G.R. No. 129029 April 3, 2000 RAFAEL REYES
TRUCKING
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES a! ROSARIO P. "Y #$or %&r'&l$ a! o (&%al$ o$ )%& *ior' +aria Li'a, Fra-i' E!ar!, Fra-i' +ar/ a! Fra-i' Ra$a&l, all 'ra*&! ", respondents. PAR"O, J.: PAR"O, J.: The case is an appeal appeal via certiorari from the amended amended decision decision 1 of the Court Court of
Appeals 2 affirming the decision and supplemental decision of the trial court,3 as follows: IN I!" #$ T%! $#&!'#IN' $#&!'#IN',, (udgment (udgment is here)* here)* rendered rendered dismi dismissin ssing g the appea appeals ls interp interpose osed d )* )oth )oth accus accused ed and &e*es &e*es Truc+ing Corporation and affirming the ecision and -upplemental ecision dated une /, 1002 and #cto)er 2/, 1002 respectivel*. -# #&!&!. #&!&!. The facts are as follows: #n #cto)er 1, 100, 4rovincial 4rosecutor 4atricio T. urian of Isa)ela filed with the &egional Trial Court, Isa)ela, 5ranch 10, Caua*an an amended information charging &omeo unca * de Tumol with rec+less imprudence resulting in dou)le homicide and damage to propert*, reading as follows: That on or a)out the 2th da* of une, 100, in the 6unicipalit* of Caua*an, 4rovince of Isa)ela, 4hilippines, and within the (urisdiction of this %onora)le Court, the said accused )eing the driver and person7 in7charg in7chargee of a Trailer Trailer Truc+ Truc+ Tractor Tractor )earing 4late No. N2A7/8 N2A7/8 registered in the name of &afael &e*es Truc+ing Corporation, with a load load of 2, 2, cases cases of empt* empt* )ottle )ottless of )eer )eer grande grande,, willfu willfull* ll*,, unlawfull* and feloniousl* drove and operated the same while along the National %ighwa* of 5aranga* Tagaran, in said 6unicipalit*, in a negligen negligent, t, careless careless and impruden imprudentt manner, manner, without without due regard to traffic laws, rules and ordinances and without ta+ing the necessar* precautions to prevent in(uries to persons and damage to propert*, causing causing )* such negligence negligence,, carelessn carelessness ess and imprudence imprudence the said trailer truc+ to hit and )ump a Nissan 4ic+7up )earing 4late No. 55'7 098 driven )* $eliciano 5alcita and $rancisco *, r., 4ac;uing, due to irreversi) irreversi)le le shoc+, shoc+, internal internal and e
p )earing 4late No. 55'7098 in the total amount of 42,,.. C#NT&A&? T# @A". Caua*an, Caua*an, Isa)ela, #cto)er 1, 100. -gd.B $A>-T# C. CA5ANTAC Third Assistant 4rovincial 4rosecutor >pon arraignment on #cto)er 23, 100, the accused entered a plea of not guilt*. #n the same occasion, the offended parties &osario 4. * and minor children and Angelina 6. 5alcita and minor son 4aoloB made a reservation to file a separate civil action against the accused arising from the offense charged. 9 #n Novem)er Novem)er 20, 100, the offended offended parties actuall* filed with the &egional Trial Court, Isa)ela, 5ranch 10, Caua*an a complaint against petitioner &afael &e*es Truc+ing Corporation, as emplo*er of driver
heirs of $eliciano 5alcita the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accidentB. The private respondents opted to pursue the criminal action )ut did not withdraw the civil quasi ex delicto delicto the* filed against case quasi against petition petitioner. er. #n ecem)e ecem)err 19, 100, 100, private private respondents withdrew the reservation to file a separate civil action against the accused and manifested that the* would prosecute the civil aspect ex delicto in the criminal action. / %owever, %owever, the* did not withdraw withdraw the separate separate civil action action )ased )ased on quasi delict against against petitioner petitioner as emplo*e emplo*err arising arising from the same act or omission omission of the accused driver .8 >pon agreement of the parties, the trial court consolidated )oth criminal and civil cases and conducted a (oint trial of the same. The facts, as found )* the trial court, which appear to )e undisputed, are as follows: The defendant defendant &afael &afael &e*es &e*es Truc+ing Truc+ing Corporation Corporation is a domestic domestic corporation engaged in the )usiness of transporting )eer products for the -an 6iguel Corporation -6C for -hortB from the latters -an $ernando $ernando,, 4ampanga 4ampanga plant to its various sales outlets in @uDon. @uDon. Among its fleets of vehicles for hire is the white truc+ trailer descri)ed a)ove driven )* &omeo unca * Tumol, a dul* licensed driver. Aside from the Corporations memorandum to all its drivers and helpers to ph*sicall* inspect their vehicles )efore each trip !
$or the funeral ender its 10 Income Ta< &eturns !niversit* graduate in 5usiness Administration, past president of the 4asa* a*cees, National Treasurer and 4resident of the 4hilippine a*cees in 1081 and 108/, respectivel*, and "orld ice74resident of a*cees International in 1080. %e was also the recipient of numerous awards as a civic leader !
