Dra. Abdula Rodriguez vs. CA G.R. No.

121964 June 17, 1997

FULL TEXT:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/jun1997/gr_121964_1997.html

DRA. ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, LEONOR PRIETOS, LEONORA

RODRIGUEZ NOLASCO, LUZVIMINDA ANTIG and JUANITA
RODRIGUEZ, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HARRY VILORIA, MARGARITA
MILAGROS VILORIA and JOHN P. YOUNG, respondents.

FACTS:
On March 15, 1989, a fire erupted, destroying two apartment buildings
owned by Abdulia Rodriguez, Leonora Rodriguez Nolasco, and Juanita
Rodriguez, and partially damaging a commercial building.
Abdulia Rodriguez, Leonora Rodriguez Nolasco, Juanita Rodriguez,
Leonora Prietos, and Luzviminda Antig filed a lawsuit for damages
against Harry John Viloriam, Margarita Milagros Viloria, and John P.
Young. They claimed that negligence by the defendants' construction
workers caused the fire, resulting in property damage.
John P. Young, the building contractor, argued that he shouldn't be held
liable as he exercised due diligence in selecting and supervising his
workers. He also counterclaimed for damages.

Harry and Margarita Viloria contended that they had no workers

involved in the construction, which was undertaken by John Young.
They also counterclaimed for damages.
The trial court ruled that the fire wasn't caused by an instrumentality
under the defendants' control. They found insufficient evidence to
establish negligence on the part of the defendants or their workers.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and ordered them to
pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to the
defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, contesting
several alleged errors committed by the trial court, including the
evaluation of eyewitness testimony and the admission of evidence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but found
no legal basis for the damages awarded to the defendants. They deleted
and set aside the damages awarded to the defendants, including
attorney's fees.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants should be held liable for the fire that damaged
the plaintiffs' property.
RULING:
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the negligence of
the defendant. The courts will not interfere with the findings of the trial
court regarding the credibility of witnesses unless there are compelling
facts or circumstances overlooked that could affect the case's outcome.
Additionally, while certain documents like official reports may be
admissible as evidence, their contents must still meet the requirements of
relevance and reliability. In the absence of clear evidence of negligence
or wrongdoing, the courts will not impose liability or award damages
against the defendant.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals,
stating that the trial court's ruling on the credibility of witnesses should
not be disturbed on appeal. Additionally, the Court found that the Fire
Investigation Report, although partly admissible, did not conclusively
establish negligence on the part of the defendants. Therefore, the
Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint and the
deletion of damages awarded to the defendants, including attorney's fees.