Exception: Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates specific rule

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

CITY OF MANILA, petitioner,
vs.
GNARO N. TOTICO an! CO"RT OF A##AL$, respondents.
City Fiscal Manuel T. Reyes for petitioner.
Sevilla, Daza and Associates for respondents.
CONC#CION, C.J.:
Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
On January 27, 195, at about !"" p.m., #enaro $. %eotico &as at the corner of the Old 'uneta and (. )ur*os
Avenue, +anila, &ithin a ,loadin* and unloadin*, -one, &aitin* for a .eepney to ta/e him do&n to&n. After
&aitin* for about five minutes, he mana*ed to hail a .eepney that came alon* to a stop. As he stepped do&n
from the curb to board the .eepney, and too/ a fe& steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unli*hted catch basin
or manhole on (. )ur*os Avenue. 0ue to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole brea/in* his eye*lasses
and causin* bro/en pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flo&ed therefrom, impairin* his vision,
several persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brou*ht %eotico to the
(hilippine #eneral 1ospital, &here his in.uries &ere treated, after &hich he &as ta/en home. 2n addition to the
lacerated &ound in his left upper eyelid, %eotico suffered contusions on the left thi*h, the left upper arm, the
ri*ht le* and the upper lip apart from an abrasion on the ri*ht infra3patella re*ion. %hese in.uries and the aller*ic
eruption caused by anti3tetanus in.ections administered to him in the hospital, re4uired further medical
treatment by a private practitioner &ho char*ed therefor (1,5""."".
As a conse4uence of the fore*oin* occurrence, %eotico filed, &ith the Court of 6irst 2nstance of +anila, a
complaint 7 &hich &as, subse4uently, amended 7 for dama*es a*ainst the City of +anila, its mayor, city
en*ineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and
4uoted &ith approval by the Court of Appeals,
At the time of the incident, plaintiff &as a practicin* public accountant, a businessman and a professor at
the 8niversity of the 9ast. 1e held responsible positions in various business firms li/e the (hilippine
+erchandisin* Co., the A.8. :alencia and Co., the ;ilver ;&an +anufacturin* Company and the
;incere (ac/in* Corporation. 1e &as also associated &ith several civic or*ani-ations such as the <ac/
<ac/ #olf Club, the Chamber of Commerce of the (hilippines, =>s +en Club of +anila and the ?ni*hts
of @i-al. As a result of the incident, plaintiff &as prevented from en*a*in* in his customary occupation
for t&enty days. (laintiff has lost a daily income of about (5"."" durin* his incapacity to &or/. )ecause
of the incident, he &as sub.ected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends.
0urin* the period of his treatment, plaintiff &as under constant fear and anAiety for the &elfare of his
minor children since he &as their only support. 0ue to the filin* of this case, plaintiff has obli*ated
himself to pay his counsel the sum of (2,"""."".
On the other hand, the defense presented evidence, oral and documentary, to prove that the ;torm 0rain
;ection, Office of the City 9n*ineer of +anila, received a report of the uncovered condition of a
catchbasin at the corner of (. )ur*os and Old 'uneta ;treets, +anila, on January 25, 195, but the same
&as covered on the same day B9Ahibit 5CD that a*ain the iron cover of the same catch basin &as reported
missin* on January E", 195, but the said cover &as replaced the neAt day B9Ahibit 5CD that the Office of
the City 9n*ineer never received any report to the effect that the catchbasin in 4uestion &as not covered
bet&een January 25 and 29, 19FD that it has al&ays been a policy of the said office, &hich is char*ed
&ith the duty of installation, repair and care of storm drains in the City of +anila, that &henever a report
is received from &hatever source of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is immediately attended to,
either by immediately replacin* the missin* cover or coverin* the catchbasin &ith steel mattin* that
because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailin*, stealin* of iron catchbasin covers &as
rampantD that the Office of the City 9n*ineer has filed complaints in court resultin* from theft of said
iron coversD that in order to prevent such thefts, the city *overnment has chan*ed the position and layout
of catchbasins in the City by constructin* them under the side&al/s &ith concrete cement covers and
openin*s on the side of the *utterD and that these chan*es had been underta/en by the city from time to
time &henever funds &ere available.
After appropriate proceedin*s the Court of 6irst 2nstance of +anila rendered the aforementioned decision
sustainin* the theory of the defendants and dismissin* the amended complaint, &ithout costs.
On appeal ta/en by plaintiff, this decision &as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, eAcept insofar as the City of
+anila is concerned, &hich &as sentenced to pay dama*es in the a**re*ate sum of (F,75"."".
1
1ence, this
appeal by the City of +anila.
%he first issue raised by the latter is &hether the present case is *overned by ;ection 5 of @epublic Act $o. 5"9
BCharter of the City of +anilaC readin*!
%he city shall not be liable or held for dama*es or in.uries to persons or property arisin* from the failure
of the +ayor, the +unicipal )oard, or any other city officer, to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or
any other la& or ordinance, or from ne*li*ence of said +ayor, +unicipal )oard, or other officers &hile
enforcin* or attemptin* to enforce said provisions.
or by Article 219 of the Civil Code of the (hilippines &hich provides!
(rovinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama*es for the death of, or in.uries suffered by,
any person by reason of defective conditions of road, streets, brid*es, public buildin*s, and other public
&or/s under their control or supervision.
+anila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because @epublic Act 5"9, is a special
la&, intended eAclusively for the City of +anila, &hereas the Civil Code is a *eneral la&, applicable to the
entire (hilippines.