3. #rdering the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 5r. 107 2. No pronouncement as to costs. -# #&!&!. Caua*an, Isa)ela, une /, 1002. -gd.B A&T!6I# &. A@IIA &egional Trial udge0 #n -eptem)er 3, 1002, petitioner and the accused filed a notice of appeal from the (oint decision. 1 #n the other hand, private respondents moved for amendment of the dispositive portion of the (oint decision so as to hold petitioner su)sidiaril* lia)le for the damages awarded to the private respondents in the event of insolvenc* of the accused. 11 #n #cto)er 2/, 1002, the trial court rendered a supplemental decision amending the dispositive portion )* inserting an additional paragraph reading as follows: 2:A #rdering the defendant &e*es Truc+ing Corporation su)sidiaril* lia)le for all the damages awarded to the heirs of $rancisco *, r., in the event of insolvenc* of the accused )ut deducting therefrom the damages of 4,. awarded to said defendant in the ne
information for rec+less imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to propert*J 22 "e grant the petition, resolving under the circumstances pro hac vice to remand the cases to the trial court for determination of the civil lia)ilit* of petitioner as emplo*er of the accused driver in the civil action quasi ex delictore7opened for the purpose. In negligence cases, the aggrieved part* has the choice )etween 1B an action to enforce civil lia)ilit* arising from crime under Article 1 of the &evised 4enal Code= and 2B a separate action for quasi delict under Article 218/ of the Civil Code of the 4hilippines. #nce the choice is made, the in(ured part* can not avail himself of an* other remed* )ecause he ma* not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or omission of the accused. 23This is the rule against dou)le recover*.1âwphi1.nêt In other words, Fthe same act or omission can create two +inds of lia)ilit* on the part of the offender, that is, civil lia)ilit* ex delicto, and civil lia)ilit* quasi delicto F either of which Fma* )e enforced against the culprit, su)(ect to the caveat under Article 2188 of the Civil Code that the offended part* can not recover damages under )oth t*pes of lia)ilit*.F 2 In the instant case, the offended parties elected to file a separate civil action for damages against petitioner as emplo*er of the accused, )ased on quasi delict , under Article 218/ of the Civil Code of the 4hilippines. 4rivate respondents sued petitioner &afael &e*es Truc+ing Corporation, as the emplo*er of the accused, to )e vicariousl* lia)le for the fault or negligence of the latter. >nder the law, this vicarious lia)ilit* of the emplo*er is founded on at least two specific provisions of law. The first is e
Articles 32, 33, and 3 of the Civil Code of the 4hilippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. 2 The intention of private respondents to proceed primaril* and directl* against petitioner as emplo*er of accused truc+ driver )ecame clearer when the* did not as+ for the dismissal of the civil action against the latter )ased onquasi delict . Conse;uentl*, the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in holding the accused civill* lia)le, and petitioner7emplo*er of the accused su)sidiaril* lia)le for damages arising from crime ex delictoB in the criminal action as the offended parties in fact filed a separate civil action against the emplo*er )ased on quasi delict resulting in the waiver of the civil action ex delicto. It might )e argued that private respondents as complainants in the criminal case withdrew the reservation to file a civil action against the driver accusedB and manifested that the* would pursue the civil lia)ilit* of the driver in the criminal action. %owever, the withdrawal is ineffective to reverse the effect of the reservation earlier made )ecause private respondents did not withdraw the civil action against petitioner )ased on quasi delict . In such a case, the provision of &ule 111, -ection 1, paragraph 3 of the 109 &ules on Criminal 4rocedure is clear that the reservation to file or the filing of a separate civil action results in a waiver of other availa)le civil actions arising from the same act or omission of the accused. &ule 111, -ection 1, paragraph 2 enumerated what are the civil actions deemed waived upon such reservation or filing, and one of which is the civil indemnit* under the &evised 4enal Code. &ule 111, -ection 1, paragraph 3 of the 109 &ules on Criminal 4rocedure specificall* provides: A waiver of an* of the civil actions enfortunatel* private respondents did not appeal from such dismissal and could not )e granted affirmative relief. 3 The Court, however, in e
whether accused &omeo unca * de Tumol is guilt* of rec+less imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to propert*. The action for recover* of civil lia)ilit* is not included therein, )ut is covered )* the s eparate civil action filed against the petitioner as emplo*er of the accused truc+7driver. In this case, accused7driver (umped )ail pending his appeal from his conviction. Thus, the (udgment convicting the accused )ecame final and enfortunatel*, we can no longer correct this (udgment even if erroneous, as it is, )ecause it has )ecome final and ender Article 3/9 of the &evised 4enal Code, criminal negligence Fis treated as a mere ;uasi offense, and dealt with separatel* from willful offenses. It is not a ;uestion of classification or terminolog*. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished= in negligence or imprudence, what is principall* penaliDed is the mental attitude or condition )ehind the act, the dangerous rec+lessness, lac+ of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible . 6uch of the confusion has arisen from the common use of such descriptive phrase as Fhomicide through rec+less imprudenceF, and the li+e= when the strict technical sense is, more accuratel*, Frec+less imprudence resulting in homicideF= or Fsimple imprudence causing damages to propert*F.F 30 There is need, therefore, to rectif* the designation of the offense without distur)ing the imposed penalt* for the guidance of )ench and )ar in strict adherence to precedent. "%!&!$#&!, the Court '&ANT- the petition and -!T- A-I! the amended decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA7'.&. C& No. 1, promulgated on anuar* /, 1008, and the (oint decision of the &egional Trial Court, Isa)ela, 5ranch 10, Caua*an, in Criminal Case No. 5r. 107311 and Civil Case No. 5r. 1072, dated une /, 1002. IN @I!> T%!&!#$, the Court renders (udgment as follows: 1B In Criminal Case No. 5r. 107311, the Court declares the accused &omeo unca * de
damage to propert*, defined and penaliDed under Article 3/9, paragraph 2 of the &evised 4enal Code, with violation of the automo)ile law &.A. No. 13/, as amendedB, and sentences him to suffer two 2B indeterminate penalties of four B months and one 1B da* of arresto mayor , as minimum, to three 3B *ears, si< /B months and twent* 2B da*s of prision correccional , as ma
G.R. No. 1191 April 2, 1994 SAN IL"EFONSO LINES,
INC.,
a!
