CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. andSPOUSES EDGARDO L. LIMON and SYLVIA S.

LIMON,
vs.TIMOTHY TAGARIO, assisted by his parents BASILIO TAGORIO and HERMINIA TAGORIO
GR No. 150920, November 25, 2005
FACTS:
Timothy Tagoria was a grade IV student at Marymount School, an academic institution operated and maintained
by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). One afternoon, he found himself locked
inside the boy’s comfort room in Marymount. He started to panic so he banged and kicke
d the door and yelled for help. No help arrived. He then decided to open the window to call for help. As he
opened the window, Timothy went right through and fell down three stories. Timothy was hospitalized and given
medical treatment for serious multiple physical injuries. He, assisted by his parents, filed a civil action against the
CLC, the members of its Board of Directors which includes the Spouses Limon. They claim that the school was
negligent for not installing iron grills at the window of the boy’s comfort room. CLC, in its defense, maintained that
there was nothing defective about the locking mechanism of the door and that the fall of Timothy was not due to
itsfault or negligence. CLC further maintained that it had exercised the due care and diligence of agood father of a
family to ensure the safety, well-being and convenience of its students. The trial court ruled in favor of the
respondents. The respondents proceeded their appeal to the Court of
 Appeals who affirmed the trial court’s ruling in
toto.
ISSUE
:
Whether or not the school was negligent for the boy’s accidental fall.
 
RULING:
YES. In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligenceof the defendant or some other
person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection ofcause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred.In this tort case, respondents contend that CLC failed to provide
precautionary measures to avoidharm and injury to its students in two instances: (1) failure to fix a defective door
knob despitehaving been notified of the problem; and (2) failure to install safety grills on the window
whereTimothy fell from. During trial, it was found that the lock was defective. The architect witnesstestified that he
did not verify if the doorknob at the comfort room was actually put in place. Further,the fact that Timothy fell out
through the window shows that the door could not be opened fromthe inside. That sufficiently points to the fact
that something was wrong with the door, if not thedoor knob, under the principle of
res ipsa loquitor 
. The doctrine of
res ipsa loquitor 
 applies where(1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened
except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary actionor contribution on the part of
the person injured. Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure tosee to it that the doors of their school toilets are
at all times in working condition. The fact that astudent had to go through the window, instead of the door, shows
that something was wrong withthe door. As to the absence of grills on the window, petitioners contend that there
was no suchrequirement under the Building Code. Nevertheless, the fact is that such window, as
petitionersthemselves point out, was approximately 1.5 meters from the floor, so that it was within reach ofa
student who finds the regular exit, the door, not functioning.
ONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA v. SPOUSES EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL
RONQUILLO, et al.

                  Respondent spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo and Noel Benedicto Ronquillo had
not been blessed with a child despite several years of marriage. They thus consulted
petitioner Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician-gynecologist-consultant and chief
of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section at the St. Luke‘s Medical
Center. Dr. Ilao-Oreta advised Eva Marie to undergo a laparoscopic procedure whereby
a laparascope would be inserted through the patient‘s abdominal wall to get a direct
view of her internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her
infertility.

                   The procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to be performed

by Dr. Ilao-Oreta. Eva Marie, accompanied by Noel, checked in at the St. Luke‘s Medical
Center and underwent pre-operative procedures including the administration of
intravenous fluid and enema. However, Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the scheduled
time for the procedure and no prior notice of its cancellation was received. It turned out
that the doctor was on a return flight from Hawaii to, and arrived at 10:00 p.m. of April
5, 1999 in, Manila.

               The Ronquillo spouses filed a complaint against Dr. Ilao-Oreta and the St.
Luke‘s Medical Center for breach of professional and service contract and for damages
before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. They prayed for the award of actual
damages including alleged loss of income of Noel while accompanying his wife to the
hospital, moral damages, exemplary damages, costs of litigation, attorney‘s fees, and
other available reliefs and remedies. The RTC decided in favor of Ronquillo spouses and
awarded Eva Marie actual damages but ruled that the failure of the doctor to arrive on
time was not intentional. It found no adequate proof that Noel had been deprived of any
job contract while attending to his wife in the hospital. The spouses appealed to the
Court of Appeals and found that Dr. Ilao-Oreta grossly negligent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Dr. Ilao-Oreta is guilty of gross negligence for her failure to arrive at the
scheduled time for the procedure

HELD:

It bears noting that when she was scheduling the date of her performance of the
procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta had just gotten married and was preparing for her
honeymoon, and it is of common human knowledge that excitement attends its
preparations. Her negligence could then be partly attributed to human frailty which
rules out its characterization as gross.

Dr. Ilao-Oreta‘s negligence not being gross, Ronquillo spouses are not entitled to
recover moral damages. Neither are the spouses entitled to recover exemplary damages
in the absence of a showing that Dr. Ilao-Oreta acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner, nor to award of attorney‘s fees as, contrary to the
finding of the CA that the spouses “were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to
protect their interest,” the records show that they did not exert enough efforts to settle
the matter before going to court.