
other than the hot water; and that in the death the plaintiffs
contributed by their own fault and negligence.
The trial judge, however, after examination of the evidence
presented by the defendants, failed to sustain their theory of
the case, except as to the last mentioned special defense. He
nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the action
because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE
WON the action should be dismissed due to the contributory
negligence of the plaintiffs
HELD: NO
- The death of the child was the result of fault and negligence
in permitting hot water to flow through the public streets, there
to endanger the lives of passers-by who were unfortunately
enough to fall into it
- The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the
principal street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the evening when the
religious procession was held.
- There was nothing abnormal in allowing the child to run along
a few paces in advance of the mother. No one could foresee
the coincidence of an automobile appearing and of a frightened
child running and falling into a ditch filled with hot water.
- The doctrines announced in the much debated case of Rakes
vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. ([1907], 7 Phil., 359), still rule.
Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The
contributory negIigence of the chiId and her mother, if any,
does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest
sense couId onIy resuIt in reduction of the damages.
DISPOSITION Judgment appealed from was in part be
reversed and in the court of origin another judgment was
issued in favor of Fortunata Enverso and against J.V. House
for the amount of P1,000, and for the costs of both instances.
SEPARATE OPINION:ROMUALDEZ [dissent]
- Even taking the finding that the defendant by its negligence
helped to bring about the accident which resulted in the death
of the child Purificacion Bernal, plaintiff, by negligence,
contributed to that most regrettable result.
- Judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
PLDT V CA (SPS ESTEBAN)
178 SCRA 94 REGALADO; September 29, 1989
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review the resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
FACTS
- July 30, 1968 Jeep of Esteban spouses ran over a mound
of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly
undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground
conduit system. The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio
Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left
uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of
any warning light or signs.
- Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs
and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while the
respondent husband suffered cut lips. n addition, the
windshield of the jeep was shattered.
- PLDT, in its answer, denies liability on the contention that the
injuries sustained by respondent spouses were the result of
their own negligence and that the entity which should be held
responsible, if at all, is L.R. Barte and Company, an
independent contractor which undertook the said construction
work.
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
3. FORTUITOUS EVENT
Art. 1174, CC. Except in cases expressly specified by the law,
or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
JUNTILLA V FONTANAR
136 SCRA 624 GUTERREZ JR; May 31, 1985
NATURE: Petition to review the decision of CF of Cebu
FACTS
- Petitioner Roberto Juntilla was sitting a the front seat of a
jeepney (driven by one Berfol Camoro, registered under the
franchise of Clemente Fontanar, but actually owned by
Fernando Banzon) when its right rear tire exploded causing it
to turn turtle. Plaintiff was thrown out of the vehicle and lost
consciousness upon landing on the ground. When he came
back to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on
his right palm, injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his
back and also found this "Omega wrist watch was lost. He
went to Danao city and upon arrival there he entered the City
Hospital to attend to his injuries and asked his father-in-law to
go to site of the accident to look for his watch but the watch
was nowhere to be found.
- Petitioner then filed a civil case for breach of contract with
damages before the City Court of Cebu against Fontanar,
Banzon, and Camoro, who filed their answer, alleging that the
accident was beyond their control taking into account that the
tire that exploded was newly bought and slightly used at the
time it blew up.
- City Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. The
respondents then appealed to the CF of Cebu, which reversed
the judgment upon a finding that the accident in question was
due to a fortuitous event. Petitioner's MFR was denied, hence
this appeal.
ISSUES
1. WON the CF erred in absolving the carrier from any liability
upon a finding that the tire blow out is a fortuitous event
2. WON the accident was due to a fortuitous event
HELD
1. YES
- The CF relied on the ruling of the CA in #odriguez v #ed
Line Transportation o., that "a tire blow-out does not
constitute negligence unless the tire was already old and
should not have been used at all. This conclusion is based on
a misapprehension of overall facts. n La Mallorca and
Pampanga Bus o. v e Jesus, et al, We held that, " not only
are the rulings of the CA in #odriguez v #ed Line Trans. o.
not binding on this Court but they were also based on
considerations quite different from those that obtain in the case
at bar. n the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence
on the part of the respondents. The records show that the
passenger jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch
immediately after its right rear tire exploded. The evidence
shows that the passenger jeepney was running at a very fast
speed before the accident. We agree with the observation of
the petitioner that a public utility jeep running at a regular and
safe speed will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire
blows up. There is also evidence to show that the passenger
jeepney was overloaded at the time of the accident. The
petitioner stated that there were 3 passengers in the front seat
and 14 in the rear.