E"UAR"O
5A6IER, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS #T%ir)&&)% "i7i'io a! PIONEER INSURANCE a! SURETY CORPORATION,respondents. +ARTINE8, J.:
At around 3:3 in the afternoon of une 2, 1001, a To*ota @ite Ace an )eing driven )* its owner Annie >. ao and a passenger )us of herein petitioner -an Ildefonso @ines, Inc. hereafter, -I@IB figured in a vehicular mishap at the intersection of ulia argas Avenue and &odrigueD @anuDa Avenue in 4asig, 6etro 6anila, totall* wrec+ing the To*ota van and in(uring 6s. ao and her two 2B passengers in the process. A criminal case was thereafter filed with the &egional Trial Court of 4asig on -eptem)er 1, 1001 charging the driver of the )us, herein petitioner !duardo avier, with rec+less imprudence resulting in damage to propert* with multiple ph*sical in(uries. A)out four B months later, or on anuar* 13, 1002, herein private respondent 4ioneer Insurance and -uret* Corporation 4I-CB, as insurer of the van and su)rogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner -I@I with the &egional Trial Court of 6anila, see+ing to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance polic* as well as other damages, totaling 49/,9. 49,. as actualKcompensator* damages= 49,. as e
shall proceed independentl* of the criminal action, and shall re;uire onl* a preponderance of evidence. 5esides, the re;uirement in -ection 2 of &ule 111 of the former &ules on Criminal 4rocedure that there )e a reservation in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action has )een declared as not in accordance with law. It is regarded as an unauthoriDed amendment to our su)stantive law, i.e., the Civil Code which does not re;uire such reservation. In fact, the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has )een deleted from -ection 2, &ule 111 of the 109 &ules on Criminal 4rocedure, in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such re;uirement of a reservation as ineffective. 5onite vs. Hosa, 1/2 -C&A 1B. $urther, the Court rules that a su)rogee7plaintiff ma* institute and prosecute the civil action, it )eing allowed )* Article 228 of the Civil Code. After their motion for reconsideration of said ul* 21, 1003 #rder was denied, petitioners elevated the matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which was, however, referred to pu)lic respondent Court of Appeals for disposition. #n $e)ruar* 2, 1009, a decision adverse to petitioners once again was rendered )* respondent court, upholding the assailed 6anila &egional Trial Court #rder in this wise: A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminall* prosecuted and found guilt* or ac;uitted, provided that the offended part* is not allowed if the tortfeasor is actuall* charged also criminall*B, to recover damages on )oth scores, and would )e entitled in such eventualit* onl* to the )igger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases var*. To su)ordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution whether it )e conviction or ac;uittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear in(unction in Art. 31, that this action ma* proceed independentl* of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. In Yault !hil . vs. "#, the -upreme Court said: !ven if there was no reservation in the criminal case and that the civil action was not filed )efore the filing of the criminal action )ut )efore the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the (udge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far )etter than a compliance with the re;uirement of an e
the private respondent has instituted a separate and independent civil action for damages. #ft7repeated is the dictum that courts should not place undue importance on technicalities when )* so doing su)stantial (ustice is sacrificed. "hile the rules of procedure re;uire adherence, it must )e remem)ered that said rules of procedure are intended to promote, not defeat, su)stantial (ustice, and therefore, the* should not )e applied in a ver* rigid and technical sense. %ence, this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said respondent court (udgment was denied. The two 2B crucial issues to )e resolved, as posited )* petitioners, are: 1B If a criminal case was filed, can an independent civil action )ased on quasidelict under Article 218/ of the Civil Code )e filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal caseJ 2B Can a su)rogee of an offended part* maintain an independent civil action during the pendenc* of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action and despite the fact that the private complainant is activel* participating through a private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal caseJ "e rule for petitioners. #n the chief issue of FreservationF, at the fore is -ection 3, &ule 111 of the &ules of Court which reads: -ec. 3. "hen civil action ma* proceed independentl*. In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 3 and 218/ of the Civil Code of the 4hilippines, the independent civil action which has )een reserved ma* )e )rought )* the offended part*, shall proceed independentl* of the criminal action, and shall re;uire onl* a preponderance of evidence. There is no dispute that these so7called Findependent civil actionsF )ased on the aforementioned Civil Code articles are the ender the present &ule as amended, such a civil action includes not onl* recover* of indemnit* under the &evised 4enal Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 3 of the Civil Code of the 4hilippines, )ut also damages under Article 218/ of the said code. . . . #)(ections were raised to the inclusion in this &ule of quasi-
%owever, in view of Article 2188 of the said code which provides that the offended part* ma* not recover twice for the same act or omission of the accused, and in line with the polic* of avoiding multiplicit* of suits, these o)(ections were overruled. In an* event, the offended part* is not precluded from filing a civil action to recover damages arising from quasi-delict )efore the institution of the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action, (ust as he is not precluded from filing a civil action for damages under Articles 32, 33 and 3 )efore the institution of the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action. It is onl* in those cases where the offended part* has not previousl* filed a civil action or has not reserved his right to file a separate civil action that his civil action is deemed impliedl* instituted with the criminal action. It should )e noted that while it was ruled in #bella vs. $arave 98 -C&A 1/B that a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action is not necessar*, such a reservation is necessary under the amended rule. %ithout such reservation& the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action& unless previously waived or instituted . !mphasis ours, ustice ose ?. $eria L&et.M, 10 Amendments to the 109 &ules on Criminal 4rocedure, a pamphlet, pu)lished )* Central @aw)oo+ 4u)lishing Co., Inc., 4hilippine @egal -tudies, -eries No. 3, 97/B. -haring the same view on the indispensa)ilit* of a prior reservation is 6r. ustice $lorenD . &egalado, whose anal*sis of the historical changes in &ule 111 since the 10/ &ules of Court is e;uall* illuminating. Thus, 1. >nder &ule 111 of the 10/ &ules of Court, the civil lia)ilit* arising from the offense charged was impliedl* instituted with the criminal action, unless such civil action was e
arise Ffrom the same act or omission of the accused.F (urthermore& a reservation o) the right to institute these separate civil actions is again required otherwise& said civil actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal action& unless the )ormer are waived or )iled ahead o) the criminal action . !mphasis supplied.B In fact, a deeper reading of the F?a+ult 4hils. vs. CAF case : relied upon )* respondent court reveals an ac+nowledgment of the reservation re;uirement. After recogniDing that the civil case instituted )* private respondent therein &o* Camaso represented )* his father avid CamasoB against petitioner ?a+ult 4hils. the owner of the motorc*cle that sideswiped &o* Camaso, onl* five *ears old at the time of the accidentB and @arr* -alvado the driver of the motorc*cleB during the pendenc* of the criminal case against -alvado for rec+less imprudence resulting to slight ph*sical in(uries, as one )ased on tort, this Court said: The civil lia)ilit* sought arising from the act or omission of the accused in this case is a quasi-delict as defined under Article 218/ of the Civil Code as follows: <<< <<< <<< *he a)orecited rule Lreferring to the amended -ection l, &ule 111M requiring& such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict as defined under Article 218/ of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the accused emphasis suppliedB. 5ut what prompted the Court to validate the institution and non7suspension of the civil case involved in F?a+ultF was the peculiar facts attendant therein. Thus, Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted be)ore the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action& and the +udge handling the criminal case was in)ormed thereo)& then the actual filing of the civil action is even far )etter than a compliance with the re;uirement of an e
. . . to avoid multiplicit* of suits, to guard against oppression and a)use, to prevent dela*s, to clear congested doc+ets, to simplif* the wor+ of the trial court= in short, the attainment of (ustice with the least e-4!N CII@ 4&#C!!IN'-F filed )* petitioners is '&ANT!. -# #&!&!.
