JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION V.

COURT OF APPEALS o The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a
Defenses | Dec 21, 1991 | Davide Jr.
Nature of Case:
Digest maker: SIV
SUMMARY: Criselda Aguilar filed a suit against Jarcho Marketing Corporaiton when her 6-year
old daughter died from injuries caused by the falling of the gift-wrapping counter on her small
and fragile body. Petitioners denied liabliloty, imputing the negligence on Criselda for failing to
watch Zhieneth, and on the girl for climing up the counter. SC ruled in favor of Aguilar, that
there was no contributory negligence from either Zhieneth or Criselda
DOCTRINE: There is a conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years
old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence
case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that
he has acted with discernment
2. WON the death of ZHIENETH was accidental – NO
 Attributable to negligence.
- An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches
to the defendant. It is “a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event
happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through
human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by
the person to whom it happens.

FACTS: - Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
 In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, Criselda and Zhieneth were at the 2nd floor of Syvel’s considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
Department Store, Makati City, when respondent Criselda was signing her credit card slip doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
at payment and verification counter, she felt a sudden gust of wind a heard a loud sound. o “the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person,
She looked behind her and saw her daughter Zhieneth (6 years old) on the floor pinned that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
by the bulk of the stores gift-wrapping counter. justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.”
o The test of is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
 Zhieneth was rushed to the hospital and lived through the operation but lost her ability to reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have
speak. She died after 14 days later due to the injuries she sustained. Private respondents used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
filed a complaint for damages.
 Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place
 Respondents demanded reimbursement and damages, but petitioners denied any liability or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
imputing the negligence to Criselda for allowing her daughter to roam freely in the may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
department store. Alleging further, that the deceased committed contributory negligence equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as
when she climbed the counter. Also herein petitioners defense is that they have exercised part of the res gestae.
due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection, supervision and control of their
employees.
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED and the
challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 June 1996 in C.A. G.R. No. CV 37937 is hereby
 Trial Court favored petitioners, contemplating that Zhieneth’s action is the proximate AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
cause of the accident. CA favored respondents on it declared that ZHIENETH, who was
below seven (7) years old at the time of the incident, was absolutely incapable of
negligence or other tort.

o It reasoned that since a child under nine (9) years could not be held liable even
for an intentional wrong, then the six-year old ZHIENETH could not be made to
account for a mere mischief or reckless act. It also absolved CRISELDA of any
negligence, finding nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in momentarily
allowing ZHIENETH to walk while she signed the document at the nearby
counter.

ISSUE:

1. WON Zhieneth was guilty of contributory negligence – NO

 Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that
favors children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory
negligence
o In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed
to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from
criminal liability.