PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) G.R. No. 157906
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO November 2, 2006
CAPILIv.CARDANA Plaintiffs:JOAQUINITAP.CAPILI
The Cardañ Cardañas as averred averred that that petitio petitioner ner’s ’s gross gross neglige negligence nce and lack offoresight offoresight causedthe causedthe deathof deathof theirdaught theirdaughter,becau er,because se despiteherknowledgethatthetreewasdeadandrotting,she didnotexercisereasonablecareandcaution. Petitioner’sArguments CapilisaidthatatthattimeLerioshadonlyofferedtobuythe tree tree, , and and she she pres presen ente ted d witn witnes esse ses s who who atte attest sted ed that that she she brough brought t up Lerios’ Lerios’ offer offer during during a meeting meeting, , and had assigne assigned d RemediosPalañatonegotiatethesale. Shealso denied denied knowing knowing that that the tree tree wasdeadand rottin rotting, g, claimi claiming ng that that desp despit ite e her her phys physica ical l insp inspect ection ion of the the schoo school l grounds,shedidnotobserveanyindicationthatthetreewas already already rotten rotten nor did anyofher15 teacher teachersinform sinform her that that thetreewasalreadyrotten
•
Defendant: SPS.DOMINADORCARDAÑAandROSALITACARDAÑA CASE:Respondentsdaug CASE:Respondentsdaughter,Jasmi hter,JasminCardaña nCardaña,waskilledafterabranch ,waskilledafterabranch ofarottingcaimitotreefellonherwhileshewaswalkingintheschool premises premises of whichherein petitioneris petitioneris theprincipal.The parents parents aver thatpetitionerwasnegligentasshedidnottakepropernoticeoraction conc concer erni ning ng the the rott rotten en stat state e of tree tree and and whic which h pose poses s a dang danger er to persons.Respondentontheotherhandclaimthattherewerenosigns thatthetreewasrotten,andthatnoonehadtoldheritwassuch. The Courtruled thatpetitionerwas negligent negligent because, because, as principal,it principal,it was her her duty duty to ensu ensure re the the main mainte tena nance nce and and safet safety y of the the schoo school l grou ground nds. s. The doct doctri rine ne of res res ipsa ipsa loqu loquit itur ur appl applies ies in this this case case and and thereforegaverisetothepresumptionoftheprincipal’snegligence.It may,berebuttedbyevidence,butthepetitionerfailedtodoso. DOCTRINE:SeeMajorPoint2forthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur. BACKGROUND: Jasmin n Carda Cardaña ña was walkin walking g along along the Februar February y 1, 1993 à Jasmi perimet perimeterfenceof erfenceof the SanRoque Element ElementarySchoo arySchool l when a branchofa branchofa caimitotreelocatedwithinthescho caimitotreelocatedwithintheschoolpremisesfell olpremisesfell onher,causingherinstantaneousdeath. Herparents- DominadorandRosalitaCardaña -filedacasefor damagesagainsttheschool’sprincipal,JoaquinitaCapili. Respondents’Arguments Respo Respond nden ents ts alleg alleged ed that that as earl early y as Decemb December er 15, 199 1992, 2, a resid residen ent t of the the bara baranga ngay, y, Eufr Eufron onio io Leri Lerios, os, repo report rted ed on the the possibledangerthetreeposedtopassersby.
•
ISSUESTOBERESOLVED: 1. Whetherornotpetitionerisnegligentandliableforthedeath. RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS Whethe Whether r or not petiti petitioner oner is neglige negligent nt and liable liable f or the ISSUE 1 deathofJasminCardaña àYES.Theprobabilitythatthebranchesofa deadandrottingtreecouldfallandharmsomeoneisclearlyadanger thatisforeseeable.Astheschoolprincipal,petitionerwastaskedtosee tothe mainte maintenan nanceof ceof the schoolground schoolgrounds s and safetyof safetyof the childr children en withintheschoolanditspremises. withintheschoolanditspremises.Thatshewasunawareoftherotte Thatshewasunawareoftherotten n state state ofa tree tree whose whose falling falling branch branch had caused caused the deathof deathof a child child speaksillofherdischargeoftheresponsibilityofherposition. MAJORPOINT1:TheCourtfindsthiscaseasfallingwithintheexception MAJORPOINT1:TheCourtfindsthiscaseasfallingwithintheexception ofthegeneralrulethatfactsasruledbythelowercourtisbindingon theSupremeCourt. •
GENERAL GENERAL RULE: Whether Whether petitio petitioner ner wasnegligent wasnegligent ornot isa questionoffactwhichisgenerallynotproperinapetitionfor review,andwhenthisdeterminationissupportedbysubstantial evidence,itbecomesconclusiveandbindingonthisCourt.