G.R. No. 140 F&(rar :, 2003 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ; RO"OLFO RO+AN, petitioners,
vs. +AR5ORIE NA6I"A", H&ir' o$ )%& La)& NICANOR NA6I"A" ; PRU"ENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents.
!CI-I# N 6ITUG, J.:
The case )efore the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 28 April 2 and 1 #cto)er 2, respectivel*, in CA7'.&. C No. /82, entitled F6ar(orie Navidad and %eirs of the @ate Nicanor Navidad vs. &odolfo &oman, et. al.,F which has modified the decision of 11 August 100 of the &egional Trial Court, 5ranch 2//, 4asig Cit*, e
death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the @&TA and &oman (ointl* and severall* lia)le thusl*: F"%!&!$#&!, the assailed (udgment is here)* 6#I$I!, )* e&T #$ A44!A@- '&A!@? !&&! 5? I-&!'A&IN' T%! $ININ'- #$ $ACT- 5? T%! T&IA@ C#>&T FII. T%! %#N#&A5@! C#>&T #$ A44!A@- '&A!@? !&&! IN $ININ' T%AT 4!TITI#N!&- A&! @IA5@! $#& T%! !AT% #$ NICAN#& NAIA, &. FIII. T%! %#N#&A5@! C#>&T #$ A44!A@- '&A!@? !&&! IN $ININ' T%AT &##@$# AN I- AN !64@#?!! #$ @&TA.F3 4etitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of the trial court )* holding them lia)le on the )asis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome. 4etitioners would insist that !scartinOs assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the trac+s, was an act of a stranger that could not have )een foreseen or prevented. The @&TA would add that the appellate courtOs conclusion on the e
@aw and (urisprudence dictate that a common carrier, )oth from the nature of its )usiness and for reasons of pu)lic polic*, is )urdened with the dut* of e
of its emplo*ees. The lia)ilit* is primar* and can onl* )e negated )* showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the emplo*ee, a factual matter that has not )een shown. A)sent such a showing, one might as+ further, how then must the lia)ilit* of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, )e descri)edJ It would )e solidar*. A contractual o)ligation can )e )reached )* tort and when the same act or omission causes the in(ur*, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa a;uiliana, Article 210 1 of the Civil Code can well appl*. 19 In fine, a lia)ilit* for tort ma* arise even under a contract, where tort is that which )reaches the contract.1/ -tated differentl*, when an act which constitutes a )reach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a ;uasi7delictual lia)ilit* had no contract e
G.R. No. 134123 +IN"E=
+ar-% 12, 2002 RESOURCES
"E6ELOP+ENT, petitioner,
vs. EPHRAI+ +ORILLO, respondent. PANGANI>AN, J.:
Attorne*Os fees cannot )e granted simpl* )ecause one was compelled to sue to protect and enforce oneOs right. The grant must )e proven )* facts= it cannot depend on mere speculation or con(ecture 77 its )asis must )e stated in the te
5efore us is a 4etition for &eview under &ule 9 of the &ules of Court, assailing the 6arch 2/, 1000 ecision 1 of the Court of Appeals CAB in CA7'& C No. /0/8. The dispositive portion of the challenged ecision reads as follows: F"%!&!$#&!, the appealed decision is A$$I&6! with 6#I$ICATI#N that the legal interest to )e paid on the rentals of 48/,. and costs of repair in the amount of 4132,89. is si< /PB percent per annum from une 22, 100, the date of the decision of the court a quo to the date of its finalit*. Thereafter, if the amounts ad(udged remain unpaid, the interest rate shall )e twelve 12PB percent per annum from the date of finalit* of the decision until full* paid.F2 T%& Fa-)'
The factual antecedents of the case are summariDed )* the CA in this wise: F#n $e)ruar* 1001, a ver)al agreement was entered into )etween !phraim 6orillo and 6inde< &esources Corporation 6IN!Q for )revit*B for the lease of the formerOs / < / ten7wheeler cargo truc+ for use in 6IN!QOs mining operations in 5ina*)a*, 5igaan, -an Teodoro, #riental 6indoro, at the stipulated rental of R43. per hour for a minimum of eight hours a da* or a total of 42,. dail*.O 6IN!Q had )een pa*ing the rentals until April 1, 1001.1âwphi1.nêt F>n+nown to 6orillo, on April 11, 1001, the truc+ was )urned )* unidentified persons while it was par+ed unattended at -itio Aras, 5igaan, -an Teodoro, #riental 6indoro, due to mechanical trou)le. The findings of the 6indoro #riental Integrated National 4olice in their investigation report read: R3. #n 1219% April 1001, 6r Alepon learning of the )urning incident, 6orillo offered to sell the truc+ to 6IN!Q )ut the latter refused. Instead, it replaced the vehicleOs )urned tires and had it towed to a shop for repair and overhauling.
F#n April 19, 1001, 6orillo sent a letter to 6r. Arni Is)erg, the $inance 6anager of 6IN!Q, thru 6r. &amoncito 'oDar, 4ro(ect 6anager, proposing the following: R< < < <<< <<< RI have written to let *ou +now that I am entrusting to *ou the said vehicle in the amount of 4289,. which is its cost price. I will not charge *our compan* for the encum)rance of 48/,S since *ou used it as m* friendl* gesture on account of the unforeseen adversit*. RIn view of the tragic happening, I am as+ing *ou to pa* us, in a wa* which will not )e hard for *ou to settle to pa* us in four installment monthl* as follows: R$irst pa*ment
7 April 29K01
4L1M9,.
