municipal liability muncorp

8/11/2019 Municipal Liability Muncorp

1/80

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968CITY O !ANILA, "#$%$%on#r,&'.GENARO N. TEOTICO an( CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'.

C%$y %' a !anu# T. R#y#' or "#$%$%on#r.+#&% a, /a a an( A''o %a$#' or r#'"on(#n$'.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.On January 2 , !"#$, at about $:%% p.m., &enaro N. 'eotico (as at the corner of the Old)uneta and P. *ur+os A enue, -anila, (ithin a loadin+ and unloadin+ /one, (aitin+ for a 0eepney to ta1e him do(n to(n. After (aitin+ for about fi e minutes, he mana+ed tohail a 0eepney that came 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 unco ered and unli+hted catch basin or manhole on P. *ur+os A enue. ue to the fall, his head hit the rim of the manhole brea1in+ his eye+lasses and causin+ bro1en pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flo(ed therefrom, impairin+ his ision, se eral persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brou+ht 'eotico to the Philippine &eneral

3ospital, (here his in0uries (ere treated, after (hich he (as ta1en home. In addition tothe 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+htinfra4patella re+ion. 'hese in0uries and the aller+ic eruption caused by anti4tetanusin0ections administered to him in the hospital, re5uired further medical treatment by a pri ate practitioner (ho char+ed therefor P!,6%%.%%.

As a conse5uence of the fore+oin+ occurrence, 'eotico filed, (ith the Court of 7irstInstance of -anila, a complaint 8 (hich (as, subse5uently, amended 8 for dama+esa+ainst the City of -anila, its mayor, city en+ineer, city health officer, city treasurer andchief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and 5uoted (ith appro al bythe Court of Appeals,

At the time of the incident, plaintiff (as a practicin+ public accountant, a businessmanand a professor at the 9ni ersity of the East. 3e held responsible positions in arious business firms li1e the Philippine -erchandisin+ Co., the A.9. alencia and Co., the;il er ;(an -anufacturin+ Company and the ;incere Pac1in+ Corporation. 3e (as alsoassociated (ith se eral ci ic or+ani/ations such as the


2/80

@i/al. As a result of the incident, plaintiff (as pre ented from en+a+in+ in his customaryoccupation for t(enty days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of about P#%.%% durin+ hisincapacity to (or1. *ecause of the incident, he (as sub0ected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends. urin+ the period of his treatment, plaintiff (asunder constant fear and an iety for the (elfare of his minor children since he (as their

only support. ue to the filin+ of this case, plaintiff has obli+ated himself to pay hiscounsel the sum of P2,%%%.%%.

On the other hand, the defense presented e idence, oral and documentary, to pro e thatthe ;torm rain ;ection, Office of the City En+ineer of -anila, recei ed a report of theunco ered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of P. *ur+os and Old )uneta ;treets,-anila, on January 26, !"#$, but the same (as co ered on the same day BE hibit 6 D thata+ain the iron co er of the same catch basin (as reported missin+ on January %, !"#$, but the said co er (as replaced the ne t day BE hibit # D that the Office of the CityEn+ineer ne er recei ed any report to the effect that the catch basin in 5uestion (as notco ered bet(een January 2# and 2", !"F$D 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 inthe City of -anila, that (hene er a report is recei ed from (hate er source of the loss of a catchbasin co er, the matter is immediately attended to, either by immediately replacin+the missin+ co er or co erin+ the catchbasin (ith steel mattin+ that because of thelucrati e scrap iron business then pre ailin+, stealin+ of iron catchbasin co ers (asrampantD that the Office of the City En+ineer has filed complaints in court resultin+ fromtheft of said iron co ersD that in order to pre ent such thefts, the city +o ernment haschan+ed the position and layout of catchbasins in the City by constructin+ them under theside(al1s (ith concrete cement co ers and openin+s on the side of the +utterD and thatthese chan+es had been underta1en by the city from time to time (hene er funds (erea ailable.

After appropriate proceedin+s the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila rendered theaforementioned decision sustainin+ the theory of the defendants and dismissin+ theamended complaint, (ithout costs.

On appeal ta1en by plaintiff, this decision (as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, e ceptinsofar as the City of -anila is concerned, (hich (as sentenced to pay dama+es in thea++re+ate sum of PF, #%.%%. ! 3ence, this appeal by the City of -anila.

'he first issue raised by the latter is (hether the present case is +o erned by ;ection 6 of @epublic Act No. 6%" BCharter of the City of -anila readin+:

'he city shall not be liable or held for dama+es or in0uries to persons or property arisin+from the failure of the -ayor, the -unicipal *oard, or any other city officer, to enforcethe pro isions 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 pro isions.

or by Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code of the Philippines (hich pro ides:


3/80

Pro inces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0uries suffered by, any person by reason of defecti e conditions of road, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other public (or1s under their control or super ision.

-anila maintains that the former pro ision should pre ail o er the latter, because@epublic Act 6%", is a special la(, intended e clusi ely for the City of -anila, (hereasthe Ci il Code is a +eneral la(, applicable to the entire Philippines.

'he Court of Appeals, ho(e er, applied the Ci il Code, and, (e thin1, correctly. It is truethat, insofar as its territorial application is concerned, @epublic Act No. 6%" is a specialla( and the Ci il Code a +eneral le+islationD but, as re+ards the sub0ect4matter of the pro isions abo e 5uoted, ;ection 6 of @epublic Act 6%" establishes a +eneral rulere+ulatin+ the liability of the City of -anila for: dama+es or in0ury to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of city officers to enforce the pro isions of said Actor 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 pro isions. 9pon theother hand, Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code constitutes a particular prescription ma1in+pro inces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for dama+es for the death of, or in0urysuffered by any person by reason 8 specifically 8 of the defecti e condition of roads,streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other4public (or1s under their control or super ision. In other (ords, said section 6 refers to liability arisin+ from ne+li+ence, in+eneral, re+ardless of the ob0ect thereof, (hereas Article 2!$" +o erns liability due todefecti e streets, in particular. ;ince the present action is based upon the alle+eddefecti e condition of a road, said Article 2!$" is decisi e thereon.

It is ur+ed that the City of -anila cannot be held liable to 'eotico for dama+es: ! because the accident in ol in+ him too1 place in a national hi+h(ayD and 2 because theCity 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 inthe ans(er of the City. -oreo er, 'eotico alle+ed in his complaint, as (ell as in hisamended complaint, that his in0uries (ere due to the defecti e condition of a street (hichis under the super ision and control of the City. In its ans(er to the amendedcomplaint, the City, in turn, alle+ed that the streets aforementioned (ere and ha e beenconstantly 1ept in +ood condition and re+ularly inspected and the storm drains andmanholes thereof co ered by the defendant City and the officers concerned (ho ha e been e er i+ilant and /ealous in the performance of their respecti e functions and dutiesas imposed upon them by la(. 'hus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P. *ur+osA enue (as and is under its control and super ision.

-oreo er, the assertion to the effect that said A enue 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 5uestion of fact, (hich had not been put in issue in thetrial court, and cannot be set up, for the first time, on appeal, much less after the renditionof the decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof.


4/80

At any rate, under Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code, it is not necessary for the liabilitytherein established to attach that the defecti e roads or streets belon+ to the pro ince, cityor municipality from (hich responsibility is e acted.


