Manila Law College

Torts and Damages - Case Report

Roberto Aguila, Jr.

(1) Southeastern College vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126389 July 10, 1998

Facts

Private respondents Juanita De Dimaano, et. al., a house across petitioner’s four-storey school
building at College Road, Pasay City. On October 11, 1989, typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila.
Buffeted by very strong wingd, the roof of petitioner’s building was partly ripped off and blown
away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents’ house.

An ocular inspection was later conducted. The city engineers found out the cause of the roof’s
dislodging:

(1) The general direction of the wind; because of the U-shaped formation of the building the
strong winds having a westerly direction, it received the heaviest impact of the strong winds; and

(2) The improper anchorage of the trusses to the roof beams; the 1/2’ diameter steel bars
embedded on the concrete roof beams which serve as truss anchorage are not bolted nor nailed to
the trusses.

Hence, they declared it as a structural hazard. Consequently, private respondents filed an action for
damages, alleging that the damage to their house rendered the same uninhabitable, forcing them to
stay temporarily in others' houses. They sought to recover from petitioner P117,116.00, as actual
damages, P1,000,000.00, as moral damages, P300,000.00, as exemplary damages and P100,000.00,
for and as attorney's fees; plus costs.

Petitioner averred that the school building had withstood several devastating typhoons and other
calamities in the past, without its roofing or any portion thereof giving way. Likewise, it has not
been remiss in its responsibility to see to it that said school building is in a good condition.
Furthermore, petitioner averred that typhoon Saling was an act of God and therefore beyond
human control such that petitioner cannot be answerable for the damages wrought thereby, absent
any negligence on its part.

The lower court rendered its decision in favor of private respondents. Respondent Court of Appeals
only modified the award of damages, reducing moral damages from P1,000,000 to P200,000.

Hence, the petition.

Issue

WON petitioner may be exonerated by reason of fortuitous event

Ruling

No, petitioner cannot find relief in the case at bar invoking the rule on fortuitous event. The Court
ruled:

In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free
from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned.  An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of
gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences.

In the case bar, the lower court accorded full credence to the finding of the investigating team that
subject school building's roofing had "no sufficient anchorage to hold it in position especially when
battered by strong winds." Based on such finding, the trial court imputed negligence to petitioner
and adjudged it liable for damages to private respondents.

Likewise, Article 1174 of the New Civil Code states that:

“Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or
when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible
for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.”

Moreover,  Civilist Arturo M. Tolentino adds that fortuitous events may be produced by two general
causes: (1) by nature, such as earthquakes, storms, floods, epidemics, fires, etc. and (2) by the act of
man, such as an armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions, robbery, etc.

PETITION DENIED.

(2) Libi vs Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 70890 September 18 1992

Facts

Wendell Libi shot his lover Julie Ann Giotong, both minors, before he turned the firearm on himself.
As a result, the parents of Julie Ann filed against Wendell's parents to recover damages. The trial
court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. CA reversed the
decision.

Issue

WON the parents of Wendell Libi liable for vicarious liability

Ruling

Yes, the subsidiary liability of parents for damages cause by their minor children is imposed by
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, which covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and
criminal offenses. The parents' liability as being primary and not subsidiary and liability shall
ceased if the parents can prove that they observe all the diligence of a good father to prevent
damage.

In the case at bar, the parents had not exercised due diligence in supervising the activities of their
son. It was only at the time of Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was drug
informant of CANU and that the gun used in the shooting incident was missing from the safety
deposit box. Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell from having access to said gun,
the Libis are subsidiary liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of said minor who
was living in their company.

PETITION DENIED.