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) •
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
EXCEPTION: When the findings of the Court of Appeals are 1 incongruentwiththefindingsofthelowercourt,asinthiscase.
MAJOR POINT 2: The fact, however, that respondents’ daughter, Jasmin,diedasaresultofthedeadandrottingtreewithintheschool’s premisesshowsthatthetreewasindeedanobviousdangertoanyone passingbyandcallsforapplicationoftheprincipleofresipsaloquitur. Thedoctrineofresipsaloquiturapplieswhere (1) Theaccidentwasofsuchcharacterastowarrantaninference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) The acc ident must hav e been caus ed by an ag ency or instrumentalitywithintheexclusivemanagementorcontrolof thepersonchargedwiththenegligencecomplainedof;and (3) Theaccidentmustnothavebeenduetoanyvoluntaryactionor contributiononthepartofthepersoninjured. Theproceduraleffectofthedoctrineofresipsaloquituristhat petitioner’s negligence is presumed once respondents established the requisites for the doctrine to apply. Once respondentsmadeoutaprimafaciecaseofallrequisites,the burden shifts to petitioner to explain. The presumption or inferencemayberebuttedorovercomebyotherevidenceand, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference.
•
•
•
•
Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injurywas such as inthe ordinary course of things would not happen if those who had its control or managementusedpropercare,thereissufficientevidence,or, as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanationbythedefendant,thattheinjuryarosefromorwas causedbythedefendant’swantofcare. Asschoolprincipal,petitionerisexpectedtooverseethesafety of the school’s premises. The fact that she failed to see the immediatedanger posedby the dead and rotting tree shows she failed to exercise the responsibility demanded by her position.
MAJORPOINT3:Moraldamagescannotbeawardedbecausepetitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-à-vis respondents’ daughter’sdeath. Moraldamagesareawardedifthefollowingelementsexistin thecase: (1) Aninjuryclearlysustainedbytheclaimant; (2) Aculpableactoromissionfactuallyestablished; (3) Awrongfulactoromissionbythedefendantastheproximate causeoftheinjurysustainedbytheclaimant;and (4) Theawardofdamagespredicatedonanyofthecasesstatedin Article2219oftheCivilCode. However, theperson claiming moraldamagesmust provethe existenceofbadfaithbyclearandconvincingevidenceforthe law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merelysuffered sleepless nights,mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such actionmust be shown to have been willfully doneinbadfaithorwithillmotive. •
•
Thetrialcourtgavecredencetotheclaimofpetitionerthatshehadnoknowledgethatthe treewasalreadydeadandrottingandthatLeriosmerelyinformedherthathewasgoingto buythetreeforfirewood.Itruledthatpetitionerexercisedthedegreeofcareandvigilance whichthecircumstancesrequireandthattherewasanabsenceofevidencethatwouldrequire hertouseahigherstandardofcaremorethanthatrequiredbytheattendantcircumstances. The Courtof Appeals, onthe otherhand,ruledthatpetitioner should have knownof the conditionofthetreebyitsmeresightingandthatnomatterhowhecticherschedulewas,she shouldhavehadthetreeremovedandnotmer elydelegatedthetasktoPalaña.Theappellate courtruledthatthe deadcaimitotreewasa nuisancethat shouldhavebeenremovedsoon afterpetitionerhadchanceduponit. 1
NOSEPARATEOPINIONS
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