5/80


6/80

'he findin+s of respondent Appellate Court are as follo(s:

'he e idence of the plaintiff Bpetitioner herein sho(s that in the mornin+ of Au+ust !#,!" 6 he, to+ether (ith his nei+hbors, (ent to ;ta. Ana public mar1et to buy ba+oon+ at

the time (hen the public mar1et (as flooded (ith an1le deep rain(ater. After purchasin+the ba+oon+ he turned around to return home but he stepped on an unco ered openin+(hich could not be seen because of the dirty rain(ater, causin+ a dirty and rusty four4inch nail, stuc1 inside the unco ered openin+, to pierce the left le+ of plaintiff4petitioner penetratin+ to a depth of about one and a half inches. After administerin+ first aidtreatment at a nearby dru+store, his companions helped him hobble home. 3e felt ill andde eloped f e er and he had to be carried to r. Juanita -ascardo. espite the medicineadministered to him by the latter, his left le+ s(elled (ith +reat pain. 3e (as then rushedto the eterans -emorial 3ospital (here he had to be confined for t(enty B2% days dueto hi+h fe er and se ere pain.

9pon his dischar+e from the hospital, he had to (al1 around (ith crutches for fifteen B!#days. 3is in0ury pre ented him from attendin+ to the school buses he is operatin+. As aresult, he had to en+a+e the ser ices of one *ien enido alde/ to super ise his businessfor an a++re+ate compensation of nine hundred pesos BP"%%.%% . B ecision, AC4&.@. C No. %! $ , @ollo, pp. ! 42% .

Petitioner sued for dama+es the City of -anila and the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporationunder (hose administration the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et had been placed by irtue of a-ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract B@ollo, p. 6 .

'he lo(er court decided in fa or of respondents, the dispositi e portion of the decisionreadin+:


7/80

'hereafter, the Court in the resolution of ;eptember !!, !"$# B@ollo, p. F2 +a e duecourse to the petition and re5uired both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda

Petitioner filed his memorandum on October !, !"$# B@ollo, p. F# (hile respondent filed

its memorandum on October 26, !"$# B@ollo, p. $2 .In the resolution of October ! , !"$F, this case (as transferred to the ;econd i ision of this Court, the same ha in+ been assi+ned to a member of said i ision B@ollo, p. "2 .

'he petition is impressed (ith merit.

As correctly found by the Intermediate Appellate Court, there is no doubt that the plaintiff suffered in0uries (hen he fell into a draina+e openin+ (ithout any co er in the ;ta. AnaPublic -ar1et. efendants do not deny that plaintiff (as in fact in0ured althou+h theAsiatic Inte+rated Corporation tries to minimi/e the e tent of the in0uries, claimin+ that it

(as only a small puncture and that as a (ar eteran, plaintiff>s hospitali/ation at the s 3ospital (as free. B ecision, AC4&.@. C No. %! $ , @ollo, p. F .

@espondent City of -anila maintains that it cannot be held liable for the in0uriessustained by the petitioner because under the -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contract,Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation assumed all responsibility for dama+es (hich may besuffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it.

It has also been ar+ued that the City of -anila cannot be held liable under Article !,;ection 6 of @epublic Act No. 6%" as amended B@e ised Charter of -anila (hich pro ides:

'he City shall not be liable or held for dama+es or in0uries to persons or property arisin+from the failure of the -ayor, the -unicipal *oard, or any other City Officer, to enforcethe pro isions of this chapter, or any other la( or ordinance, or from ne+li+ence of said-ayor, -unicipal *oard, or any other officers (hile enforcin+ or attemptin+ to enforcesaid pro isions.

'his issue has been laid to rest in the case of City of -anila . 'eotico B22 ;C@A 2F"42 2 !"F$K (here the ;upreme Court s5uarely ruled that @epublic Act No. 6%"establishes a +eneral rule re+ulatin+ the liability of the City of -anila for dama+es or in0ury to persons or property arisin+ from the failure of city officers to enforce the pro isions 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

pro isions.

9pon the other hand, Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code of the Philippines (hich pro idesthat:

Pro inces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama+es for the death of, or


8/80

in0uries suffered by any person by reason of defecti e conditions of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s and other public (or1s under their control or super ision.

constitutes a particular prescription ma1in+ pro inces, cities and municipalities ... liablefor dama+es for the death of, or in0ury suffered by any person by reason 8 specifically

8 of the defecti e condition of roads, streets, brid+es, public buildin+s, and other public(or1s under their control or super ision. In other (ords, Art. !, sec. 6, @.A. No. 6%"refers to liability arisin+ from ne+li+ence, in +eneral, re+ardless of the ob0ect, thereof,(hile Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code +o erns liability due to defecti e streets, public buildin+s and other public (or1s in particular and is therefore decisi e on this specificcase.

In the same suit, the ;upreme Court clarified further that under Article 2!$" of the Ci ilCode, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach, that the defecti e public (or1s belon+ to the pro ince, city or municipality from (hich responsibility ise acted.


9/80

operation of the City public mar1ets and talipapas and the facilities and con eniencesinstalled therein, particularly as to their cost of construction, operation and maintenancein connection (ith the stipulations contained in this Contract. Blbid

'he fact of super ision and control of the City o er sub0ect public mar1et (as admitted

by -ayor @amon *a+atsin+ in his letter to ;ecretary of 7inance Cesar irata (hichreads:

'hese cases arose from the contro ersy o er the -ana+ement and Operatin+ Contractentered into on ecember 2$, !" 2 by and bet(een the City of -anila and the AsiaticInte+rated Corporation, (hereby in consideration of a fi ed ser ice fee, the City hired theser ices of the said corporation to underta1e the physical mana+ement, maintenance,rehabilitation and de elopment of the City>s public mar1ets and> 'alipapas> sub0ect to thecontrol and super ision of the City.

It is belie ed that there is nothin+ incon+ruous in the e ercise of these po(ers is4a4 isthe e istence of the contract, inasmuch as the City retains the po(er of super ision andcontrol o er its public mar1ets and talipapas under the terms of the contract. BE hibit 4A BEmphasis supplied. B@ollo, p. # .

In fact, the City of -anila employed a mar1et master for the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et(hose primary duty is to ta1e direct super ision and control of that particular mar1et,more specifically, to chec1 the safety of the place for the public.

'hus the Asst. Chief of the -ar1et i ision and eputy -ar1et Administrator of the Cityof -anila testified as follo(s:

Court 'his mar1et master is an employee of the City of -anilaL

-r. =mson =es, =our 3onor.

M


10/80

ested in the mar1et master. B'.s.n., pp. 262#, 3earin+ of July 2 , !" . BEmphasissupplied. B@ollo, p. F .

7inally, ;ection % B+ of the )ocal 'a Code as amended, pro ides:

'he treasurer shall e ercise direct and immediate super ision administration and controlo er public mar1ets and the personnel thereof, includin+ those (hose duties concern themaintenance and up1eep of the mar1et and ordinances and other pertinent rules andre+ulations. BEmphasis supplied. B@ollo, p. F

'he contention of respondent City of -anila that petitioner should not ha e entured to+o to ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et durin+ a stormy (eather is indeed untenable. As obser ed by respondent Court of Appeals, it is an error for the trial court to attribute the ne+li+enceto herein petitioner. -ore specifically stated, the findin+s of appellate court are asfollo(s:

... 'he trial court e en chastised the plaintiff for +oin+ to mar1et on a rainy day 0ust to buy ba+oon+. A customer in a store has the ri+ht to assume that the o(ner (ill comply(ith his duty to 1eep the premises safe for customers. If he entures to the store on the basis of such assumption and is in0ured because the o(ner did not comply (ith his duty,no ne+li+ence can be imputed to the customer. B ecision, AC4&. @. C No. %! $ ,@ollo, p. !" .