R-econd pa*ment
7 6a* 19K01
9,.
RThird pa*menBt
7 une 19K01
9,.
R$ourth pa*menBt
7 ul* 19K01
29,.
T#TA@
4289,.
RI promise to relin;uish all the necessar* documents upon full pa*ment of said account. R< < < <<< <<< FThrough 6r. 'oDar, 6IN!Q responded )* a handwritten letter to his cousin 6alou wife of !phraim 6orilloB, e
After evaluating the evidence adduced )* )oth parties, the &egional Trial Court &TCB found petitioner responsi)le for the destruction or loss of the leased / < / truc+ and ordered it to pa* respondent 1B 48/, as )alance of the unpaid rental for the / < / truc+ with interest of 12 percent from une 22, 100 the rendition of the (udgmentB up to the pa*ment of the amount= 2B 4132,89 representing the costs of repair and overhaul
of the said truc+, with interest rate of 12 percent until full* paid= and 3B 42, as attorne*Os fees for compelling respondent to secure the services of counsel in filing his Complaint. Rli? o$ )%& Cor) o$ App&al'
The appellate court sustained the &TCOs finding that petitioner was not without fault for the loss and destruction of the truc+ and, thus, lia)le therefor. The CA said: FThe )urning of the su)(ect truc+ was impossi)le to foresee, )ut not impossi)le to avoid. 6IN!Q could have prevented the incident )* immediatel* towing the truc+ to a motor shop for the needed repair or )* having it guarded da* and night. Instead, the appellant (ust left the vehicle where its transfer case )ro+e down. The place was a)out twelve 12B +ilometers awa* from the camp site of the appellant corporation and was sparsel* populated. It was guarded onl* during da*time. It sta*ed in that place for two 2B wee+s until it was )urned on April 11, 1001 while its transfer case was )eing repaired elsewhere. It was onl* after it had )een )urned that the appellant had it towed to a repair shop. FThe appellant LrespondentM was thus not free from fault for the )urning of the truc+. It misera)l* failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against it. Neither did it rescind the lease over the truc+ upon its )urning. #n the contrar*, it offered to pa* 48/,. as rentals. It did not also complete the needed repair. %ence, the appellee was forced to pull out the truc+ and had it repaired at his own e
In its 6emorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for the CourtOs consideration: F.1. "hether or not the Court of Appeals gravel* erred in finding that petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against it considering that the facts show, as admitted )* the respondent, that the )urning of the truc+ was a fortuitous event. F.2. "hether or not the Court of Appeals gravel* erred in affirming the decision of the trial court finding petitioner lia)le to pa* unpaid rentals and cost of repairs. F.3. "hether or not the Court of Appeals also erred in affirming the decision of the trial court finding petitioner lia)le to pa* attorne*Os fees.F/ T%i' Cor)@' Rli?
The 4etition is partl* meritorious= the award of attorne*Os fees should )e deleted. Fir') I''& Petitioner’s Negligence
4etitioner claims that the )urning of the truc+ was a fortuitous event, for which it should not )e held lia)le pursuant to Article 118 8 of the Civil Code. 6oreover, the letter of respondent dated April 19, 1001, stating that the )urning of the truc+ was an
Funforeseen adversit*,F was an admission that should e
In order for a fortuitous event to e
And how man* houses are within the three hundred meter radius from the place where the truc+ had engine trou)leJ A Ten, more or less, in scattered. ?ou said that after hauling several sand to )e used in the camp site the / < / truc+ had transmission trou)le, what did the compan* do after the truc+ had that engine trou)leJ A $or at least two wee+s the truc+ was installed in the place where the said truc+ had engine trou)le. 6eaning in 5aranga* ArasJ A ?es, sir. "as there an* guard in that place )* the compan* during the time that the truc+ was in that placeJ A ?es, sir, during da*time )ut at nighttime, there was no guard. "hat happened to that / < / truc+J A In the month of 6arch, 1001, the compan* dismissed thirteen 13B to seventeen 18B emplo*ees and these emplo*ees came from 5aranga*s Aras, 5otolan, Calsapa, Camatis and Ti)on)on and on Aril 11, 1001, the / < / truc+ was )urned. %ow did *ou come to +now that the / < / truc+ was )urned on April 11, 1001J A I together with m* daughter, I met the service of the compan* near the #&6!C# and I was informed )* the 4ro(ect !ngineer that the / < / truc+ was )urned, so, we returned to -an Teodoro and have the incident )lottered at the police station. Aside from that, what other action did *ou underta+e in connection with the )urning of the / < / truc+J A "hen we were at the police station, the 4ro(ect 6anager of the compan* arrived and from the police station we proceeded to the place where the / < / truc+ was )urned and the 4ro(ect 6anager too+ pictures of the / < / truc+. Now, did *ou come to +now who was responsi)le or who were responsi)le for the )urning of the / < / truc+J A The responsi)le is the 6inde< &esources evelopment Corporation, and as far as I +now, the persons who actuall* )urned the said / < / truc+ were the dismissed emplo*ees of the 6inde< &esources evelopment Corporation. These dismissed emplo*ees of the corporation, wh* were the* emplo*ed )* the corporationJ A 5ecause we have to ma+e a road going to the mining site and in the process of opening the road these dismissed emplo*ees happened to )e the owners of the land where the road will pass, so, we paid the land. The corporation li+ewise gave (o)s to the owners of the land.F1 As can )e gleaned from the foregoing testimon*, petitioner failed to emplo* reasona)le foresight, diligence and care that would have e
4etitioner proceeds to argue that Fit should )e deemed to have alread* paid the unpaid rentals in the amount of48/,.,F and that it should not )e made to pa* the 4132,89 repair and overhaul costs. Nothing in the records, not even in the documentar* evidence it presented, would show that it alread* paid the aforesaid amounts. In fact, it see+s to avoid pa*ment of the rental )* alleging that respondent alread* condoned it in his letter dated April 19, 1001. %owever, a perusal of the letter would show that his offer not to charge petitioner for the 48/, rental was premised on the condition that it would )u* the truc+.18 6oreover, the &TC )ased the 48/, rental and the costs of repair and overhaul on !