- While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good
because the grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone
does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event. No
evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to
adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken by the
jeepney driver to compensate for any conditions liable to cause
accidents. The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have been
caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled
by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at
the time of the accident.
2. NO
Ratio A caso fortuito (fortuitous event) presents the following
essential characteristics:
1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or
of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must
be independent of the human will
2. t must be impossible to foresee the even which constitutes
the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible
to avoid
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
4. The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in
the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor
Reasoning
- n the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence was not independent of the human will.
The accident was caused either through the negligence of the
driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common
carriers should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles
not to exceed safe and legal speed limits and to know the
correct measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the
safety of passengers at all times.
- Relative to the contingency of mechanical defects, we held in
ecesito, et al. v. Paras, et al, that: "The preponderance of
authority is in favor of the doctrine that a passenger is entitled
to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a
defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer,
whenever it appears that the defect would have been
discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care
which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it. with
regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. For
the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered
as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as
regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to
this theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve
the carrier from liability.
- t is sufficient to reiterate that the source of a common
carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by
entering into the said contract, it binds itself to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,
with a due regard for all the circumstances. The records show
that this obligation was not met by the respondents.
Disposition Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET
ASDE. Decision of City Court is RENSTATED
HERNANDEZ V COMMISSION ON AUDIT
179 SCRA 39 CRUZ; November 6, 1989
NATURE: A petition to reverse Commission on Audit's denial
of relief
FACTS
- Teodoro M. Hernandez was the officer-in-charge and special
disbursing officer of the Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine
Tourism Authority in Cavite. He went to the main office in
Manila to encash 2 checks covering the wages of the
employees and the operating expenses of the Project. He
estimated that the money would be available by 10am and that
he would be back in Ternate by about 2pm of the same day.
However, the processing of the checks was completed only at
3pm. The petitioner decided nevertheless to encash them
because the Project employees would be waiting for their pay
the following day. And so, he collected the cash value of the
checks. The petitioner had two choices: (1) return to Cavite
that same afternoon and arrive there in the early evening; or
(2) take the money with him to his house in Marilao, Bulacan,
S
Y
W
spend the night there, and leave for Ternate the following
morning. He opted for the second, thinking it the safer one. He
took a passenger jeep bound for his house in Bulacan. t was
while the vehicle was along EDSA that two persons with knives
boarded and forcibly took the money he was carrying.
Hernandez, after the initial shock, immediately followed in
desperate pursuit. He caught up with Virgilio Alvarez and
overcame him after a scuffle. Alvarez was subsequently
charged with robbery and pleaded guilty. But the hold-upper
who escaped is still at large and the stolen money he took with
him has not been recovered.
- the petitioner, invoking the foregoing facts, filed a request for
relief from money accountability under Section 638 of the
Revised Administrative Code.
1
- however, the Commission on Audit, through then Chairman
Francisco S. Tantuico, jr. denied the petitioner's request,
observing inter alia:
In the instant case, the loss of the P10,175.00 under the
accountability of Mr. Hernandez can be attributed to his
negligence because had he brought the cash proceeds of the
checks (replenishment fund) to the Beach Park in Ternate
immediately after encashment for safekeeping in his office,
which is the normal procedure in the handling of public funds,
the loss of said cash thru robbery could have been aborted.
- n the petition at bar, Hernandez claims that the respondent
COA acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying him relief
and in holding him negligent for the loss of the stolen money.
He avers he has done only what any reasonable man would
have done and shouId not be heId accountabIe for a
fortuitous event over which he had no controI.
- On his decision to take the money home that afternoon
instead of returning directly to Ternate, he says that the first
course was more prudent as he saw it, if only because his
home in Marilao was much nearer than his office in Ternate;
that the likelihood of robbery during the time in question was
stronger in Ternate than in Marilao; that what happened was a
fortuitous event that could not have reasonably been foreseen,
especially on that busy highway.
- then Solicitor-General argued that Hernandez was negligent
in the safekeeping of the stolen funds. Later, however, his
successor sided with the petitioner, agreeing that Hernandez
had not committed any negligence or, assuming he was guilty
of contributory negligence, had made up for it with his efforts to
retrieve the money and his capture of one of the robbers, who
was eventually convicted.
- COA insists that the petitioner should not be relieved from his
money accountability because it was his own negligence that
led to the loss of the cash he had sought to take not to Ternate
but to Marilao. ts contention is that the petitioner should not
have encashed the checks as the hour was already late and he
knew he could not return to Ternate before nightfall. The memo
concludes that in deciding to take the money with him to
Marilao after imprudently withdrawing it from the main office,
the petitioner was assuming a risk from which he cannot now
be excused after the loss of the money as a result of the
robbery to which it was unreasonably exposed.