As a defense a+ainst liability on the basis of a 5uasi4delict, one must ha e e ercised thedili+ence of a +ood father of a family. BArt. !! of the Ci il Code .

'here is no ar+ument that it is the duty of the City of -anila to e ercise reasonable careto 1eep the public mar1et reasonably safe for people fre5uentin+ the place for their mar1etin+ needs.


11/80

'o recapitulate, it appears e ident that the City of -anila is li1e(ise liable for dama+esunder Article 2!$" of the Ci il Code, respondent City ha in+ retained control andsuper ision o er the ;ta. Ana Public -ar1et and as tort4feasor under Article 2! F of theCi il Code on 5uasi4delicts

Petitioner had the ri+ht to assume that there (ere no openin+s in the middle of the passa+e(ays and if any, that they (ere ade5uately co ered. 3ad the openin+ beenco ered, petitioner could not ha e fallen into it. 'hus the ne+li+ence of the City of -anilais the pro imate cause of the in0ury suffered, the City is therefore liable for the in0urysuffered by the peti4 6 petitioner.

@espondent City of -anila and Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation bein+ 0oint tort4feasors aresolidarily liable under Article 2!"6 of the Ci il Code.

P@E-I;E; CON;I E@E , the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby -O I7IE ,ma1in+ the City of -anila and the Asiatic Inte+rated Corporation solidarily liable to pay

the plaintiff P22!."% actual medical e penses, P"%%.%% for the amount paid for theoperation and mana+ement of the school bus, P2%,%%%.%% as moral dama+es due to painsufferin+s and sleepless ni+hts and P!%,%%%.%% as attorney>s fees.

;O O@ E@E .

7ernan BChairman , &utierre/, Jr., Padilla, *idin and Cortes JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 61516 !ar 4 21, 1989

LORENTINA A. G)ILATCO, "#$%$%on#r,&'.CITY O /AG)*AN, an( $4# ONORABLE CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'.

;A@-IEN'O, J.:

In a ci il action ! for reco ery of dama+es filed by the petitioner 7lorentina A. &uilatco,the follo(in+ 0ud+ment (as rendered a+ainst the respondent City of a+upan:

B! Orderin+ defendant City of a+upan to pay plaintiff actual dama+es in the amount of P !#,"26 Bnamely P$,%#6.%% as hospital, medical and other e penses E hs. 3 to 34F%K, P,62%.%% as lost income for one B! year E h. 7K and P 6#%.%% as bonus . P !#%,%%%.%%moral dama+es, P #%,%%%.%% as e emplary dama+es, and P ,%%%.%% as attorney>s f


12/80

and liti+ation e penses, plus costs and to appropriate throu+h its ;an++unian+Pan+lunsod BCity Council said amounts for said purposeD

B2 ismissin+ plaintiffs complaint as a+ainst defendant City En+r. Alfredo &. 'an+coDand

B ismissin+ the counterclaims of defendant City of a+upan and defendant City En+r.Alfredo &. 'an+co, for lac1 of merit. 2

'he facts found by the trial court are as follo(s:

It (ould appear from the e idences that on July 2#, !" $, herein plaintiff, a CourtInterpreter of *ranch III, C7I44 a+upan City, (hile she (as about to board a motori/edtricycle at a side(al1 located at Pere/ *l d. Ba National @oad, under the control andsuper ision of the City of a+upan accidentally fell into a manhole located on saidside(al1, thereby causin+ her ri+ht le+ to be fractured. As a result thereof, she had to be

hospitali/ed, operated on, confined, at first at the Pan+asinan Pro incial 3ospital, fromJuly 2# to Au+ust , !" $ Bor for a period of !F days . ;he also incurred hospitali/ation,medication and other e penses to the tune of P $,%# .F# BE h. 3 to 34F% or a total of P!%,%%%.%% in all, as other receipts (ere either lost or misplacedD durin+ the period of her confinement in said t(o hospitals, plaintiff suffered se ere or e cruciatin+ pain not onlyon her ri+ht le+ (hich (as fractured but also on all parts of her bodyD the pain has persisted e en after her dischar+e from the -edical City &eneral 3ospital on October ",!" $, to the present. espite her dischar+e from the 3ospital plaintiff is presently still(earin+ crutches and the Court has actually obser ed that she has difficulty inlocomotion. 7rom the time of the mishap on July 2#, !" $ up to the present, plaintiff hasnot yet reported for duty as court interpreter, as she has difficulty of locomotion in +oin+up the stairs of her office, located near the city hall in a+upan City. ;he earns at least P2%.%% a month consistin+ of her monthly salary and other means of income, but sinceJuly 2#, !" $ up to the present she has been depri ed of said income as she has alreadyconsumed her accrued lea es in the +o ernment ser ice. ;he has lost se eral pounds as aresult of the accident and she is no lon+er her former 0o ial self, she has been unable to perform her reli+ious, social, and other acti ities (hich she used to do prior to theincident.

r. Norberto 7eli and r. ominado -an/ano of the Pro incial 3ospital, as (ell as r.Antonio ;ison of the -edical City &eneral 3ospital in -andaluyon+ @i/al BE h. ID seealso E hs. 7, &, &4! to &4!" ha e confirmed beyond shado( of any doubt the e tent of the fracture and in0uries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the mishap. On the other hand, Patrolman Cla eria, e Asis and Cere/o corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff re+ardin+ the mishap and they ha e confirmed the e istence of the manhole BE hs. A, *,C and sub4e hibits on the side(al1 alon+ Pere/ *l d., at the time of the incident on July2#, !" $ (hich (as partially co ered by a concrete flo(er pot by lea in+ +apin+ holeabout 2 ft. lon+ by ! ! 2 feet (ide or 62 cms. (ide by # cms. lon+ by !#% cms. deep BseeE hs. and 4! .


13/80

efendant Alfredo 'an+co, City En+ineer of a+upan City and admittedly e 4officio3i+h(ay En+ineer, City En+ineer of the Public


14/80

In the case at bar, this control or super ision is pro ided for in the charter of a+upan andis e ercised throu+h the City En+ineer (ho has the follo(in+ duties:

;ec. 22. 'he City En+ineer443is po(ers, duties and compensation4'here shall be a city

en+ineer, (ho shall be in char+e of the department of En+ineerin+ and Public


15/80

compensation: P !,$!%.FF from a+upan CityD P 2%%.%% from the -inistry of Public3i+h(aysD P !%%.%% from the *ureau of Public s acts.!6

B2 ;econd, there must be compensatory or actual dama+es as satisfactory proof of thefactual basis for dama+es.!#

B 'hird, the a(ard of moral dama+es must be predicated on any of the casesenumerated in the Ci il Code. !F

In the case at bar, the physical sufferin+ and mental an+uish suffered by the petitioner (ere pro en. s place of (or1 testified to the de+eneration inher disposition4from bein+ 0o ial to depressed. ;he refrained from attendin+ social andci ic acti ities.

Ne ertheless the a(ard of moral dama+es at P !#%,%%%.%% is e cessi e. 3er handicap (asnot permanent and disabled her only durin+ her treatment (hich lasted for one year.'hou+h e idence of moral loss and an+uish e isted to (arrant the a(ard of dama+es,!$the moderatin+ hand of the la( is called for. 'he Court has time and a+ain calledattention to the reprehensible propensity of trial 0ud+es to a(ard dama+es (ithout basis,!" resultin+ in e horbitant amounts.2%

Althou+h the assessment of the amount is better left to the discretion of the trial court 2!


16/80

under precedin+ 0urisprudence, the amount of moral dama+es should be reduced to P2%,%%%.%%.

