8/9/2019 City of Manila v. Teotico

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/city-of-manila-v-teotico 1/2

 Torts and DamagesRepublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968

CT! O" M#NL#, petitioner,vs.GEN#RO N. TEOTCO an$ COURT O" #PPE#LS, respondents.

City Fiscal Manuel T. Reyes for petitioner.Sevilla, Daza and Associates for respondents.

CONCEPCON, C.J.:

 Appeal by certiorari  from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

On anuary !", #$%&, at about &'(( p.m., )enaro N. *eotico +as at the corner of the Old unetaand P. Bur-os Avenue, Manila, +ithin a loadin- and unloadin- /one, +aitin- for a 0eepney to

ta1e him do+n to+n. After +aitin- for about five minutes, he mana-ed to ha il a 0eepney thatcame alon- to a stop. As he stepped do+n from the curb to board the 0eepney, and too1 a fe+steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unli-hted catch basin or manhole on P. Bur-os Avenue.2ue to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole brea1in- his eye-lasses and causin- bro1enpieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flo+ed therefrom, impairin- his vision, severalpersons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brou-ht *eoticoto the Philippine )eneral 3ospital, +here his in0uries +ere treated, after +hich he +as ta1enhome. 4n addition to the lacerated +ound in his le ft upper eyelid, *eotico suffered contusions onthe left thi-h, the left upper arm, the ri-ht le- and the upper lip apart from an abrasion on theri-ht infra5patella re-ion. *hese in0uries and the aller-ic eruption caused by anti5tetanusin0ections administered to him in the hospital, re6uired further medical treatment by a privatepractitioner +ho char-ed therefor P#,7((.((.

 As a conse6uence of the fore-oin- occurrence, *eotico filed, +ith the Court of 8irst 4nstance of

Manila, a complaint 9 +hich +as, subse6uently, amended 9 for dama-es a-ainst the City ofManila, its mayor, city en-ineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. As stated inthe decision of the trial court, and 6uoted +ith approval by the Court of Appeals,

 At the time of the incident, plaintiff +as a practicin- public accountant, a businessmanand a professor at the :niversity of the East. 3e held responsible positions in variousbusiness firms li1e the Philippine Merchandisin- Co., the A.:. ;alencia and Co., the<ilver <+an Manufacturin- Company and the <incere Pac1in- Corporation. 3e +asalso associated +ith several civic or-ani/ations such as the =ac1 =ac1 )olf Club, theChamber of Commerce of the Philippines, >?s Men Club of Manila and the @ni-hts ofRi/al. As a result of the incident, plaintiff +as prevented from en-a-in- in hiscustomary occupation for t+enty days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of aboutP%(.(( durin- his incapacity to +or1. Because of the incident, he +as sub0ected tohumiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends. 2urin- the period ofhis treatment, plaintiff +as under constant fear and aniety for the +elfare of his minor

children since he +as their only support. 2ue to the filin- of this case, plaintiff hasobli-ated himself to pay his counsel the sum of P!,(((.((.

On the other hand, the defense presented evidence, oral and documentary, to provethat the <torm 2rain <ection, Office of the City En-ineer of Manila, received a reportof the uncovered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of P. Bur-os and Old uneta<treets, Manila, on anuary !7, #$%&, but the same +as covered on the same dayEhibit 7D that a-ain the iron cover of the same catch basin +as reported missin- onanuary (, #$%&, but the said cover +as replaced the net day Ehibit %D that the

Office of the City En-ineer never received any report to the effect that the catchbasinin 6uestion +as not covered bet+een anuary !% and !$, #$F&D that it has al+aysbeen a policy of the said office, +hich is char-ed +ith the duty of installation, repairand care of storm drains in the City of Manila, that +henever a report is received from+hatever source of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is immediately attendedto, either by immediately replacin- the missin- cover or coverin- the catchbasin +ithsteel mattin- that because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailin-, stealin-of iron catchbasin covers +as rampantD that the Office of the City En-ineer has filedcomplaints in court resultin- from theft of said iron coversD that in order to preventsuch thefts, the city -overnment has chan-ed the position and layout of catchbasins inthe City by constructin- them under the side+al1s +ith concrete cement covers andopenin-s on the side of the -utterD and that these chan-es had been underta1en bythe city from time to time +henever funds +ere available.

 After appropriate proceedin-s the Court of 8irst 4nstance of Manila rendered the aforementioneddecision sustainin- the theory of the defendants and dismissin- the amended complaint, +ithoutcosts.

On appeal ta1en by plain tiff, this decision +as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ecept insofaras the City of Manila is concerned, +hich +as sentenced to pay dama-es in the a--re-ate sumof PF,"%(.((. # 3ence, this appeal by the City of Manila.

*he first issue raised by the latter is +hether the present case is -overned by <ection 7 ofRepublic Act No. 7($ Charter of the City of Manila readin-'

*he city shall not be liable or held for dama-es or in0uries to persons or propertyarisin- from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other city officer, toenforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other la+ or ordinance, or from

ne-li-ence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers +hile enforcin- orattemptin- to enforce said provisions.

or by Article !#&$ of the Civil Code of the Philippines +hich provides'

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama-es for the death of, orin0uries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions of road, streets,brid-es, public buildin-s, and other public +or1s under their control or supervision.

Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because Republic Act7($, is a special la+, intended eclusively for the City of Manila, +hereas the Civil Code is a-eneral la+, applicable to the entire Philippines.

