Municipality of San Juan vs.

Court of Appeals
Facts of the Case:
1. KC was given a Job Orer by the South Sector O!ce of M"SS to conuct an
e#ect e$cavations at the corner of M. %aterno an Santolan &oa' San Juan' a
national roa for the laying of water pipes an tapping of water to the
respective houses of water concessionaires.
(. )n the evening of *1 May 1+,,' %riscilla Chan was riving her -oyota Crown at
the spee of thirty .ilo/eters per hour on the right sie of Santolan &oa
towars %inaglabanan. "ith her was %rosecutor 0igalang1Awa. -he roa was
2ooe as it was then raining har. Suenly' the left front wheel of the car
fell on a /anhole where the wor.ers of KC ha earlier /ae e$cavations. As a
result' the hu/erus on the right ar/ of %rosecutor 0iglang1Awa was fracture.
*. At the hospital' the attening physician place a plastic cast on her right ar/.
3. 0arring co/plications' the in4ury she su#ere was e$pecte to heal in four to
si$ wee.s' although she /ust revisit her octor fro/ ti/e to ti/e for chec.1
up an rehabilitation.
5. After so/e ti/e' the plastic cast was re/ove. 0iglang1Awa sustaine no
efor/ity but still coul not sleep on her right sie because she still felt pain
in that portion of her boy.
6. A case for a/ages against M"SS at the &-C of %asig was 7le. -he
co/plaint was a/ene' she inclue KC as one of the efenants.
8. -he &-C renere 4ug/ent in favor of 0iglang 9Awa a4uging M"SS an
the /unicipality of San Juan 4ointly an severally liable to her.
,. -he Court of Appeals a!r/e the 4ug/ent of the &-C with /oi7cation.
+. )n its appeal efenant Municipality state that only the %ro4ect :ngineer KC
an M"SS can be hel liable for the sa/e incient.
)ssue: "hat is the liability or non1liability of petitioner /unicipality for the in4ury
sustaine by 0iglang1Awa;
-he Court <el:
Jurispruence teaches that for liability to arise uner Article (1,+ of the Civil
Coe' ownership of the roa' streets' briges' public builings an other public
wor.s' is not a controlling factor' it being su!cient that a province' city or
/unicipality has control or supervision thereof. -his' we /ae clear in the City of
Manila vs. -eotico.
Conceely' Section , of the Orinance /a.es the per/ittee=e$cavator liable for
eath' in4ury an=or a/ages cause by the non1co/pletion of wor.s an=or failure of
the one unerta.ing the wor.s to aopt the re>uire precautionary /easures for the
protection of the general public. Signi7cantly' however' nowhere can it be foun in sai
Orinance any provision e$e/pting /unicipalities in Metro Manila fro/ liabilities cause
by their own negligent acts. Afortiori' nothing prevents this Court fro/ applying other
relevant laws concerning petitioner?s liability for the in4uries sustaine by 0iglang1awa
on that fateful rainy evening of *1 May 1+,,. %etition is enie.
@otesco vs. Chatto
Facts of the Case:
1. )n the afternoon of A3 June 1+,(' plainti# @loria :. Chatto' an her 151year
ol aughter' Bina CelDa :. Chatto went to see the /ovie EMother CearF at
Supera/a theater' owne by efenant @otesco )nvest/ent Corporation.
(. -hey bought balcony tic.ets but even then were unable 7n seats
consiering the nu/ber of people watching the /ovie.
*. -en /inutes after entering the theater' the ceiling of its balcony collapse.
3. Shoc.e an hurt' plainti#s /anage to crawl uner the fallen ceiling. As
soon as they were able to get out to the street they wal.e to nearby F:G
hospital where they were con7ne an treate for one ay.
5. -he ne$t ay' they transferre to the GS- <ospital.
6. -he Courts rule in their favor.
)ssue: )s @otesco )nvest/ent Corporation liable for the a/ages cause to the
plainti# as a result of the collapse of the ceiling;
-he Court <el:
)t is settle that the owner or proprietor of a place of public a/use/ent
i/pliely warrants that the pre/ises' appliances' an a/use/ent evices are safe
for the purpose for which they are esigne' the octrine being sub4ect to no other
e$ception or >uali7cation than that he oes not contract against un.nown efects
not iscoverable by orinary or reasonable /eans.
-his i/plie warranty has given rise to the rule that:
"here a patron of a theater or other place of public a/use/ent
is in4ure' an the thing that cause the in4ury is wholly an
e$clusively uner the control an /anage/ent of the efenant'
an the accient is such as in the orinary course of events
woul not have happene if proper care ha been e$ercise' its
occurrence raises a presu/ption or per/its of an inference of
negligence on the part of the efenant.
15
-hat presu/ption or inference was not overco/e by the petitioner.
Bilius vs. Manila &ailroa Co.