As for the a(ard of e emplary dama+es, the trial court correctly pointed out the basis:

'o ser e as an e ample for the public +ood, it is hi+h time that the Court, throu+h thiscase, should ser e (arnin+ to the city or cities concerned to be more conscious of their duty and responsibility to their constituents, especially (hen they are en+a+ed inconstruction (or1 or (hen there are manholes on their side(al1s or streets (hich areunco ered, to immediately co er the same, in order to minimi/e or pre ent accidents tothe poor pedestrians.22

'oo often in the /eal to put up public impact pro0ects such as beautification dri es, theend is more important than the manner in (hich the (or1 is carried out. *ecause of thisobsession for sho(in+ off, such tri ial details as misplaced flo(er pots betray the carelesse ecution of the pro0ects, causin+ public incon enience and in itin+ accidents.

Pendin+ appeal by the respondent City of a+upan from the trial court to the appellatecourt, the petitioner (as able to secure an order for +arnishment of the funds of the Citydeposited (ith the Philippine National *an1, from the then presidin+ 0ud+e, 3on.


17/80


18/80

'he mar1s re ealed that he had one or more fractures of the s1ull and that the +rey matter and brain (as had suffered material in0ury. At ten o>cloc1 of the ni+ht in 5uestion, (hich(as the time set for performin+ the operation, his pulse (as so (ea1 and so irre+ular that,in his opinion, there (as little hope that he (ould li e. 3is ri+ht le+ (as bro1en in such a

(ay that the fracture e tended to the outer s1in in such manner that it mi+ht be re+ardedas double and the (ould be e posed to infection, for (hich reason it (as of the mostserious nature.

At another e amination si days before the day of the trial, r. ;aleeby noticed that the plaintiff>s le+ sho(ed a contraction of an inch and a half and a cur ature that made his le+ery (ea1 and painful at the point of the fracture. E amination of his head re ealed anotable read0ustment of the functions of the brain and ner es. 'he patient apparently (assli+htly deaf, had a li+ht (ea1ness in his eyes and in his mental condition. 'his latter (ea1ness (as al(ays noticed (hen the plaintiff had to do any difficult mental labor,especially (hen he attempted to use his money for mathematical calculations.

Accordin+ to the arious merchants (ho testified as (itnesses, the plaintiff>s mental and physical condition prior to the accident (as e cellent, and that after ha in+ recei ed thein0uries that ha e been discussed, his physical condition had under+one a noticeabledepreciation, for he had lost the a+ility, ener+y, and ability that he had constantlydisplayed before the accident as one of the best constructors of (ooden buildin+s and hecould not no( earn e en a half of the income that he had secured for his (or1 because hehad lost #% per cent of his efficiency. As a contractor, he could no lon+er, as he had beforedone, climb up ladders and scaffoldin+s to reach the hi+hest parts of the buildin+.

As a conse5uence of the loss the plaintiff suffered in the efficiency of his (or1 as acontractor, he had to dissol ed the partnership he had formed (ith the en+ineer.


19/80

(hile the remainder of the si months (as spent in his home, (ould not pre ent reco eryfor the (hole time. s liability to any case not pre iously reco+ni/ed.

All admit that the Insular &o ernment Bthe defendant cannot be sued by an indi idual(ithout its consent. It is also admitted that the instant case is one a+ainst the &o ernment.


20/80

As the consent of the &o ernment to be sued by the plaintiff (as entirely oluntary on its part, it is our duty to loo1 carefully into the terms of the consent, and render 0ud+mentaccordin+ly.

'he plaintiff (as authori/ed to brin+ this action a+ainst the &o ernment in order to fi

the responsibility for the collision bet(een his motorcycle and the ambulance of the&eneral 3ospital and to determine the amount of the dama+es, if any, to (hich -r. E.-erritt is entitled on account of said collision, . . . . 'hese (ere the t(o 5uestionssubmitted to the court for determination. 'he Act (as passed in order that said 5uestionsmay be decided.


21/80

*y consentin+ to be sued a state simply (ai es its immunity from suit. It does not therebyconcede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his fa or, or e tend itsliability to any cause not pre iously reco+ni/ed. It merely +i es a remedy to enforce a pree istin+ liability and submits itself to the 0urisdiction of the court, sub0ect to its ri+ht tointerpose any la(ful defense.

In Apfelbacher s. ;tate B!#2 N. s immunity from suit. If the )e+islature had intended to chan+e the rule thatobtained in this state so lon+ and to declare liability on the part of the state, it (ould notha e left so important a matter to mere inference, but (ould ha e done so in e pressterms. B-urdoc1 &rate Co. s. Common(ealth, !#2 -ass., 2$D 26 N.E., $#6D $ ). @. A.,"".

In ennin+ s. ;tate B!2 Cal., !F , the pro isions of the Act of !$" , relied upon andconsidered, are as follo(s:

All persons (ho ha e, or shall hereafter ha e, claims on contract or for ne+li+encea+ainst the state not allo(ed by the state board of e aminers, are hereby authori/ed, onthe terms and conditions herein contained, to brin+ suit thereon a+ainst the state in any of the courts of this state of competent 0urisdiction, and prosecute the same to final 0ud+ment. 'he rules of practice in ci il cases shall apply to such suits, e cept as hereinother(ise pro ided.

And the court said:


22/80

'his statute has been considered by this court in at least t(o cases, arisin+ under differentfacts, and in both it (as held that said statute did not create any liability or cause of actiona+ainst the state (here none e isted before, but merely +a e an additional remedy toenforce such liability as (ould ha e e isted if the statute had not been enacted. BChapman

s. ;tate, !%6 Cal., F"%D 6 Am. ;t. @ep., !#$D -el in s. ;tate, !2! Cal., !F.A statute of -assachusetts enacted in !$$ +a e to the superior court 0urisdiction of allclaims a+ainst the common(ealth, (hether at la( or in e5uity, (ith an e ception notnecessary to be here mentioned. In construin+ this statute the court, in -urdoc1 &rate Co.s. Common(ealth B!#2 -ass., 2$ , said:

'he statute (e are discussin+ disclose no intention to create a+ainst the state a ne( andheretofore unreco+ni/ed class of liabilities, but only an intention to pro ide a 0udicialtribunal (here (ell reco+ni/ed e istin+ liabilities can be ad0udicated.

In ;ipple s. ;tate B"" N. =., 2$6 , (here the board of the canal claims had, by the termsof the statute of Ne( =or1, 0urisdiction of claims for dama+es for in0uries in themana+ement of the canals such as the plaintiff had sustained, Chief Justice @u+er remar1s: It must be conceded that the state can be made liable for in0uries arisin+ fromthe ne+li+ence of its a+ents or ser ants, only by force of some positi e statute assumin+such liability.

It bein+ 5uite clear that Act No. 26# does not operate to e tend the &o ernment>sliability to any cause not pre iously reco+ni/ed, (e (ill no( e amine the substanti e la(touchin+ the defendant>s liability for the ne+li+ent acts of its officers, a+ents, andemployees. Para+raph # of article !"% of the Ci il Code reads:

'he state is liable in this sense (hen it acts throu+h a special a+ent, but not (hen thedama+e should ha e been caused by the official to (hom properly it pertained to do theact performed, in (hich case the pro isions of the precedin+ article shall be applicable.