1 thil lozada

8/9/2019 City of Manila v. Teotico

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/city-of-manila-v-teotico 2/2

 Torts and Damages*he Court of Appeals, ho+ever, applied the Civil Code, and, +e thin1, correctly. 4t is true that,insofar as its territorial application is concerned, Republic Act No. 7($ is a special la+ and theCivil Code a -eneral le-islationD but, as re-ards the sub0ect5matter of the provisions above6uoted, <ection 7 of Republic Act 7($ establishes a -eneral rule re-ulatin- the liability of theCity of Manila for' dama-es or in0ury to persons or property arisin- from the failure of cityofficers to enforce the provisions of said Act or any other la+ or ordinance, or fromne-li-ence of the city Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers +hile enforcin- or attemptin- toenforce said provisions. :pon the other hand, Article !#&$ of the Civil Code constitutes aparticular prescription ma1in- provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for dama-es for the

death of, or in0ury suffered by any person by reason 9 specifically 9 of the defective conditionof roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and otherpublic !or"s under their control orsupervision. 4n other +ords, said section 7 refers to liability arisin- from ne-li-ence, in -eneral,re-ardless of the ob0ect thereof, +hereas Article !#&$ -overns liability due to defective streets,in particular. <ince the present action is based upon the alle-ed defective condition of a road,said Article !#&$ is decisive thereon.

4t is ur-ed that the City of Manila cannot be held liable to *eotico for dama-es' # because theaccident involvin- him too1 place in a national hi-h+ayD and ! because the City of Manila hasnot been ne-li-ent in connection there+ith.

 As re-ards the first issue, +e note that it is based upon an alle-ation of fact not made in theans+er of the City. Moreover, *eotico alle-ed in his complaint, as +ell as in his amendedcomplaint, that his in0uries +ere due to the defective condition of a street +hich is under the

supervision and control of the City. 4n its ans+er to the amended complaint, the City, in turn,alle-ed that #the streets afore$entioned !ere and have been constantly "ept in good conditionand regularly inspected and the stor$ drains and $anholes thereof covered by the defendantCity and the officers concerned# !ho #have been ever vigilant and zealous in the perfor$ance of their respective functions and duties as i$posed upon the$ by la! .#  *hus, the City had, ineffect, admitted that P. Bur-os Avenue +as and is under its control and supervision.

Moreover, the assertion to the effect that said Avenue is a national hi-h+ay +as made, for the  first time, in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. <uch assertionraised, therefore, a 6uestion of fact, +hich had not been put in issue in the trial court, and cannotbe set up, for the first time, on appeal, much less after the rendition of the decision of theappellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof.

 At any rate, under Article !#&$ of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein

established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city ormunicipality from +hich responsibility is eacted. =hat said article re6uires is that the province,city or municipality have either control or supervision over said street or road. Even if P. Bur-os

 Avenue +ere, therefore, a national hi-h+ay, this circumstance +ould not necessarily detractfrom its control or supervision by the City of Manila, under Republic Act 7($. 4n fact <ection#& thereof provides'

<ec. #&. %egislative po!ers. 9 *he Municipal Board shall have the follo+in-le-islative po+ers'

<ub0ect to the provisions of eistin- la+ to provide for the laying out, constructionand i$prove$ent , and to regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, side+al1s,

+harves, piers, par1s, cemeteries, and other public placesD to provide for lighting ,

cleanin-, and sprin1lin- of streets and public placesD . . . to provide for the inspectionof, fi the license fees for and re-ulate the openin-s in the same for the layin- of -as,+ater, se+er and other pipes, the buildin- and repair of tunnels, se+ers, and drains,and all structures in and under the same and the erectin- of poles and the strin-in- of+ires thereinD to provide for and regulate cross!or"s, curbs, and gutters therein,  . . . to regulate traffic and sales upon the streets and other public placesD to provide for theabate$ent of nuisances in the same and punish the authors or o+ners thereofD toprovide for the construction and maintenance, and re-ulate the use, of brid-es,viaducts and culvertsD to prohibit and re-ulate ball playin-, 1ite5flyin-, hoop rollin-, and

other amusements +hich may annoy persons using the streets and public places , orfri-hten horses or other animalsD to regulate the speed of horses and other animals,motor and other vehicles, cars, and locomotives +ithin the limits of the cityD to regulatethe lights used on all vehicles, cars, and locomotivesD . . . to provide for and chan-ethe location, -rade, and crossin- of railroads, and compel any such railroad to raise or lo+er its trac1s to conform to such provisions or chan-esD and to re6uire railroadcompanies to fence their property, or any part thereof, to provide suitable protectionagainst in&ury to persons or property , and to construct and repair ditches, drains,se!ers, and culverts alon- and under their trac1s, so that the natural draina-e of thestreets and ad0acent property shall not be obstructed.

*his authority has been neither +ithdra+n nor restricted by Republic Act No. $#" and EecutiveOrder No. ##, dated May !, #$%%, upon +hich the City relies. <aid Act -overns the dispositionor appropriation of the hi-h+ay funds and the -ivin- of aid to provinces, chartered cities andmunicipalities in the construction of roads and streets +ithin their respective boundaries, and

Eecutive Order No. ## merely implements the provisions of said Republic Act No. $#",concernin- the disposition and appropriation of the hi-h+ay funds. Moreover, it provides thatthe construction, $aintenance and improvement of national primary, national secondary andnational aid provincial and city roads shall be accomplished by the 3i-h+ay 2istrict En-ineersand 3i-h+ay City En-ineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of Public 3i-h+ays and

shall be financed  from such appropriations as may be authori/ed by the Republic of the

Philippines in annual or special appropriation Acts.

*hen, a-ain, the determination of +hether or not P. Bur-os Avenue is under the control orsupervision of the City of Manila and +hether the latter is -uilty of ne-li-ence, in connection +iththe maintenance of said road, +hich +ere decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative, isone of fact, and the findin-s of said Court thereon are not sub0ect to our revie+.

=3ERE8ORE, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, +ith costs a-ainst

the City of Manila. 4t is so ordered.

2 thil lozada