City of Manila vs.

Genaro Teotico and the Court of Appeals

No. L-23052. January 29, 1968.

FACTS:

Sometime in the evening of January 27, 1958, herein private complainant Genaro
Teotico was in a loading and unloading zone waiting for a jeepney. A jeepney eventually arrived
after five mins. When Teotico was about to board the jeepney, he fell inside an uncovered
manhole. His head hit the rim of the manhole causing his eyeglasses to break and shards of
glass pierced his left eyelid leaving him bloody and could not see well.

Several persons assisted him and brought him to the Philippine General Hospital where
he was treated. He also suffered contusions on several parts of his body and an allergic reaction
to the anti-tetanus injections given to him.

As a result of the injuries he suffered, that prevented him to engage in his work, Teotico
filed a complaint against the City of Manila for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of
Teotico. The trial court decision was also affirmed by the CA upon appeal and the City of Manila
was ordered to pay Teotico damages amounting to P6,750.

Hence, this petition. The City of Manila asserts Section 4 of the Charter of the City of
Manila that states that it is not liable for damages caused by the negligence of the city officers
in enforcing the city charter, and that since the city charter is a special law, it prevails over Art.
2189 of the Civil Code, which is a general law, and that the incident happened on a national
highway.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Manila is liable for damages for the injuries suffered by
Teotico.

RULING:

Yes, the City of Manila is liable for the injuries suffered by Teotico.

Considering the subject matter of the provisions in question, Section 4 of the Charter of
the City of Manila established a general rule as to the City of Manila’s liability for damages or
injury caused to persons by reason of the negligence of its city officers in enforcing the
provisions of the charter.

Article 2189 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, prescribes a province, city, or
municipality’s liability for damages in cases of death or injury that is specifically caused by the
defective condition of roads, streets, and other public works under their control and supervision.

Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila deals with the city’s liability due to
negligence of city officers regardless of the cause of death or injury. Whereas, Art. 2189
specifically deals with liability of a province, city, or municipality due to defective streets.
Therefore, Art. 2189 governs the present petition since it is primarily concerned of the defective
condition of the road where the incident transpired.

The City of Manila also asserted that it is exempt from liability because the incident took
place on a national highway.

However, Art. 2189 does not require that the defective road, street, or other public work
belong to the province, city, or municipality for liability to attach. It only requires that the
province, city, or municipality have the control or supervision over the road or street
complained of.

In this case, the City of Manila have admitted that they have control and supervision of
the road where the petitioner fell when they presented documentary and oral evidence in the
trial court proceedings proving that they have replaced the manhole covers in the area when
they went missing and have been monitoring them.

Therefore, the City of Manila is liable to Teotico for damages.