'he supreme court of ;pain in definin+ the scope of this para+raph said:

'hat the obli+ation to indemnify for dama+es (hich a third person causes to another byhis fault or ne+li+ence is based, as is e idenced by the same )a( , 'itle !#, Partida , onthat the person obli+ated, by his o(n fault or ne+li+ence, ta1es part in the act or omissionof the third party (ho caused the dama+e. It follo(s therefrom that the state, by irtue of such pro isions of la(, is not responsible for the dama+es suffered by pri ate indi idualsin conse5uence of acts performed by its employees in the dischar+e of the functions pertainin+ to their office, because neither fault nor e en ne+li+ence can be presumed onthe part of the state in the or+ani/ation of branches of public ser ice and in theappointment of its a+entsD on the contrary, (e must presuppose all foresi+ht humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of ser ice ser es the +eneral (eal an that of pri ate persons interested in its operation. *et(een these latter and the state, therefore, norelations of a pri ate nature +o erned by the ci il la( can arise e cept in a case (here the


23/80

state acts as a 0udicial person capable of ac5uirin+ ri+hts and contractin+ obli+ations.B;upreme Court of ;pain, January , !$"$D $ Jur. Ci ., 26.

'hat the Ci il Code in chapter 2, title !F, boo1 6, re+ulates the obli+ations (hich ariseout of fault or ne+li+enceD and (hereas in the first article thereof. No. !"%2, (here the

+eneral principle is laid do(n that (here a person (ho by an act or omission causesdama+e to another throu+h fault or ne+li+ence, shall be obli+ed to repair the dama+e sodone, reference is made to acts or omissions of the persons (ho directly or indirectlycause the dama+e, the follo(in+ articles refers to this persons and imposes an identicalobli+ation upon those (ho maintain fi ed relations of authority and superiority o er theauthors of the dama+e, because the la( presumes that in conse5uence of such relationsthe e il caused by their o(n fault or ne+li+ence is imputable to them. 'his le+al presumption +i es (ay to proof, ho(e er, because, as held in the last para+raph of article!"% , responsibility for acts of third persons ceases (hen the persons mentioned in saidarticle pro e that they employed all the dili+ence of a +ood father of a family to a oid thedama+e, and amon+ these persons, called upon to ans(er in a direct and not a subsidiary

manner, are found, in addition to the mother or the father in a proper case, +uardians ando(ners or directors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, but not al(ays, e cept(hen it acts throu+h the a+ency of a special a+ent, doubtless because and only in thiscase, the fault or ne+li+ence, (hich is the ori+inal basis of this 1ind of ob0ections, must be presumed to lie (ith the state.

'hat althou+h in some cases the state mi+ht by irtue of the +eneral principle set forth inarticle !"%2 respond for all the dama+e that is occasioned to pri ate parties by orders or resolutions (hich by fault or ne+li+ence are made by branches of the centraladministration actin+ in the name and representation of the state itself and as an e ternale pression of its so erei+nty in the e ercise of its e ecuti e po(ers, yet said article is notapplicable in the case of dama+es said to ha e been occasioned to the petitioners by ane ecuti e official, actin+ in the e ercise of his po(ers, in proceedin+s to enforce thecollections of certain property ta es o(in+ by the o(ner of the property (hich they holdin sublease.

'hat the responsibility of the state is limited by article !"% to the case (herein it actsthrou+h a special a+ent Band a special a+ent, in the sense in (hich these (ords areemployed, is one (ho recei es a definite and fi ed order or commission, forei+n to thee ercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official so that in representation of the state and bein+ bound to act as an a+ent thereof, he e ecutes the trust confided to him.'his concept does not apply to any e ecuti e a+ent (ho is an employee of the actin+administration and (ho on his o(n responsibility performs the functions (hich areinherent in and naturally pertain to his office and (hich are re+ulated by la( and there+ulations. B;upreme Court of ;pain, -ay !$, !"%6D "$ Jur. Ci ., $", "%.

'hat accordin+ to para+raph # of article !"% of the Ci il Code and the principle laiddo(n in a decision, amon+ others, of the !$th of -ay, !"%6, in a dama+e case, theresponsibility of the state is limited to that (hich it contracts throu+h a special a+ent, dulyempo(ered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or char+ed (ith some


24/80

definite purpose (hich +i es rise to the claim, and not (here the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official char+ed (ith some administrati e or technicaloffice (ho can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid do(n by the la( of ci il responsibility. Conse5uently, the trial court in not so decidin+ and in sentencin+ thesaid entity to the payment of dama+es, caused by an official of the second class referred

to, has by erroneous interpretation infrin+ed the pro isions of articles !"%2 and !"% of the Ci il Code. B;upreme Court of ;pain, July %, !"!!D !22 Jur. Ci ., !6F.

It is, therefore, e idence that the ;tate Bthe &o ernment of the Philippine Islands is onlyliable, accordin+ to the abo e 5uoted decisions of the ;upreme Court of ;pain, for theacts of its a+ents, officers and employees (hen they act as special a+ents (ithin themeanin+ of para+raph # of article !"% , supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the &eneral 3ospital (as not such an a+ent.

7or the fore+oin+ reasons, the 0ud+ment appealed from must be re ersed, (ithout costs inthis instance.


25/80

-unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and Alfredo *isli+ to pay, 0ointly and se erally,the plaintiffs for funeral e penses, actual dama+es consistin+ of the loss of earnin+capacity of the deceased, attorney>s fees and costs of suit and dismissin+ the complainta+ainst the Estate of -acario Nie eras and *ernardo *ala+ot.

'he antecedent facts are as follo(s:Petitioner -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion is a municipal corporation e istin+under and in accordance (ith the la(s of the @epublic of the Philippines. @espondent3onorable Jud+e @omeo N. 7irme is impleaded in his official capacity as the presidin+ 0ud+e of the Court of 7irst Instance of )a 9nion, *ranch I , *auan+, )a 9nion. cloc1 in the mornin+ of ecember !F, !"F#, a collision occurred in ol in+ a

passen+er 0eepney dri en by *ernardo *ala+ot and o(ned by the Estate of -acario Nie eras, a +ra el and sand truc1 dri en by Jose -anande+ and o(ned by 'an5uilinoelas5ue/ and a dump truc1 of the -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and dri en

by Alfredo *isli+. ue to the impact, se eral passen+ers of the 0eepney includin+)aureano *ani a ;r. died as a result of the in0uries they sustained and four B6 otherssuffered aryin+ de+rees of physical in0uries.

On ecember !!, !"FF, the pri ate respondents instituted a compliant for dama+esa+ainst the Estate of -acario Nie eras and *ernardo *ala+ot, o(ner and dri er,respecti ely, of the passen+er 0eepney, (hich (as doc1eted Ci il Case No. 2!$ in theCourt of 7irst Instance of )a 9nion, *ranch I, ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion. 3o(e er, theaforesaid defendants filed a 'hird Party Complaint a+ainst the petitioner and the dri er of a dump truc1 of petitioner.

'hereafter, the case (as subse5uently transferred to *ranch I , presided o er byrespondent 0ud+e and (as subse5uently doc1eted as Ci il Case No. !% 4*+. *y irtue of a court order dated -ay , !" #, the pri ate respondents amended the complaint (hereinthe petitioner and its re+ular employee, Alfredo *isli+ (ere impleaded for the first timeas defendants. Petitioner filed its ans(er and raised affirmati e defenses such as lac1 of cause of action, non4suability of the ;tate, prescription of cause of action and thene+li+ence of the o(ner and dri er of the passen+er 0eepney as the pro imate cause of thecollision.