1. At about 8:AA a./. plainti# an his wife an his 31year ol aughter left
Manila in their Stueba.er car for /unicipality of %agsan4an' Baguna.
(. %rior thereto he ha /ae the trip as far as Calauan but never fro/
Calauan to %agsan4an via Cayap. <e was entirely unac>uainte with
the conitions of the roa at sai points an ha no .nowlege of the
e$istence of a railroa crossing at Cayap.
*. 0efore reaching the crossing in >uestion' there was nothing to inicate
its e$istence an inas/uch as there were /any houses' shrubs' an
trees along the roa' it was i/possible to see an approaching train.
3. At about seven or eight /eters fro/ the crossing' co/ing fro/
Calauan' the plainti# saw an autotruc. par.e on the left sie of the
roa.
5. Bilius i not see the crossing but he hear only two short whistles.
)//eiately' afterwars' he saw a huge blac. /ass 2ing itself upon
hi/' which turne out to be a train.
6. )t ragge the car to a istance of about ten /eters. -he i/pact was
so great that plainti#?s wife an aughter were thrown fro/ the car
an were pic.e up fro/ the groun unconscious an very hurt.
8. )n spite of the e#orts of engineer Anres 0asilio he was unable to stop
the loco/otive until after it ha gone about seventy /eters fro/ the
crossing.
,. -he plainti#s entere St. %aul?s <ospital in the City of Manila.
+. %rior to the accient' there ha been no notice or sign of the e$istence
of the crossing' nor was there anyboy to warn the public of
approaching trains.
1A. -he 2ag/an or switch/an arrive after the collision' co/ing
fro/ the station with a re 2ag in one han an a green one in the
other' both of which were woun in their respective stic.s. -he sai
2ag/an ha /any ti/es absente hi/self fro/ his post at the
crossing upon the arrival of a train. -he train left 0ay station a little
late an therefore travele at great spee.
-he Court <el:
Cefenant railroa co/pany is negligent because it i not e$ercise
the iligence of a goo father of a fa/ily in the selection an supervision of
its e/ployees. Ho contributory negligence was a4uge on the part of
Bilius.
Ia/aa v. Manila &ailroa Co/pany
Facts of the Case:
1. -he plainti#s together with three co/panions' hire an auto/obile
fro/ efenant 0achrach @arage J -a$icab Co. for a trip to Cavite
Kie4o.
(. -he auto/obile was secure at a certain price hour an was riven an
controlle by a chau#eur supplie by the ta$icab co/pany.
*. -he 4ourney to Cavite Kieho was /ae without incient' but on the
return trip' while crossing the trac.s of efenant railroa co/pany in
the barrio of San Juan /unicipality of Cavite Kie4o' the auto/obile was
struc. by a train an the plainti#s in4ure.
3. -he trial court is/isse the co/plaint on the /erits as to the Manila
&ailroa Co/pany an hel the efenant ta$icab co/pany liable for
a/ages to the plainti#s in various a/ounts. -he ta$icab co/pany
appeale.
-he Court <el:
1. -he appellan sai that the view of the trac. in the irection fro/
which the train was co/ing was obstructe in such /anner that
neither the trac. nor a train coul be seen as a traveler approache
the crossingL an yet' in spite of the fact' the chau#eur rove upon the
trac.s without investigation or precaution of any .in. -he river chose
to give his senses no opportunity to protect hi/ or his passengers an
rove on the trac. at full spee with all the noise which an auto/obile
prouces as such pee on an upgrae.
&ailroa trains rarely pass over trac.s without noise an their
presence' generally spea.ing' is easily etecte by person who ta.e
orinary precautions.
Gner the secon error assigne' the appellant contens with /uch
vigor that the plainti#s cannot recover for the reason that the
negligence of the river of the auto/obile' if any' was i/putable to
the/' they having per/itte the river to approach an pass over the
railroa crossing without the use of orinary care an iligence to
eter/ine the pro$i/ity of a train or loco/otive' an having /ae no
e#ort to caution or instruct hi/ or co/pel hi/ to ta.e reasonable care
in /a.ing the crossing. "ith this contention we cannot agree. "e thin.
the better rule' an one /ore consonant with the weight of authority'
is that a person who hires a public auto/obile an gives the river
irection as to the place to which he wishes to be conveye' but
e$ercise no other control over the conuct of the river' is not
responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevente fro/
recovering for in4uries su#ere fro/ a collision between the auto/obile
an a train' cause by the negligence either of the loco/otive
engineer or the auto/obile river.
"e are of the opinion that the trial court erre in 7$ing the a/ount of
a/ages which the plainti#s su#ere. Gner the law' each of the
plainti#s' is entitle to recover the ti/e' octorsM bills an hospital bills
an hospital bills an /eicines' an any other ite/ of e$pense which
it was foun necessary to unergo by reason of the a/ages
sustaine.