Fernando v. CAI G.R No. 92087 1 May 8, 1992 1 madialdea, J.

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA.

Plaintiffs/Appellants: Sofia Fernando (in her behalf and as legal guardian of her minor children, Alberto and
Roberto); Anita Garcia; Nicolas Liagoso; Rosalia Bertulano (in her behalf and as legal guardian of her
minor children, Eduardo, Rolando, Daniel, and Jocelyn); Primitive Fajardo (in her behalf and as legal
guardian of her minor children. Gilbert, Glen, Jocelyn, and Joselito); and Emeteria Liagoso (in her
behalf and as guardian ad litem of her minor grandchildren, Noel, Genevieve, and Gerry)
Defendants/Appellee: Hon. Court of Appeals; and Gty of Davao
TOPIC Torts > Basic Elements > Causal Relationship Between Act/Omission and Injury > Plaintiff's Own Conduct
Caused the Harm
SUMMARY Public Respondent City of Davao put out a bid to re-empty the septic tank in Agdao. On Nov 1975, one of
the losing bidders, together with 4 others, were found dead inside the almost-empty tank. It was presumed that they
opened the tank and cleaned it, without knowledge or authority of the public respondent. The cause of death is
inhalation of toxic gas. The heirs of the victims, the petitioners in this case, sought to recover from the respondent,
alleging negligence on the latter's part which they claim is the proximate death of the 5 victims. Court ruled in favor
of respondent, holding that the latter was compliant to the safety requirements for sanitation. Gas could not have
leaked from the tank because it was air-tight, unless somebody opens it. The act of the victims of opening the tank
and attempting to re-empty it is the proximate cause of their death.

To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the
relation between the omission and the damage. He must prove that the defendant's negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his iniury But, where the victim contributes to the principal occurrence, as
one of its determining factors, he cannot recover Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, be contributes
only to his own iniury, he may recover less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

FACTS
 Market master Bibiano Morta filed a requisition request to re-empty the septic tank in Agdao.
Because of this, an invitation to bid was issued, which Feliciano Bascon won.
oOn Nov 22, 1975, bidder Aurelio Bertulano was found dead inside the tank with 4 others (Joselito Garcia,
William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando, and Jose Fajardo, Jr.).
oCause of death: asphyxia caused by diminution of oxygen supply in the body. Their lungs burst due to their
intake of toxic gas produced from the waste matter inside the tank.
oSince the tank was found almost empty, it was presumed that the victims entered the tank to re-empty it,
without knowledge and consent of the market master.
 Petitioners (heirs of the 5 deceased) sued the Respondent (City of Davao) for the deaths, faulting
the government for failing to clean the tank for 19 years, resulting in an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide
gas which killed the 5 laborers. They also alleged that the fault is compounded by the absence of warning signs
indicating the existence of danger and because Respondent exerted no efforts to neutralize the harm.
oPetitioners aver that it was Respondent's gross negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatal
incident that led to the deaths.
 RTC ruled in favor Respondents, dismissing the complaint. CA initially ruled in favor of Petitioners,
ordering Respondents to pay Petitioners. But on motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself and ruled
in favor of Respondents, holding them not liable to the Petitioners.

ISSUE: WON Respondent City of Davao is guilty of negligence, such that will make them liable to the Petitioners? —
NO
[Jump to issue #2 for the topical issue]

1) WON there was negligence? — NO

vNegligence: failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care ,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.
vTest: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
+What would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must always be determined in the
light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case.