In the course of the proceedin+s, the respondent 0ud+e issued the follo(in+ 5uestionedorders, to (it:

B! Order dated No ember 6, !" # dismissin+ the cross4claim a+ainst *ernardo *ala+otD

B2 Order dated July ! , !" F admittin+ the Amended Ans(er of the -unicipality of ;an7ernando, )a 9nion and *isli+ and settin+ the hearin+ on the affirmati e defenses only


26/80

(ith respect to the supposed lac1 of 0urisdictionD

B Order dated Au+ust 2 , !" F deferrin+ there resolution of the +rounds for the -otionto ismiss until the trialD

B6 Order dated 7ebruary 2 , !" denyin+ the motion for reconsideration of the order of July ! , !" F filed by the -unicipality and *isli+ for ha in+ been filed out of timeD

B# Order dated -arch !F, !" reiteratin+ the denial of the motion for reconsiderationof the order of July ! , !" FD

BF Order dated July 2F, !" " declarin+ the case deemed submitted for decision itappearin+ that parties ha e not yet submitted their respecti e memoranda despite thecourt>s directionD and

B Order dated ;eptember , !" " denyin+ the petitioner>s motion for reconsideration

and or order to recall prosecution (itnesses for cross e amination.On October !%, !" " the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositi e portion ishereunder 5uoted as follo(s:

IN IE< O7 A)) O7 Bsic '3E 7O@E&OIN&, 0ud+ment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs, and defendants -unicipality of ;an 7ernando, )a 9nion and Alfredo *isli+ areordered to pay 0ointly and se erally, plaintiffs Juana @imando4*ani a, -rs. Priscilla *.;urell, )aureano *ani a Jr., ;or -arietta *ani a, -rs. 7e *. ;oriano, -ontano *ani a,Or0a *ani a and )ydia *. *ani a the sums of P!,#%%.%% as funeral e penses andP26, 66.26 as the lost e pected earnin+s of the late )aureano *ani a ;r., P %,%%%.%% asmoral dama+es, and P2,#%%.%% as attorney>s fees. Costs a+ainst said defendants.

'he Complaint is dismissed as to defendants Estate of -acario Nie eras and *ernardo*ala+ot.

;O O@ E@E . B@ollo, p. %

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for a ne( trial (ithout pre0udice toanother motion (hich (as then pendin+. 3o(e er, respondent 0ud+e issued another order dated No ember , !" " denyin+ the motion for reconsideration of the order of ;eptember , !" " for ha in+ been filed out of time.

7inally, the respondent 0ud+e issued an order dated ecember , !" " pro idin+ that if defendants municipality and *isli+ further (ish to pursue the matter disposed of in theorder of July 2F, !" ", such should be ele ated to a hi+her court in accordance (ith the@ules of Court. 3ence, this petition.

Petitioner maintains that the respondent 0ud+e committed +ra e abuse of discretionamountin+ to e cess of 0urisdiction in issuin+ the aforesaid orders and in renderin+ a


27/80

decision. 7urthermore, petitioner asserts that (hile appeal of the decision maybea ailable, the same is not the speedy and ade5uate remedy in the ordinary course of la(.

On the other hand, pri ate respondents contro ert the position of the petitioner and alle+ethat the petition is de oid of merit, utterly lac1in+ the +ood faith (hich is indispensable

in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. B@ollo, p. 62. In addition, the pri ate respondents stress that petitioner has not considered thate ery court, includin+ respondent court, has the inherent po(er to amend and control its process and orders so as to ma1e them conformable to la( and 0ustice. B@ollo, p. 6 .

'he contro ersy boils do(n to the main issue of (hether or not the respondent courtcommitted +ra e abuse of discretion (hen it deferred and failed to resol e the defense of non4suability of the ;tate amountin+ to lac1 of 0urisdiction in a motion to dismiss.

In the case at bar, the respondent 0ud+e deferred the resolution of the defense of non4suability of the ;tate amountin+ to lac1 of 0urisdiction until trial. 3o(e er, said

respondent 0ud+e failed to resol e such defense, proceeded (ith the trial and thereafter rendered a decision a+ainst the municipality and its dri er.

'he respondent 0ud+e did not commit +ra e abuse of discretion (hen in the e ercise of its 0ud+ment it arbitrarily failed to resol e the ital issue of non4suability of the ;tate in the+uise of the municipality. 3o(e er, said 0ud+e acted in e cess of his 0urisdiction (hen inhis decision dated October !%, !" " he held the municipality liable for the 5uasi4delictcommitted by its re+ular employee.

'he doctrine of non4suability of the ;tate is e pressly pro ided for in Article I,;ection of the Constitution, to (it: the ;tate may not be sued (ithout its consent.

;tated in simple parlance, the +eneral rule is that the ;tate may not be sued e cept (henit +i es consent to be sued. Consent ta1es the form of e press or implied consent.

E press consent may be embodied in a +eneral la( or a special la(. 'he standin+ consentof the ;tate to be sued in case of money claims in ol in+ liability arisin+ from contractsis found in Act No. %$ . A special la( may be passed to enable a person to sue the+o ernment for an alle+ed 5uasi4delict, as in -erritt . &o ernment of the PhilippineIslands B 6 Phil !! . Bsee 9nited ;tates of America . &uinto, &.@. No. FF% , 7ebruary2F, !""%, !$2 ;C@A F66, F#6.

Consent is implied (hen the +o ernment enters into business contracts, therebydescendin+ to the le el of the other contractin+ party, and also (hen the ;tate files acomplaint, thus openin+ itself to a counterclaim. BIbid

-unicipal corporations, for e ample, li1e pro inces and cities, are a+encies of the ;tate(hen they are en+a+ed in +o ernmental functions and therefore should en0oy theso erei+n immunity from suit. Ne ertheless, they are sub0ect to suit e en in the performance of such functions because their charter pro ided that they can sue and be


28/80

sued. BCru/, Philippine Political )a(, !"$ Edition, p. "

A distinction should first be made bet(een suability and liability. ;uability depends onthe consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable la( and the establishedfacts. 'he circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liableD on

the other hand, it can ne er be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. )iabilityis not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allo(ed itself to be sued. s municipal streets. B@ollo, p. 2".


29/80

In the absence of any e idence to the contrary, the re+ularity of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant to ;ection Bm of @ule ! ! of the @e ised @ules of Court. 3ence,


30/80

G.R. No. L-30183 O $o #r 23, 19 8

!)NICI*ALITY O !ALA+I=)I, "#$%$%on#r,&'.

RO+ALINA, ANGELINA, LEONAR/O, E/)AR/O, ARTE!IO, ANGELITA,ANITA, ERNE+TO, NOR!A, IRGINIA, RE!E/IO+ an( ROBERTO, a'urna:#( ONTANILLA, an( $4# onora # CO)RT O A**EAL+, r#'"on(#n$'.

-9QOG PA)-A, J.:

'hese Petitions for re ie( present the issue of (hether or not the celebration of a to(nfiesta authori/ed by a municipal council under ;ec. 22$2 of the -unicipal )a( asembodied in the @e ised Administrati e Code is a +o ernmental or a corporate or proprietary function of the municipality.

A resolution of that issue (ill lead to another, i/ the ci il liability for dama+es of the-unicipality of -alasi5ui, and the members of the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui, pro ince of Pan+asinan, for a death (hich occurred durin+ the celebration of the to(nfiesta on January 22, !"#", and (hich (as attributed to the ne+li+ence of the municipalityand its council members.