"e find the award of attorne*Os fees to )e improper. The reason which the &TC gave 77 )ecause petitioner had compelled respondent to file an action against it 77 falls short of our re;uirement in ,cott "onsultants and Resource evelopment v. "#& 10 from which we ;uote: FIt is settled that the award of attorne*Os fees is the e
G.R. No. 1144 +ON"RAGON
5& 1, 200 LEISURE AN" RESORTS
CORPORATION, 4etitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ASIAN >ANK CORPORATION, FAR EAST >ANK AN" TRUST CO+PANY, a! UNITE" COCONUT PLANTERS >ANK, &espondents.
!CI-I# N BUISU+>ING, J.: In its "ECISION1 dated 6arch 12, 22, the Court of Appeals in CA7'.&. -4 No.
/18 dismissed the petition for certiorari filed )* 6ondragon @eisure and &esorts Corporation against the Or!&r2 dated 6arch 0, 2, of the &egional Trial Court of Angeles Cit*, 5ranch /1, in Civil Case No. 0928. @i+ewise, in its &esolution dated ul* 3, 22, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case are undisputed. #n $e)ruar* 2, 100, 6ondragon International 4hilippines, Inc. 6I4IB, 6ondragon -ecurities Corporation 6-CB and herein petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the Clar+ evelopment Corporation CCB for the development of what is now +nown as the 6imosa @eisure !state. To help finance the pro(ect, petitioner, on une 3, 1008, entered into an #mni)us @oan and -ecurit* Agreement 3hereafter #mni)us AgreementB with respondent )an+s for a s*ndicated term loan in the aggregate principal amount of >-U26. >nder the agreement, as amended on anuar* 10, 1000, the proceeds of the loan were to )e released through advances evidenced )* promissor* notes to )e e-U26 worth of 6I4I shares of stoc+s= assigned, transferred and delivered all rights, title to and interest in the pledged shares= and assigned )* wa* of securit* its leasehold rights over the pro(ect and all the rights, title, interests and )enefits in, to and under an* and all agreements in connection with the pro(ect. #n ul* 3, 1008, petitioner full* availed of and received the full amount of the s*ndicated loan agreement. 4etitioner, which had regularl* paid the monthl* interests due on the promissor* notes until #cto)er 100, thereafter failed to ma+e pa*ments. Conse;uentl*, on anuar* / and $e)ruar* 9, 1000, written notices of default, acceleration of pa*ment and demand letters were sent )* the lenders to the petitioner. Then on August 28, 1000, respondents filed a complaint, doc+eted as Civil Case No. 0928, for the foreclosure of leasehold rights against petitioner. 4etitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the following grounds: 1B a condition precedent for the filing of the complaint has not )een complied with andKor the instant complaint failed to state a cause of action, or otherwise the filing was premature= 2B the certification of non7forum shopping appended to the complaint was fatall* defective since one of the plaintiffs, >C45, deli)eratel* failed to mention that it had previousl* filed another complaint= and 3B plaintiffs had engaged in forum shopping in filing the instant complaint. The trial court denied the motion and ruled as follows: ... After a careful stud* of the arguments of the parties, this court finds that the motion to dismiss is without merit. As correctl* pointed out )* the plaintiffs under par. /.1, the )orrower defaults when interests due at stated maturit* are not paid and the lenders are
conse;uences of such default is the foreclosure of collaterals. This is the action ta+en )* the herein plaintiffs7lenders. This court also finds the alleged )orce ma+eure )aseless. The same are not those provided for under -ec. 1, Article 1 of the loan agreement. As to the allegation of forum shopping, the herein parties Asian 5an+ Corporation and $ar !ast 5an+ and Trust Compan* are not parties to this case in 091 sicB. The su)(ect matter of Civil Case No. 0928 is not the same with the su)(ect matter in Civil Case No. 091. "herefore, premises considered, the motion to dismiss is denied. The defendant is given 19 da*s from receipt hereof within which to file its answer andKor responsive pleading. -# #&!&!.9 4etitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order and argued that the complaint is premature, since it had not )een validl* declared in default./ The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. -easona)l*, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. 5efore the appellate court, petitioner reiterated its arguments in its motion to dismiss )efore the trial court, including the failure of the respondents to attach the )oard resolutions authoriDing them to file the complaint. 8 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the su)se;uent motion for reconsideration. %ence, this appeal )* certiorari imputing the following errors: I T%! &!-4#N!NT7A44!@@!! C#>&T #$ A44!A@- C#66ITT! A -!&I#>!&&#& #$ @A" AN ACT! "IT% '&A! A5>-! #$ I-C&!TI#N A6#>NTIN' T# @ACG #& !QC!-- #$ >&I-ICTI#N IN &>@IN' T%AT T%! C#64@AINT IN CII@ CA-! N#. 0928 C#64@I! "IT% T%! 6ANAT#&? &!>I&!6!NT- #$ C!&TI$ICATI#N #$ N#N7$#&>6 -%#44IN'. II T%! &!