Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

08_City of Manila v Teotico 22 scra 267 Facts:

L-23052

January 29, 1968

On January 27, 1958 at about 8pm, Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a loading and unloading zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell inside an UNCOVERED and UNLIGHTED MANHOLE on P. Burgos. Due to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. He was brought to the Philippine General Hospital. In addition, he suffered contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip, apart from an abrasion of the right infra-patella region. These injuries and the allergic eruptions cause by anti-tetanus injections administered to him in the hospital required further medical treatment by a private practitioner who charged Php 1400. He filed a complaint with the CFI for damages against the City of Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. CFI dismissed. On appeal, affirmed with modification, that the City of Manila was liable for damages (6700). On appeal, the City of Manila alleged that Sec 4 of RA 409 (Charter of Manila) states that the city shall not be liable for damages arising from the failure of the Mayor, Municipal Board, etc. Whereas Art. 2189 of the Civil Code states that cities shall be liable xxx under their control and supervision. Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail. Moreover, Manila urged that it cannot be held liable because the accident took place in a national highway. Issue: W/N RA or the Civil Code applies. Civil Code; W/N the City of Manila is liable. Yes. Held: Insofar as its territorial application is concerned, RA is a special law and the Civil Code a general legislation. But as regards the SUBJECT-MATTER, RA establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila while the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making provinces, cities and municipalities xxx liable xxx specifically of the defective condition of roads, streets xxx under their control and supervision. Teotico alleged in his complaint that his injuries were due to the defective condition of a street which is under the control and supervision of the city. In its answer, the City alleged that the streets have been constantly kept in good condition and regularly inspected, therefore in effect admitted that P. Burgos Ave was and is under its control and supervision. SHORT DIGEST: Plaintiff Teotico fell inside an uncovered and unlighted manhole while waiting for a jeepney at the corner of Old Luneta and P. Burgos. He hit his head on the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. He was brought to the Philippine General Hospital. He also suffered additional injuries

(contusions) and had an allergic reaction to the anti-tetanus. He filed a complaint with the CFI. It was dismissed. On appeal, the City of Manila was held liable. The issue is whether or not the Charter of City of Manila or the Civil Code applies and whether or not the City of Manila is liable. It was held by the Court that the Civil Code applies because as regards the subject matter, the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making the city liable for damages from defective roads and streets under their control and supervision. In determining whether or not the City of Manila exercised control and supervision over P. Burgos Avenue, the Court cited the Citys Answer to the plaintiffs complaint where it admitted that the streets have been constantly kept in good condition and regularly inspected.