'he follo(in+ facts are not in dispute:

On October 2!, !"#$, the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui, Pan+asinan, passed@esolution No. !#" (hereby it resol ed to mana+e the !"#" -alasi5ui to(n fiestacelebration on January 2!, 22, and 2 , !"#". @esolution No. !$2 (as also passedcreatin+ the !"#" -alasi5ui >'o(n 7iesta E ecuti e Committee (hich in turnor+ani/ed a sub4committee on entertainment and sta+e, (ith Jose -acarae+ as Chairman.the council appropriated the amount of P!%%.%% for the construction of 2 sta+es, one for the /ar/uela and another for the cancionan Jose -acarae+ super ised the constructionof the sta+e and as constructed the sta+e for the /ar/uela (as #4R meters by $ metersin si/e, had a (ooden floor hi+h at the rear and (as supported by 26 bamboo posts 8 6in a ro( in front, 6 in the rear and # on each side 8 (ith bamboo braces. !

'he /ar/uela entitled -idas E tra a+an/a (as donated by an association of -alasi5ui employees of the -anila @ailroad Company in Caloocan, @i/al. 'he troupearri ed in the e enin+ of January 22 for the performance and one of the members of the+roup (as icente 7ontanilla. 'he pro+ram started at about !%:!# o>cloc1 that e enin+(ith some speeches, and many persons (ent up the sta+e. 'he /ar/uela then be+an but before the dramatic part of the play (as reached, the sta+e collapsed and icente7ontanilla (ho (as at the rear of the sta+e (as pinned underneath. 7ontanilia (as ta1ento tile ;an Carlos &eneral 3ospital (here he died in the afternoon of the follo(in+ day.

'he heirs of icente 7ontanilia filed a complaint (ith the Court of 7irst Instance of -anila on ;eptember !!, !"#" to reco er dama+es. Named party4defendants (ere the


31/80

-unicipality of -alasi5ui, the -unicipal Council of -alasi5ui and all the indi idualmembers of the -unicipal Council in !"#".

Ans(erin+ the complaint defendant municipality in o1ed inter alia the principal defensethat as a le+ally and duly or+ani/ed public corporation it performs so erei+n functions

and the holdin+ of a to(n fiesta (as an e ercise of its +o ernmental functions from(hich no liability can arise to ans(er for the ne+li+ence of any of its a+ents.

'he defendant councilors inturn maintained that they merely acted as a+ents of themunicipality in carryin+ out the municipal ordinance pro idin+ for the mana+ement of the to(n fiesta celebration and as such they are li1e(ise not liable for dama+es as theunderta1in+ (as not one for profitD furthermore, they had e ercised due care anddili+ence in implementin+ the municipal ordinance. 2

After trial, the Presidin+ Jud+e, 3on. &re+orio '. )antin narro(ed the issue to (hether or not the defendants e ercised due dili+ence >m the construction of the sta+e. 7rom his

findin+s he arri ed at the conclusion that the E ecuti e Committee appointed by themunicipal council had e ercised due dili+ence and care li1e a +ood father of the family inselectin+ a competent man to construct a sta+e stron+ enou+h for the occasion and that if it collapsed that (as due to forces beyond the control of the committee on entertainment,conse5uently, the defendants (ere not liable for dama+es for the death of icente7ontanilla. 'he complaint (as accordin+ly dismissed in a decision dated July !%, !"F2.

'he 7ontanillas appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision Promul+ated on October !, !"F$, the Court of Appeals throu+h its 7ourth i ision composed at the time of Justices ;al ador . Es+uerra, Nicasio A. =atco and Eulo+io ;. ;errano re ersed the trialcourt>s decision and ordered all the defendants4appellees to pay 0ointly and se erally theheirs of icente 7ontanilla the sums of P!2,%%%.%% by (ay of moral and actual dama+es:P!2%%.%% its attorney>s feesD and the costs.

'he case is no( before 9s on arious assi+nments of errors all of (hich center on the proposition stated at the sentence of this Opinion and (hich s+o ernmental or public function or is it or a pri ate or proprietary characterL

!. 9nder Philippine la(s municipalities are political bodies corporate and as such a+endo(ed (ith the faculties of municipal corporations to be e ercised by and throu+h their respecti e municipal +o ernments in conformity (ith la(, and in their proper corporatename, they may inter alia sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted (ith. #

'he po(ers of a municipality are t(ofold in character public, +o ernmental or politicalon the one hand, and corporate, pri ate, or proprietary on the other. &o ernmental po(ersare those e ercised by the corporation in administerin+ the po(ers of the state and promotin+ the public (elfare and they include the le+islati e, 0udicial public, and political -unicipal po(ers on the other hand are e ercised for the special benefit and


32/80

ad anta+e of the community and include those (hich are ministerial pri ate andcorporate. F

As to (hen a certain acti ity is +o ernmental and (hen proprietary or pri ate, that is+enerally a difficult matter to determine. 'he e olution of the municipal la( in American

Jurisprudence, for instance, has sho(n thatD none of the tests (hich ha e e ol ed and arestated in te tboo1s ha e set do(n a conclusi e principle or rule, so that each case (illha e to be determined on the basis of attendin+ circumstances.

In -cMuillin on -unicipal Corporations, the rule is stated thus: A municipal corporation proper has ... a public character as re+ards the state at lar+e insofar as it is its a+ent in+o ernment, and pri ate Bso4called insofar as it is to promote local necessities andcon eniences for its o(n community.

Another statement of the test is +i en in City of ?o1omo . )oy, decided by the ;upremeCourt of Indiana in !"!F, thus:

-unicipal corporations e ist in a dual capacity, and their functions are t(o fold. In onethey e ercise the ri+ht sprin+in+ from so erei+nty, and (hile in the performance of theduties pertainin+ thereto, their acts are political and +o ernmental 'heir officers anda+ents in such capacity, thou+h elected or appointed by the are ne ertheless publicfunctionaries performin+ a public ser ice, and as such they are officers, a+ents, andser ants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities e ercise a pri ate. proprietary or corporate ri+ht, arisin+ from their e istence as le+al persons and not as public a+encies. 'heir officers and a+ents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or in. indi idual capacity, and not for thestate or so erei+n po(er. B!!2 N. E ""64""#

In the early Philippine case of -endo/a . de )eon !"!F, the ;upreme Court, throu+hJustice &rant '. 'rent, relyin+ mainly on American Jurisprudence classified certainacti ities of the municipality as +o ernmental, e.+.: re+ulations a+ainst fire, disease, preser ation of public peace, maintenance of municipal prisons, establishment of schools, post4offices, etc. (hile the follo(in+ are corporate or proprietary in character, i/:municipal (ater(or1, slau+hter houses, mar1ets, stables, bathin+ establishments,(har es, ferries, and fisheries. $ -aintenance of par1s, +olf courses, cemeteries andairports amon+ others, are also reco+ni/ed as municipal or city acti ities of a proprietarycharacter. "

2. 'his distinction of po(ers becomes important for purposes of determinin+ theliability of the municipality for the acts of its a+ents (hich result in an in0ury to third persons.

If the in0ury is caused in the course of the performance of a +o ernmental function or duty no reco ery, as a rule, can be. had from the municipality unless there is an e istin+statute on the matter, !% nor from its officers, so lon+ as they performed their dutieshonestly and in +ood faith or that they did not act (antonly and maliciously. !! In


33/80

Palafo , et al., . Pro ince of Ilocos Norte, et al., !"#$, a truc1 dri er employed by the pro incial +o ernment of Ilocos Norte ran o er Proceto Palafo in the course of his (or1 at the construction of a road. 'he ;upreme Court in affirmin+ the trial court>s dismissal of the complaint for dama+es held that the pro ince could not be made liable because itsemployee (as in the performance of a +o ernmental function 8 the construction and

maintenance of roads 8 and ho(e er tra+ic and deplorable it may be, the death of Palafo imposed on the pro ince no duty to pay monetary consideration. !2


34/80

As stated earlier, there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determinin+ the truenature of an underta1in+ or function of a municipalityD the surroundin+ circumstances of a particular case are to be considered and (ill be decisi e. 'he basic element, ho(e er beneficial to the public the underta1in+ may be, is that it is +o ernmental in essence,

other(ise the function becomes pri ate or proprietary in character. Easily, no+o ernmental or public policy of the state is in ol ed in the celebration of a to(n fiesta.