-4#N!NT7A44!@@!! C#>&T #$ A44!A@- C#66ITT! A -!&I#>!&&#& #$ @A" AN ACT! "IT% '&A! A5>-! #$ I-C&!TI#N A6#>NTIN' T# @ACG #& !QC!-- #$ >&I-ICTI#N IN N#T &>@IN' T%AT A C#NITI#N 4&!C!!NT $#& T%! $I@IN' #$ T%! C#64@AINT IN CII@ CA-! N#. 0928 %A- N#T 5!!N C#64@I! "IT%, #& T%AT IT I#T%!&"I-! 4&!6AT>&!, ANK#& T%AT IT $AI@- T# -TAT! A CA>-! #$ ACTI#N A'AIN-T 4!TITI#N!&7A44!@@ANT. III T%! &!-4#N!NT7A44!@@!! C#>&T #$ A44!A@- C#66ITT! A -!&I#>!&&#& #$ @A" AN ACT! "IT% '&A! A5>-! #$ I-C&!TI#N A6#>NTIN' T# @ACG #& !QC!-- #$ >&I-ICTI#N IN N#T &>@IN' T%AT &!-4#N!NT7A44!@@!! 5ANG-, IN $I@IN' T%! C#64@AINT IN CII@ CA-! N#. 0928, !@I5!&AT!@? !N'A'! IN $#&>6 -%#44IN'.0 In )rief, three issues are presented for resolution, namel*, 1B "as the certificate of non7 forum shopping defectiveJ 2B id respondents engage in forum shoppingJ and 3B o respondents have a cause of action against the petitionerJ #n the first issue, petitioner asserts that the verification and certificate of forum shopping were defective )ecause there was no proof as to the authorit* of the signatories to file the complaint. 4etitioner avers that >C45 &esolution 78, which was onl* presented in the Court of Appeals, merel* authoriDed the signator* to Fappear, act for, or otherwise represent the )an+ in all (udicial, ;uasi7(udicial or administrative hearings or incidents, including pre7trial conference, and in connection therewith, to do an* and all
&espondents, on the other hand, contend that the lac+ of authorit* of the persons who verified and certified the complaint was neither raised in the motion to dismiss nor in the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner. The* aver that the verification and certification of non7forum shopping contained a statement )* the persons who signed it that the* had )een so authoriDed )* the )oard of directors of their respective corporations. Considering the su)missions of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the respondentsO contention. The trial court did not err in den*ing the motion to dismiss. The issue concerning the signatoriesO authoriDation was never raised )efore it. @i+ewise, the appellate court did not err in refusing to ta+e cogniDance of the issue, since the parties did not raise it )eforehand. Issues not raised in the trial court cannot )e raised for the first time on appeal.1 #n the second issue, petitioner claims that respondent >C45 engaged in forum shopping since it earlier instituted an action for foreclosure of mortgage andKor collection, doc+eted as Civil Case No. 091. 11 This claim, in our view, is untena)le. A comparison of the two complaints would show its utter lac+ of merit. Civil Case No. 091 pertains to an #mni)us Credit and -ecurit* Agreement eC45 on Novem)er 23, 1009. This is separate and distinct from the #mni)us Agreement involved in Civil Case No. 0928. 6oreover, respondents Asian 5an+ and $ar !ast 5an+ are not among the parties to Civil Case No. 091. As pointed out )* the Court of Appeals, forum shopping e
-ection 2./ aB of 4art 5 of the #mni)us Agreement provides that the )orrower shall pa* interest on the advances outstanding from time to time on each interest pa*ment date, while -ection / of 4art A reads /.1 E7&)' o$ "&$al) !ach of the following events shall constitute an !vent of efault under this #mni)us Agreement: aB 4a*ment efault W The 5#&&#"!& defaults in the pa*ment when due at stated maturit*, )* acceleration or otherwise, of an* amount pa*a)le under the @oan ocuments. 1 ... Clearl*, under the foregoing provisions of the Agreement, petitioner ma* )e validl* declared in default for failure to pa* the interest. As a conse;uence of default, the unpaid amount shall earn default interest,19 and the respondent7)an+s have four alternative remedies without pre(udice to the application of the provisions on collaterals and an* other steps or action which ma* )e adopted )* the ma(orit* lender. 1/ The four remedies are alternative, with the right of choice given to the lenders, in this case the respondents. >nder Article 121 of the Civil Code, the choice shall produce no effect e-U26 term loan together with interests and other sum pa*a)le shall )e declared due and demanda)le. 18 The letter clearl* indicated the choice of remed* )* the respondents, pursuant to the #mni)us Agreement. !ven though su)se;uent demand is waived )* the petitioner in -ection /.2 of 4art 5 of the #mni)us Agreement, on $e)ruar* 9, 1000, the respondents nevertheless actuall* made their demand in writing for the pa*ment of the principal plus interest and penalt* charges due on or )efore $e)ruar* 2, 1000, with e
of the contract of lease )etween petitioner and CC. !ver* )usiness venture involves ris+s. &is+s are not unforeseea)le= the* are inherent in )usiness. "orth* of note, ris+ is an ender the law, these e
4ursuant to -ection 13, Article III of the Constitution, it is here)* certified that the conclusions in the a)ove ecision were reached in consultation )efore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtOs ivision. HILARIO G. "A6I"E, 5R.
