You are on page 1of 4

Laudencio Torio, Guillermo Evangelista, MAnuel de Guzman, Alfonso R. MAgsanoc...

the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed Resolution No. 159 whereby "it
resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration on January 21, 22, and 23,
1959." Resolution No. 182 was also passed creating the "1959 Malasiqui 'Town Fiesta Executive Committee"
which in turn organized a sub-committee on entertainment and stage,
with Jose Macaraeg as Chairman. the council appropriated the amount of P100.00 for the construction of 2
stages, one for the "zarzuela" and another for the cancionan. The "zarzuela"
entitled "Midas Extravaganza" was donated by an association of Malasiqui employees of the
Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan, Rizal. The troupe arrived in the evening of January 22
for the performance and one of the members of the group was Vicente Fontanilla. The program
started at about 10:15 o'clock that evening with some speeches, and many persons went up the
stage. The "zarzuela" then began but before the dramatic part of the play was reached, the
stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the stage was pinned underneath. Fontanilia was
taken to tile San Carlos General Hospital where he died in the afternoon of the following day.
The heirs of Vicente Fontanilia filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila
on September 11, 1959 to recover damages. Answering the complaint defendant municipality
invoked inter alia the principal defense that as a legally and duly organized public corporation it performs
sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental functions from which
no liability can arise to answer for the negligence of any of its agents.
W/N the celebration of a town fiesta is an exercise of a municipality's governmental or public
function or a private or proprietary character.
We hold that the town fiesta in 1959 by the municipality of Malasiqui Pangasinan was an
exercise of a private or proprietary function of the municipality.
Section 2282 of the Chatter on Municipal Law of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Section 2282. Celebration of fiesta. fiesta may be held in each municipality not
oftener than once a year upon a date fixed by the municipal council A fiesta s not
be held upon any other date than that lawfully fixed therefor, except when, for
weighty reasons, such as typhoons, foundations, earthquakes, epidemics, or
other public ties, the fiesta cannot be hold in the date fixed in which case it may
be held at a later date in the same year, by resolution of the council.
This provision simply gives authority to the municipality to accelebrate a yearly fiesta but it does
not impose upon it a duty to observe one. Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is to commemorate a religious or
historical event of the town is in essence an act for the special
benefit of the community and not for the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of
a policy of the state. The mere fact that the celebration, as claimed was not to secure profit or
gain but merely to provide entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test. For
instance, the maintenance of parks is not a source of income for the nonetheless it is private undertaking as
distinguished from the maintenance of public schools, jails, and the like which
are for public service.There can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determining the true nature of an
undertaking or function of a municipality; the surrounding circumstances of a particular case are
to be considered and will be decisive. The basic element, however beneficial to the public the
undertaking may be, is that it is governmental in essence, otherwise. the function becomes
private or proprietary in character. Easily, no governmental or public policy of the state is involved in the
celebration of a town fiesta

Department of public services labor unions vs the city of manila

the petitioning union is composed of employees and laborers of the department of Public Services of
the City of Manila whose responsible mainly of the care and custody and cleaning of all public
buildings including markets and slaughterhouses and
buildings rented for city purposes, public toilets,collection and disposal of garbage within the city. The
Union filed a petition for enforcement of Ra 1880 which reduces the working days from 7 days to 5
days and for recovery of overtime compensation.
WON the petitioner is entitled to avail the eight hour policy under RA 1880 and overtime
No, the plaintiff is not entitled to avail both.
Under Section 562 of the Revised Administration Code, provides that the legal number of hours in
every branch of the government service as well as GOCC S shall be 8 hours a day for 5 days a
week.. except those ..." for school, courts, hospital and health clinics or where exigencies of the
services so require.
In this case, the nature of the work of the members of the petitioning union falls under "where the
exigencies of the service. Indeed if the number of their work days be reduced to 5 instead 7 public
health and sanitation would be undermined and endangered by the non collection of garbage and
other refuse matters. Regarding the petitioner s claim for overtime compensation, since the members
of the petitioning union are government employees appointed under Civil Service Law and their salary
and wages are fixed by law or ordinance, they have no right to overtime compensation for work
required of them in the interest of the service beyond the number of days and hours prescribed by RA
1880. however, the city government may grant its employees overtime compensation but the granting
of such is a matter of administrative policy that is discretionary and dependent upon the city s
financial condition.
G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991
BANIA, respondents.
A collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot and
owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg
and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La
Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano
Bania Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four others suffered varying degrees of physical
The private respondents instituted a complaint for damages against the Estate of
Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, respectively, of the passenger jeepney, However, the
aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of
petitioner. Thereafter, the case was subsequently transferred
to Branch IV, presided over by respondent judge. The private respondents amended the complaint wherein the
petitioner and its regular employee, Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants. Petitioner
filed its answer and raised affirmative defenses such as lack
of cause of action, non-suability of the State, prescription of cause of action and the negligence

of the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision.
Whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee.
Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, the test of
liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is
performing governmental or proprietary functions. As emphasized in the case of Torio vs. Fontanilla (G. R. No.
L-29993, October 23, 1978. 85 SCRA 599, 606), the
distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of determining the liability of the municipality for the
acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the
regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed
pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, We rule that the
driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office.
After a careful examination of existing laws and jurisprudence, We arrive at the conclusion that
the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was
then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Hence, the death of the passenger
tragic and deplorable though it may be imposed on the municipality no duty to pay monetary compensation
City of Manila vs. Teotico
Facts: Teotico fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue as
a result of which he suffered injuries. He filed a complaint for damages against the City of Manila, its
mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. The issue is whether the
present case is governed by Sec.4 of Rep. Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) reading: 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, or by Art 2189 of the Civil Code which provides:
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
by , any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and
other public works under their control or supervision.
Held: The Court of Appeals applied the Civil Code correctly. Art 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a
particular prescription making provinces, cities and municipalities x x x liable for damages for the
death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason specifically of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. In
other words said Sec. 4 refers to liability arising from negligence in general regardless of the object
thereof, whereas Art. 2189 governs liability due to defective condition of a road, said Art. 2189 is
decisive thereon.
The City of Manila was ordered to pay damages in the aggregate sum of P6,750.00.
Bengzon vs the province of Pangasinan
Juan Bengzon s house which is made of light materials was situated adjacent to a pumping station
and open reservoir for the storage of water. The plaintiff complains of noise and vibrations and in
some instances, smoke coming out of the chimney. The
plaintiff demanded indemnification for the value of his house and lot so that he might move his family
to another location. The trial court denied his demand on the ground of laches.

WON Bengzon is entitled to indemnification

yes. Bengzon is entitled to be indemnified.
Under sec 24 of RA 7160, Local government units are not exempted from liability for death or injury to
persons or damage to property.
In this case, the construction and operation of the pumping station in such close proximity to
Bengzon's residence has rendered the same practically uninhabitable without exposing to risk the
comfort, health and in case of fire, even the lives of the plaintiff and his family. under the
circumstances, the maintenance of the nuisance is practically tantamount to expropriation.