%he Court of Appeals, ho&ever, applied the Civil Code, and, &e thin/, correctly. 2t is true that, insofar as its
territorial application is concerned, @epublic Act $o. 5"9 is a special la& and the Civil Code a *eneral
le*islationD but, as re*ards the sub.ect3matter of the provisions above 4uoted, ;ection 5 of @epublic Act 5"9
establishes a *eneral rule re*ulatin* the liability of the City of +anila for! ,dama*es or in.ury to persons or
property arisin* from the failure of, city officers ,to enforce the provisions of, said Act ,or any other la& or
ordinance, or from ne*li*ence, of the city ,+ayor, +unicipal )oard, or other officers &hile enforcin* or
attemptin* to enforce said provisions., 8pon the other hand, Article 219 of the Civil Code constitutes a
particular prescription ma/in* ,provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for dama*es for the death of, or
in.ury suffered by any person by reason, 7 specifically 7 ,of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and otherpublic !or"s under their control or supervision., 2n other &ords, said section 5
refers to liability arisin* from ne*li*ence, in *eneral, re*ardless of the ob.ect thereof, &hereas Article 219
*overns liability due to ,defective streets,, in particular. ;ince the present action is based upon the alle*ed
defective condition of a road, said Article 219 is decisive thereon.
2t is ur*ed that the City of +anila cannot be held liable to %eotico for dama*es! 1C because the accident
involvin* him too/ place in a national hi*h&ayD and 2C because the City of +anila has not been ne*li*ent in
connection there&ith.
As re*ards the first issue, &e note that it is based upon an alle*ation of fact not made in the ans&er of the City.
+oreover, %eotico alle*ed in his complaint, as &ell as in his amended complaint, that his in.uries &ere due to
the defective condition of a street &hich is ,under the supervision and control, of the City. 2n its ans&er to the
amended complaint, the City, in turn, alle*ed that #the streets afore$entioned !ere and have been constantly
"ept in good condition and regularly inspected and the stor$ drains and $anholes thereof covered by the
defendant City and the officers concerned# !ho #have been ever vigilant and zealous in the perfor$ance of
their respective functions and duties as i$posed upon the$ by la!.# %hus, the City had, in effect, admitted that
(. )ur*os Avenue &as and is under its control and supervision.
+oreover, 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 assertion raised, therefore, a 4uestion
of fact, &hich had not been put in issue in the trial court, and cannot be set up, for the first time, on appeal,
much less after the rendition of the decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof.
At any rate, under Article 219 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 or municipality from &hich responsibility is
eAacted. <hat said article re4uires is that the province, city or municipality have either ,control or supervision,
over said street or road. 9ven if (. )ur*os Avenue &ere, therefore, a national hi*h&ay, this circumstance &ould
not necessarily detract from its ,control or supervision, by the City of +anila, under @epublic Act 5"9. 2n fact
;ection 1BAC thereof provides!
;ec. 1. %egislative po!ers. 7 %he +unicipal )oard shall have the follo&in* le*islative po&ers!
A A A A A A A A A
BAC ;ub.ect to the provisions of eAistin* la& to provide for the laying out, construction and i$prove$ent,
and to regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, side&al/s, &harves, piers, par/s, cemeteries, and other
public placesD to provide for lighting, cleanin*, and sprin/lin* of streets and public placesD . . . to provide
for the inspection of, fiA 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 the abate$ent of nuisances in the same and punish the authors or
o&ners thereofD to provide for the construction and maintenance, and re*ulate the use, of brid*es,
viaducts and culvertsD to prohibit and re*ulate ball playin*, /ite3flyin*, hoop rollin*, and other
amusements &hich may annoy persons using the streets and public places, or fri*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 regulate the lights used on all vehicles, cars, and
locomotivesD . . . to provide for and chan*e the location, *rade, and crossin* of railroads, and compel
any such railroad to raise or lo&er its trac/s to conform to such provisions or chan*esD and to re4uire
railroad companies to fence their property, or any part thereof, to provide suitable protection against
in&ury to persons or property, and to construct and repair ditches, drains, se!ers, and culverts alon* and
under their trac/s, so that the natural draina*e of the streets and ad.acent property shall not be
obstructed.
%his authority has been neither &ithdra&n nor restricted by @epublic Act $o. 917 and 9Aecutive Order $o. 11E,
dated +ay 2, 1955, upon &hich the City relies. ;aid Act *overns the disposition or appropriation of the hi*h&ay
funds and the *ivin* of aid to provinces, chartered cities and municipalities in the construction of roads and
streets &ithin their respective boundaries, and 9Aecutive Order $o. 11E merely implements the provisions of
said @epublic Act $o. 917, concernin* the disposition and appropriation of the hi*h&ay funds. +oreover, it
provides that ,the construction, $aintenance and improvement of national primary, national secondary and
national aid provincial and city roads shall be accomplished by the 1i*h&ay 0istrict 9n*ineers and 1i*h&ay
City 9n*ineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of (ublic 1i*h&ays and shall be financed from such
appropriations as may be authori-ed by the @epublic of the (hilippines in annual or special appropriation Acts.,
%hen, a*ain, the determination of &hether or not (. )ur*os Avenue is under the control or supervision of the
City of +anila and &hether the latter is *uilty of ne*li*ence, in connection &ith the maintenance of said road,
&hich &ere decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative, is one of fact, and the findin*s of said Court
thereon are not sub.ect to our revie&.
<19@96O@9, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, &ith costs a*ainst the City of
+anila. 2t is so ordered.'(!ph)'.*+t
Reyes, ,.-.%., Dizon, Ma"alintal, -engzon, ,..., /aldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, ,,., concur.
Foo%no%&'
1
+edical fees 7 (1,5"".""D 'ost income 7 (E5".""D +oral dama*es 7 (E,""".""D and Attorney>s fees
7 (2,"""."".