Chief ustice
G.R. No. 12:349 5l 10, 1994 SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC., petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 5UANITA "E 5ESUS 6"A. "E "I+AANO, E+ERITA "I+AANO, RE+E"IOS "I+AANO, CONSOLACION "I+AANO a! +ILAGROS "I+AANO, respondents. PURISI+A, J.:
4etition for review under &ule 9 of the &ules of Court see+ing to set aside the ecision 1 promulgated on ul* 31, 100/, and &esolution 2 dated -eptem)er 12, 100/ of the Court of Appeals 3 in CA7'.&. No. 122, entitled Fuanita de esus vda. de imaano, et al . vs. -outheastern College, Inc.F, which reduced the moral damages awarded )elow from 41,,. to 42,.. The &esolution under attac+ denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. 4rivate respondents are owners of a house at 32/ College &oad, 4asa* Cit*, while petitioner owns a four7store* school )uilding along the same College &oad. #n #cto)er 11, 100, at a)out /:3 in the morning, a powerful t*phoon F-alingF hit 6etro 6anila. 5uffeted )* ver* strong winds, the roof of petitioners )uilding was partl* ripped off and )lown awa*, landing on and destro*ing portions of the roofing of private respondents house. After the t*phoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the destro*ed )uilding was conducted )* a team of engineers headed )* the cit* )uilding official, !ngr. esus @. &e*na. 4ertinent aspects of the latters &eport dated #cto)er 1, 100 stated, as follows: 9. #ne of the factors that ma* have led to this calamitous event is the formation of the )uilding in the area and the general direction of the wind. -ituated in the peripheral lot is an almost >7shaped formation of 7store* )uilding. Thus, with the strong winds having a westerl* direction, the general formation of the )uilding )ecomes a )ig funnel7 li+e structure, the one situated along College &oad, receiving the heaviest impact of the strong winds. %ence, there are portions of the roofing, those located on )oth ends of the )uilding, which remained intact after the storm. /. Another factor and perhaps the most li+el* reason for the dislodging of the roofing structural trusses is the improper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof )eams. The 1K2 diameter steel )ars em)edded on the concrete roof )eams which serve as truss anchorage are not )olted nor nailed to the trusses. -till, there are other steel )ars which were not even )ent to the trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to the roof )eams. It then recommended that Fto avoid an* further loss and damage to lives, lim)s and propert* of persons living in the vicinit*,F the fourth floor of su)(ect school )uilding )e declared as a Fstructural haDard.F In their Complaint : )efore the &egional Trial Court of 4asa* Cit*, 5ranch 118, for damages )ased on culpa aquiliana , private respondents alleged that the damage to their house rendered the same uninha)ita)le, forcing them to sta* temporaril* in others houses. And so the* sought to recover from petitioner 4118,11/., as actual damages, 41,,., as moral damages, 43,., as e
thereof giving wa*= that it has not )een remiss in its responsi)ilit* to see to it that said school )uilding, which houses school children, facult* mem)ers, and emplo*ees, is Fin tip7top conditionF= and furthermore, t*phoon F-alingF was Fan act of 'od and therefore )e*ond human controlF such that petitioner cannot )e answera)le for the damages wrought there)*, a)sent an* negligence on its part. The trial court, giving credence to the ocular inspection report to the effect that su)(ect school )uilding had a Fdefective roofing structure,F found that, while t*phoon F-alingF was accompanied )* strong winds, the damage to private respondents houses Fcould have )een avoided if the construction of the roof of LpetitionersM )uilding was not fault*.F The dispositive portion of the lower courts decision reads, thus: "%!&!$#&!, in view of the foregoing, the Court renders (udgment sicB in favor of the plaintiff sicB and against the defendants, sicB ordering the latter to pa* (ointl* and severall* the former as follows: aB 4118,11/., as actual damages, plus litigation e&T !&&! IN %#@IN' T%AT T?4%##N F-A@IN'F, A- AN ACT #$ '#, I- N#T FT%! -#@! AN A5-#@>T! &!A-#NF $#& T%! &I44IN'7#$$ #$ T%! -6A@@ 4#&TI#N #$ T%! &##$ #$ -#>T%!A-T!&N- $#>& B -T#&!? -C%##@ 5>I@IN'. II T%! T&IA@ C#>&T !&&! IN %#@IN' T%AT FT%! C#N-T&>CTI#N #$ T%! &##$ #$ !$!NANT- -C%##@ 5>I@IN' "A- $A>@T?F N#T"IT%-TANIN' T%! A6I--I#N T%AT T%!&! "!&! T?4%##N- 5!$#&! 5>T N#T A- '&A! A- T?4%##N F-A@IN'F "%IC% I- T%! I&!CT AN 4&#QI6AT! CA>-! #$ T%! INCI!NT. III T%! T&IA@ C#>&T !&&! IN A"A&IN' ACT>A@ AN 6#&A@ A6A'!- A- "!@@ A- ATT#&N!?- $!!- AN @ITI'ATI#N !Q4!N-!- AN C#-T- #$ ->IT T# I6AAN#"%!N T%!? %A! N#T INC>&&! ACT>A@ A6A'!- AT A@@ A- I6AAN#- %A! A@&!A? -#@ T%!I& 4!&T?, AN INT!&!NIN' !!NT T%AT &!N!&- T%ICA-! 6##T AN ACA!6IC. I T%! T&IA@ C#>&T !&&! IN #&!&IN' T%! I-->ANC! #$ T%! "&IT #$ !Q!C>TI#N IN-4IT! #$ T%! 4!&$!CTI#N #$ -#>T%!A-T!&N- A44!A@ "%!N T%!&! IN# C#64!@@IN' &!A-#N $#& T%! I-->ANC! T%!&!T#.
As mentioned earlier, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial courts disposition )* reducing the award of moral damages from 41,,. to 42,.. %ence, petitioners resort to this Court, raising for resolution the issues of: 1. "hether or not the award of actual damages L sicM to respondent imaanos on the )asis of speculation or con(ecture, without proof or receipts of actual damage, L sicM legall* feasi)le or (ustified. 2. "hether or not the award of moral damages to respondent imaanos, with the latter having suffered, actual damage has legal )asis. 3. "hether or not respondent imaanos who are no longer the owner of the propert*, su)(ect matter of the case, during its pendenc*, has the right to pursue their complaint against petitioner when the case was alread* moot and academic )* the sale of the propert* to third part*. . "hether or not the award of attorne*s fees when the case was alread* moot academic L sicM legall* (ustified. 9. "hether or not petitioner is lia)le for damage caused to others )* t*phoon F-alingF )eing an act of 'od. /. "hether or not the issuance of a writ of e
such finding, the trial court imputed negligence to petitioner and ad(udged it lia)le for damages to private respondents. After a thorough stud* and evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court )elieves otherwise, notwithstanding the general rule that factual findings )* the trail court, especiall* when affirmed )* the appellate court, are )inding and conclusive upon this Court. 1 After a careful scrutin* of the records and the pleadings su)mitted )* the parties, we find e
$urthermore, when part of its roof needed repairs of the damage inflicted )* t*phoon F-alingF, the same cit* official gave the go7signal for such repairs without an* deviation from the original design and su)se;uentl*, authoriDed the use of the entire fourth floor of the same )uilding. These onl* prove that su)(ect )uilding suffers from no structural defect, contrar* to the report that its F>7shapedF form was Fstructurall* defective.F %aving given his un;ualified imprimatur, the cit* )uilding official is presumed to have properl* performed his duties 23 in connection therewith. In addition, petitioner presented its vice president for finance and administration who testified that an annual maintenance inspection and repair of su)(ect school )uilding were regularl* underta+en. 4etitioner was even willing to present its maintenance supervisor to attest to the e
/arvasa& ".0.& Rom
