at that time he was wearing a mascot and have wings instead of

CIVIL PROCEDURE hands.

The CA and the trial court made conflicting rulings on the

LATONIO vs MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES INC
negligence of CGF and Lomibao, but they concur on Mary’s
GR No. 183004 | 6 December 2017
negligence, which is as follows, “therefore, plaintiff Mary Ann
Subtopic: S. Post-judgment remedies; 2. Appeals; f. Review Latonia was likewise negligent. Why she was negligent can be
of judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies traced to the fact as established that she left her eight-month-old
baby on top of a chair to the temporary custody of a mascot.”
DOCTRINE: Factual issues is the lower court’s function, and
appeals under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, except when
the appellate court’s findings is in contrary with the trial court
such as when it failed to appreciate or overlooked some facts and
circumstances.

FACTS:
 Sps. Mary and Dante Latonio accompanied their 8-
month old child Ed to a birthday party in McDonald’s
where two mascots Birdie and Grimace danced to
entertain the guests.
 Respndent Lomibao was inside Birdie. When photos
were taken with the mascots. Birdie was behind the
child and extended its wings, when suddenly Mary
release her hold of Ed. Ed fell head first to the floor.
 McDonald’s Cebu Golden Food (CGF) shouldered the X-
ray, CT-scan and examination of Ed.
 After receiving a letter from the Latonios, MFI assured
to assist to give Ed medical attention in St. Luke’s and
Makati Medical Center to determine the extent of the
baby’s injury.
 However, the Latonios decided against lending them
the x-ray and the CT scan results, and other related
medical records and demanded Php15, 000 instead.
 Unheeded, the Latonios caused the publication of the
incident with a headline "Food outlet sued for P9 M
damages". They also instituted a complaint for
damages.
 The RTC held Lomibao and CGF solidarily liable for
negligence which caused the fall of the baby.
 The CA reversed the findings of the RTC, and held that
Mary is liable.
 Respondents filed a petition for review under Rule 45.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the proximate

cause of Ed’s fall was the negligence of Mary Latonia.

RULING: Yes. The circumstances show that the proximate cause of

the injury sustained by Ed was due to Mary’s own negligence.

Mary’s testimony during the cross-examination reveals that she

acted negligently and carelessly despite her insistence that she
made sure that Ed was safe and secure before she released her
grasped.

During the picture-taking, Lomibao was inside a Birdie mascot,

however, it must be noted that while Lomibao has his own hands,