3B TORTS Digests

CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. GENERO M. business then prevailing, stealing of iron catch basin
TEOTICO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, covers was rampant.
respondents.
1968-01-29
CA Ruling
G.R.No: L-23052 Ponente: CONCEPCION,
C.J.:
Affirmed said decision, except the City of Manila was
sentenced to pay damages of P6,750.00. Hence, this
Related Article: Tickler: Respondent fell
appeal by the City of Manila. The Court of Appeals
Art. 2189 inside a manhole
applied the Civil Code

Doctrine of the Case Issue/s

. Whether the present case is governed by Section 4 of
Parties – Roles
Genaro Teotico - practicing public accountant, a
businessman and a professor at the University of the
East, who fell inside a manhole.
Facts
At about 8 p.m., Genaro Teotico was within a "loading
and unloading" zone. As he stepped down from the
curb to board a jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell
inside an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or
manhole on P. Burgos Avenue.
Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila):
"The city shall not be liable or held for
damages or injuries to persons or property
arising from the failure of the Mayor, the
Municipal Board, or any other city officer, to
enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any
other law or ordinance, or from negligence of
said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers
while enforcing or attempting to enforce said
provisions."
or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code:

Due to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole "Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
thereof to pierce his left eyelid. Several persons came suffered by, any person by reason of the
to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
One of them brought Teotico to the Philippine General public buildings, and other public works under
Hospital, where his injuries were treated. their control or supervision.“
(Civil Code)
Teotico was a practicing public accountant, a
businessman and a professor at the University of the
Ruling
East. He held responsible positions in various business
firms. As a result of the incident, he was prevented from
Article 2189 of the Civil Code, being of more particular
engaging in his customary occupation for twenty days
application, applies in this case
and lost a daily income of about P50.
Republic Act No. 409 is a special law and the Civil
Teotico filed a complaint for damages against the City
Code a general legislation; but, as regards the subject-
of Manila.
matter of the provisions, Section 4 refers to liability
arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the
RTC Ruling
object thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability
due to defective streets in particular. Since the present
Dismissed the complaint. According to the Office of the
action is based upon the alleged defective condition of
City Engineer of Manila, they never received any report
a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon.
that the catch basin in question was not covered
between and that whenever a report is received of the
Moreover, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not
loss of a catch basin cover, the matter is immediately
necessary for the liability established to attach that the
attended to, either by immediately replacing the
defective roads or streets belong to the province, city
missing cover or covering the catch basin with steel
or municipality from which responsibility is exacted.
matting; that because of the lucrative scrap iron
What said article requires is that the province, city or

[Nicole Deocaris]
 3B TORTS Digests

municipality have either "control or supervision" over

said street or road.

The assertion to the effect that P. Burgos is a national

highway was made, for the first time, in its motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Such assertion raised cannot be set up, for the first
time, on appeal. Further, in its answer to the amended
complaint, the City alleged that "the streets
aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in
good condition, thus, the City had, in effect, admitted
that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and
supervision.

Even if P. Burgos Avenue were a national highway, this

circumstance would not necessarily detract from its
"control or supervision" by the City of Manila, under
Republic Act 409.

Then, again, the determination of whether P. Burgos

Avenue is under the control or supervision of the City
of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence,
in connection with the maintenance of said road, which
were decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative,
is not subject to our review.

Disposition:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be

as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the City of
Manila. It is so ordered.

[Nicole Deocaris]