Jarco Marketing Corporation vs CA (December 21, 1999)

GR No. 129792
FACTS:
 Jarco Marketing Corporation (petitioner) – owner of Syvel’s Department Store
 Criselda Aguilar and her daughter, Zhieneth (6yrs old) were at the 2 nd floor of Syvel’s Department
Store. Criselda was signing here credit card slip at the payment and verification counter when she
heard a loud thud. She looked behind her and saw Zhieneth lying on the floor pinned by the bulk of
the store’s gift-wrapping counter. Zhieneth was quickly rushed to the Makati Medical Center where
she was operated. Unfortunately, Zhieneth died 14 days after the accident.
 Criselda and her husband (private respondents) demanded upon the petitioner the reimbursement of
the hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses but the latter refused to pay.
 Private respondents filed complaint for damages against the petitioner
 Petitioner denied any liability for the injuries and consequent death of Zhieneth and claimed that
Criselda was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her daughter by allowing her to freely
roam around in a store filled with glassware and appliances.
 RTC: Dismissed private respondents’ complaint; it ruled that the proximate cause of the fall of the
counter on Zhieneth was her act of clinging to it; and it ruled that the counter was not an attractive
nuisance and was situated at the end of the 2nd floor
 CA: Reversed RTC; it ruled that the petitioner was negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous
counter; it declared that the counter was defective, unstable, and dangerous; 2 former employees
already brought the attention of the counter’s risk to the management but the latter ignored it; and
declared Zhieneth was absolutely incapable of negligence/other tort and absolved Criselda of any
negligence.
Jarco Marketing Corporation (petitioner) Zhieneth’s parents
(Private respondents)
- Since the action was based on tort, any finding of - Criselda was not negligent at any time
negligence on the part of private respondents would while inside the store
negate their claim for damages where said negligence
was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.
- Injury: Zhieneth’s death
Proximate cause: Zhieneth’s act of clinging to the
counter
- Criselda had contributory negligence on her daughter’s
accident and should be made accountable for the damage
inflicted on others by their minor children
Issue: Whether/not the death of Zhieneth was attributable to the petitioners for maintaining a defective
counter?

Held: YES.
The SC declared that the death of Zhieneth was no accident and could only be attributed to negligence.

The petitioner and another store supervisor were personally informed of the danger posed by the
unstable counter. Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation nor ensure the safety
of the store’s employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have done.
Hence, petitioners miserably failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father of a family.

As to the negligence imputed to the victim, SC applied the conclusive presumption that favors children
below 9yrs old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. As settled in the jurisprudence, “a
person under 9yrs of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment and is
exempt from criminal liability. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and
required discernment as a condition of liability, a child under 9yrs of age is conclusively
presumed to be incapable of negligence. Thus, the rules is that a child under 9yrs of age
must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.”
As to Criselda’s negligence, SC absolved her from any contributory negligence. At the time her daughter
was pinned down by the counter, she was just foot away from her mother, and the gift-wrapping counter
was just 4 meters away from Criselda. Zhieneth was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioner
would want to argue.

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

Principles:
Accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault/negligence attaches to the defendant. It is a
fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or an
event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. It
occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person
and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or the doing of something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is the failure to observe that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury. The test to determine negligence: “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, he is guilty of negligence.

Accident and negligence are contradictory; one cannot exist with the other.