Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Screen Shot 2021-02-13 at 10.45.12 AM
Screen Shot 2021-02-13 at 10.45.12 AM
Other issues:
3) As to the lack of ventilation pipe in the toilet, which Petitioners allege emphasize the negligence of the
public respondent, the court held that theirs is not an expert witness. On the other hand, Engr Alindada
testified that the sanitary plan would not have been approved unless it is in conformance with sanitary
requirements (ventilation pipe need not be constructed separately/outside the building, but could also be
embodied in the hollow blocks).
4) As to the lack of warning signs, toilets and septic tanks are not nuisance per se which the Civil Code
necessitates warning signs for.
5) Court also held that there was no contractual relationship whatsoever between the victims and
the public respondent.
DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 1990 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.