Jimenez vs City of Manila and IAC (Civil Law)

BERNARDINO JIMENEZ
vs.
CITY OF MANILA and IAC

--- “for the love of bagoong”

--- For the liability under Article 2189 of the Civil Code to attach, it is not necessary that the defective public works belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public building in question.

--- Exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family is a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-delict.

G.R. No. 71049 : May 29, 1987

PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

In the morning of August 15, 1974 he, together with his neighbors, went to Sta. Ana public market to buy "bagoong" at the time when the public market was flooded with ankle deep rainwater. After purchasing the "bagoong" he turned around to return home but he stepped on an uncovered opening which could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty and rusty 4-inch nail, stuck inside the uncovered opening, to pierce the left leg of plaintiff-petitioner penetrating to a depth of about one and a half inches. After administering first aid treatment at a nearby drugstore, his companions helped him hobble home. He felt ill and developed fever and he had to be carried to Dr. Juanita Mascardo. Despite the medicine administered to him by the latter, his left leg swelled with great pain. He was then rushed to the Veterans Memorial Hospital where he had to be confined for twenty (20) days due to high fever and severe pain.

Upon his discharge from the hospital, he had to walk around with crutches for (15) days. His injury prevented him from attending to the school buses he is operating. As a result, he had to engage the services of one Bienvenido Valdez to supervise his business for an aggregate compensation of (P900).

Petitioner sued for damages the City of Manila and the Asiatic Integrated Corporation under whose administration the Sta. Ana Public Market had been placed by virtue of a Management and Operating Contract.

The lower court dismissed the complaint. CA held the Asiatic Integrated Corporation liable for damages but absolved respondent City of Manila. Hence this petition.

Both defendants do not deny that plaintiff was in fact injured. However, Asiatic Integrated Corporation tries to minimize the extent of the injuries, claiming that it was only a small puncture and that as a war veteran, plaintiff's hospitalization at the War Veteran's Hospital was free.

For its part, the City of Manila’s defenses are

1) under the Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic Integrated Corporation assumed all responsibility for damages which may be suffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it

2) Art. 1, Sec. 4 of RA 409 as amended (Revised Charter of Manila) which provides:

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 any other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.

3) plaintiff Jimenez should not have gone to the market to buy bagoong on a rainy day

ISSUE:

WON City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the injuries petitioner suffered

Which should apply - the provision under the Revised Charter of Manila or Art. 2189 of the Civil Code?

HELD: Yes; Art. 2189

This issue has been laid to rest in the case of City of Manila v. Teotico (1968) where the Supreme Court squarely ruled that RA No. 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages or injury to persons or property arising from the failure of city officers" to enforce the provisions of said Act, "or any other law or ordinance or from negligence" of the City "Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."

Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that:

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision.

constitutes a particular prescription making "provinces, cities and municipalities ... liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason" — specifically — "of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision."

In the same suit, the Supreme Court clarified further that under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach, that the defective public works belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public building in question.

In the case at bar, there is no question that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management and Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated Corporation remained under the control of the former. As evidenced by:

1) contract between the City and Asiatic (prior approval of the City of Manila is needed before the program of improvement, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the public market may be made by Asiatic; if the present employees/personnel of the city public market will be discharged by Asiatic;)

2) fact of supervision and control of the City over subject public market was admitted by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing in his letter to Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata.

3) the City employed a market master for the Sta. Ana Public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that particular market, more specifically, to check the safety of the place for the public

As a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-delict, one must have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. (Art. 1173 of the Civil Code)

The contention of respondent City of Manila that petitioner should not have ventured to go to Sta. Ana Public Market during a stormy weather is indeed untenable. It is the duty of the City of Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs.

While it may be conceded that the fulfillment of such duties is extremely difficult during storms and floods, it must however, be admitted that ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize the dangers to life and limb under those difficult circumstances.

For instance, the drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls instead of on the passageways. Even more important is the fact, that the City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. Sadly, the evidence indicates that long before petitioner fell into the opening, it was already uncovered, and (5) months after the incident happened, the opening was still uncovered. Moreover, while there are findings that during floods the vendors remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water, there is no showing that such practice has ever been prohibited, much less penalized by the City of Manila. Neither was it shown that any sign had been placed thereabouts to warn passersby of the impending danger.

Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that they were adequately covered. Had the opening been covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered, the City is therefore liable for the injury suffered by the petitioner.

Thus, City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation being joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.