ISSUE
WON petitioner's acts are so tainted with negligence or
recklessness as to justify the denial of the petitioner's request
for relief from accountability for the stolen money
HELD
NO
1
3ecl|or 38. 0reo|r lor |oss ooourr|n |n rrans|r or oue ro oasua|ry hor|oe ro /uo|ror. wrer a |oss ol
goverrrerl lurds or properly occurs Wr||e lre sare |s |r lrars|l or |s caused oy l|re, lrell, or olrer casua|ly, lre
oll|cer accourlao|e lrerelor or rav|rg cuslody lrereol sra|| |rred|ale|y rol|ly lre Aud|lor 0erera|, or lre prov|rc|a|
aud|lor, accord|rg as a raller |s W|lr|r lre or|g|ra| jur|sd|cl|or ol lre ore or lre olrer, ard W|lr|r lr|rly days or sucr
|orger per|od as lre Aud|lor, or prov|rc|a| aud|lor, ray |r lre parl|cu|ar case a||oW, sra|| preserl r|s app||cal|or lor
re||el, W|lr lre ava||ao|e ev|derce |r supporl lrereol. Ar oll|cer Wro la||s lo corp|y W|lr lr|s requ|rererl sra|| rol oe
re||eved ol ||ao|||ly or a||oWed cred|l lor ary sucr |oss |r lre sell|ererl ol r|s accourls.
- This was undoubtedly a fortuitous event covered by the said
provisions, something that could not have been reasonably
foreseen although it could have happened, and did. For most
of us, all we can rely on is a reasoned conjecture of what might
happen, based on common sense and our own experiences, or
our intuition, if you will, and without any mystic ability to peer
into the future. So it was with the petitioner.
- t is true that the petitioner miscalculated, but the Court feels
he should not be blamed for that. The decision he made
seemed logical at that time and was one that could be
expected of a reasonable and prudent person.
Disposition The petitioner is entitled to be relieved from
accountability for the money forcibly taken from him.
ACCORDNGLY, the petition is GRANTED.
GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION V CHATTO
210 SCRA 18 DAVDE JR; June 16, 1992
NATURE: Petition for Review
FACTS
- n the afternoon of June 4, 1982 Gloria E. Chatto, and her 15-
year old daughter, Lina Delza E. Chatto went to see the movie
"Mother Dear" at Superama theater, owned by defendant
Gotesco nvestment Corporation. They bought balcony tickets
but even then were unable to find seats considering the
number of people patronizing the movie. Hardly ten (10)
minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its balcony
collapsed. The theater was plunged into darkness and
pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, plaintiffs managed
to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to
get out to the street they walked the nearby FEU Hospital
where they were confined and treated for one (1) day.
- The next day, they transferred to the UST hospital. Plaintiff
Gloria Chatto was treated in said hospital from June 5 to June
19 and plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto from June 5 to 11. Per
Medico Legal Certificate (Exh, "C") issued by Dr. Ernesto G.
Brion, plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto suffered the following injuries:
- Defendant tried to avoid liability by alleging that the collapse
of the ceiling of its theater was done due to force majeure. t
maintained that its theater did not suffer from any structural or
construction defect.
ISSUES
1. WON Jesus Lim Ong's investigation maybe given weight in
the trial
2. WON the collapse was due to force majeure
HELD
1. NO
- there was no authoritative investigation conducted by
impartial civil and structural engineers on the cause of the
collapse of the theater's ceiling, Jesus Lim Ong is not an
engineer, He is a graduate of architecture from the St. Louie
University in Baguio City. t does not appear he has passed the
government examination for architects. n fine, the ignorance of
Mr. Ong about the cause of the collapse of the ceiling of their
theater cannot be equated, as an act, of God. To sustain that
proposition is to introduce sacrilege in our jurisprudence.
2. NO
- Petitioner's claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the
theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not even
founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong,
admitted that "he could not give any reason why the ceiling
collapsed." Having interposed it as a defense, it had the
burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force
majeure. t could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr.
Ong could not offer any explanation does not imply force
majeure. Petitioner could have easily discovered the cause of
the collapse if indeed it were due to force majeure. To Our
mind, the real reason why Mr. Ong could not explain the cause
or reason is that either he did not actually conduct the
investigation or that he is, as the respondent Court impliedly
S
Y
W
S
Y
W
S
Y
W