G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992 SOFIA FERNANDO, in her behalf an a! "he le#al #$arian of her %inor &hilren, na%ely' A()ER*O + RO)ER*O, all !$rna%e FERNANDO, ANI*A GARIA, NIO(AS (IAGOSO, ROSA(IA )ER*-(ANO, in her behalf an a! "he le#al #$arian of her %inor &hilren, na%ely' ED-ARDO, RO(ANDO, DANIE(, AND OE(/N, all !$rna%e )ER*-(ANO, RIMI*IA FAARDO in her behalf an a! le#al #$arian of her %inor &hilren, na%ely' GI()ER*, G(EN, OE(/N AND OSE(I*O, all !$rna%e FAARDO, an EME*ERIA (IAGOSO, (IAGOSO, in her behalf an a! #$arian ad litem, litem, of her %inor #ran&hilren, na%ely' NOE(, I((IAM, GENEIEE an GERR/, all !$rna%e (IAGOSO, petitioners, vs. *3E 3ONORA)(E O-R* OF AEA(S AND I*/ OF DAAO, respondents. Fa&"!' Bibiano Morta, market master of the Agdao Public Market led a requisition request with the Chief of Propert of the Cit !reasurer"s #$ce for the re% empting of the septic tank in Agdao. An invitation to bid was issued to Aurelio Bertulano, &ito Catarsa, 'eliciano Bascon, 'ederico 'ederico Bolo and Antonio (u)er, *r. *r. Bascon won the bid. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bascon was notied and he signed the purchase order. order. +oweve +owever, r, bidder bidder Bertul Bertulano ano with with four four other other compa companio nions ns namel namel *oseli *oselito to arcia, -illiam &iagoso, Alberto 'ernando and *ose 'aardo, *r. were found dead inside the septic tank. !he bodies were removed b a reman. reman. *he i"y En#ineer4! o5&e in6e!"i#a"e "he &a!e an learne "ha" "he 6e 6i&"i%! en"ere "he !e"i& "an :i"ho$" &learan&e fro% i" nor :i"h "he no:le#e an &on!en" of "he %are" %a!"er. /n fact, the septic tank was found to be almost empt and the victims were presumed to be the ones who did the re%empting. 0r. *uan Abear of the Cit +ealth #$ce autopsied the bodies and in his reports, put the cause of death of all ve victims as 1asph2ia1 caused b the diminution of o2gen suppl in the bod working below normal conditions.
•
!he lungs of the ve victims burst, swelled in hemmorrhagic areas and this was due to their intake of to2ic gas, which, in this case, was sulde gas produced from the waste matter inside the septic tank.
I!!$e!' 3. -hether respondent 0avao Cit is guilt of negligence in the case at bar. 4. /f so, whether such negligence the immediate and pro2imate cause of deaths of the victims. 3E(D' NO "o bo"h. •
!he test b which to determine the e2istence of negligence in a particular case ma be stated as follows5 Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
!he law here in e6ect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied b the imaginar conduct of the discreet pater familias of the 7oman law. !he e2istence of negligence in a given case is not determined b reference to the personal udgment of the actor in the situation before him. !he law considers what would be reckless, blameworth, or negligent in the man of ordinar intelligence and prudence and determines liabilit b that. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case . Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course actuall pursued8 /f so, it was the dut of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist . (tated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining the e2istence of negligence in a given case is this5 Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an eect harmful to another was su!ciently probable warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences . 9emphasis supplied: !o be entitled to damages for an inur resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the relation between the omission and the
•
•
•
•
damage. +e must prove under Article 43;< of the =ew Civil Code that the defendant"s negligence was the immediate and pro2imate cause of his inur. ro;i%a"e &a$!e ha! been ene a! "ha" &a$!e, :hi&h, in na"$ral an &on"in$o$! !e<$en&e $nbroen by any e5&ien" in"er6enin# &a$!e, ro$&e! "he in=$ry, an :i"ho$" :hi&h "he re!$l" :o$l no" ha6e o&&$rre. Proof of such relation of cause and e6ect is not an arduous one if the claimant did not in an wa contribute to the negligence of the defendant. 3o:e6er, :here "he re!$l"in# in=$ry :a! "he ro$&" of "he ne#li#en&e of bo"h ar"ie!, "here e;i!"! a i5&$l"y "o i!&ern :hi&h a&"! !hall be &on!iere "he ro;i%a"e &a$!e of "he a&&ien". /n Taylor v . "anila #lectric Railroad and $ight Co . 93> Phil. ?, 4<%@:, this Court set a guideline for a udicious assessment of the situation5 0i$cult seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the inured part shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple . Distinction must be made between the accident and the in%ury, between the event itself, without which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt .
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
Petitioners fault the cit government of 0avao for failing to clean a septic tank for the period of 3< ears resulting in an accumulation of hdrogen sulde gas which killed the laborers. !he contend that such failure was compounded b the fact that there was no warning sign of the e2isting danger and no e6orts e2erted b the public respondent to neutralie or render harmless the e6ects of the to2ic gas. !he submit that the public respondent"s gross negligence was the pro2imate cause of the fatal incident. e o no" !$b!&ribe "o "hi! 6ie:. hile i" %ay be "r$e "ha" "he $bli& re!onen" ha! been re%i!! in i"! $"y "o re>e%"y "he !e"i& "an ann$ally, !$&h ne#li#en&e :a! no" a &on"in$in# one. pon learning from the report of the market master about the need to clean the septic tank of the public toilet in Agdao Public Market, the public respondent immediatel responded b issuing invitations to bid for such service. !hereafter, it awarded the bid to the lowest bidder, Mr. 'eliciano Bascon. !he public respondent, therefore, lost no time in taking up remedial measures to meet the situation.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
/t is likewise an undisputed fact that despite the public respondent"s failure to re%empt the septic tank since 3, people in the market have been using the public toilet for their personal necessities but have remained unscathed. /n view of this factual milieu, i" :o$l aear "ha" an a&&ien" !$&h a! "o;i& #a! leaa#e fro% "he !e"i& "an i! $nliely "o haen $nle!! one re%o6e! i"! &o6er!. *he a&&ien" in "he &a!e a" bar o&&$rre be&a$!e "he 6i&"i%! on "heir o:n an :i"ho$" a$"hori"y fro% "he $bli& re!onen" oene "he !e"i& "an. Considering the nature of the task of empting a septic tank especiall one which has not been cleaned for ears, an ordinaril prudent person should undoubtedl be aware of the attendant risks. !he victims are no e2ceptionE more so with Mr. Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who is presumed to know the haards of the ob. +is failure, therefore, and that of his men to take precautionar measures for their safet was the pro2imate cause of the accident. /n Culion Ice, &ish and #lect . Co., v . 'hil. "otors Corporation 9DD Phil. 34<, 3@@:, -e held that :hen a er!on hol! hi%!elf o$" a! bein# &o%e"en" "o o "hin#! re<$irin# rofe!!ional !ill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do 9emphasis #urs:. !he fatal accident in this case would not have happened but for the victims" negligence.