6. It follo(s that under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner4municipality is to be held liable for dama+es for the death of icente 7ontanilia if that (as attributable tothe ne+li+ence of the municipality>s officers, employees, or a+ents.

Art. 2! F, Ci il Code:


35/80

'he Court of Appeals thus concluded

'he court a 5uo itself attributed the collapse of the sta+e to the +reat number of onloo1ers(ho mounted the sta+e. 'he municipality and or its a+ents had the necessary means

(ithin its command to pre ent such an occurrence. 3a in+ f ailed to ta1e the necessarysteps to maintain the safety of the sta+e for the use of the participants in the sta+e presentation prepared in connection (ith the celebration of the to(n fiesta, particularly,in pre entin+ non participants or spectators from mountin+ and accumulatin+ on the sta+e(hich (as not constructed to meet the additional (ei+ht4 the defendant4appellees (erene+li+ent and are liable for the death of icente 7ontanilla . Bpp. %4 !, rollo, )42"""

'he findin+s of the respondent appellate court that the facts as presented to it establishne+li+ence as a matter of la( and that the -unicipality failed to e ercise the duedili+ence of a +ood father of the family, (ill not disturbed by 9s in the absence of a clear sho(in+ of an abuse of discretion or a +ross misapprehension of facts. !$

)iability rests on ne+li+ence (hich is the (ant of such care as a person of ordinary prudence (ould e ercise under the circumstances of the case. !"

'hus, pri ate respondents ar+ue that the -idas E tra a+an/a (hich (as to be performed durin+ the to(n fiesta (as a donation offered by an association of -alasi5uiemployees of the -anila @ailroad Co. in Caloocan, and that (hen the -unicipality of -alasi5ui accepted the donation of ser ices and constructed precisely a /ar/uela sta+efor the purpose, the participants in the sta+e sho( had the ri+ht to e pect that the-unicipality throu+h its Committee on entertainment and sta+e (ould build or put up asta+e or platform stron+ enou+h to sustain the (ei+ht or burden of the performance andta1e the necessary measures to insure the personal safety of the participants. 2%


36/80

icente 7ontanilla (as one of the participants (ho li1e ;anders had the ri+ht to e pectthat he (ould be e posed to dan+er on that occasion.

)astly, petitioner or appellant -unicipality cannot e ade ability and or liability under thec that it (as Jose -acarae+ (ho constructed the sta+e. 'he municipality actin+ throu+h

its municipal council appointed -acarae+ as chairman of the sub4committee onentertainment and in char+e of the construction of the /ar/uela sta+e. -acarae+ actedmerely as an a+ent of the -unicipality. 9nder the doctrine of respondent superior mentioned earlier, petitioner is responsible or liable for the ne+li+ence of its a+ent actin+(ithin his assi+ned tas1s.

... (hen it is sou+ht to render a municipal corporation liable for the act of ser ants or a+ents, a cardinal in5uiry is, (hether they are the ser ants or a+ents of the corporation. If the corporation appoints or elects them, can control them in the dischar+e of their duties,can continue or remo e the can hold them responsible for the manner in (hich theydischar+e their trust, and if those duties relate to the e ercise of corporate po(ers, and are

for the benefit of the corporation in its local or special interest, they may 0ustly bere+arded as its a+ents or ser ants, and the ma im of respondent superior applies. ...B illon on -unicipal Corporations, #th Ed., ol I , p. 2$ "

#. 'he remainin+ 5uestion to be resol ed centers on the liability of the municipalcouncilors (ho enacted the ordinance and created the fiesta committee.

'he Court of Appeals held the councilors 0ointly and solidarity liable (ith themunicipality for dama+es under Article 2 of the Ci il Code (hich pro ides that d any person sufferin+ in+ material or moral loss because a public ser ant or employee refusesor ne+lects, (ithout 0ust cause to perform his official duty may file an action for dama+esand other relief at the latter. 2

In their Petition for re ie( the municipal councilors alle+e that the Court of Appealserred in rulin+ that the holdin+ of a to(n fiesta is not a +o ernmental function and thatthere (as ne+li+ence on their part for not maintainin+ and super isin+ the safe use of thesta+e, in applyin+ Article 2 of the Ci il Code a+ainst them and in not holdin+ Jose-acarae+ liable for the collapse of the sta+e and the conse5uent death of icente7ontanilla. 26


37/80

7red @ui/ Castro, held that the ;upreme Court is ested (ith ample authority to re ie(matters not assi+ned as errors in an appeal if it finds that their consideration andresolution are indispensable or necessary in arri in+ at a 0ust decision in a +i en case, andthat tills is author under ;ec. , @ule #! of the @ules of Court. 2# s employees or a+ents unless there is a sho(in+ of bad faithor +ross or (anton ne+li+ence on their part. 2

'he ordinary doctrine is that a director, merely by reason of his office, is not personally;table for the torts of his corporationD he -ust be sho(n to ha e personally oted for or other(ise participated in them ... 7letcher Encyclopedia Corporations, ol A Chapt !!, p. 2%

Officers of a corporation >are not held liable for the ne+li+ence of the corporation merely because of their official relation to it, but because of some (ron+ful or ne+li+ent act bysuch officer amountin+ to a breach of duty (hich resulted in an in0ury ... 'o ma1e anofficer of a corporation liable for the ne+li+ence of the corporation there must ha e beenupon his part such a breach of duty as contributed to, or helped to brin+ about, the in0uryDthat is to say, he must be a participant in the (ron+ful act. ... Bpp. 2% 42%$, Ibid.

irectors (ho merely employ one to +i e a fire(or1s Ambition on the corporate are not personally liable for the ne+li+ent acts of the e hibitor. Bp. 2!!, Ibid.

On these people


38/80

attorney>s fees, the records sho( ho(e er that attempts (ere made by plaintiffs, no( pri ate respondents, to secure an e tra0udicial compensation from the municipality: thatthe latter +a e prorases and assurances of assistance but failed to complyD and it (as onlyei+ht month after the incident that the berea ed family of icente 7ontanilla (ascompelled to see1 relief from the courts to entilate (hat (as belie ed to be a 0ust cause.

2$s fees (hichafter all is a matter of 0udicial discretion. 'he amount of P!,2%%.%% is fair and reasonable.

P@E-I;E; CON;I E@E ,


39/80

'he Antecedents

In a eed of onation dated -arch ", !"$6, subse5uently superseded by a eed of onation dated ;eptember 2 , !"$6, (hich in turn (as superseded by an Amended eed

of onation dated No ember 2F, !"$6, pri ate respondent donated to the City of An+eles, #! parcels of land situated in *arrio Pampan+, City of An+eles, (ith ana++re+ate area of #%,F F s5uare meters, more or less, part of a bi++er area also belon+in+to pri ate respondent. 'he amended deed #Kpro ided, amon+ others, that:

S2. 'he properties donated shall be de oted and utili/ed solely for the site of theAn+eles City ;ports Center B(hich e cludes coc1fi+htin+ pursuant to the plans to besubmitted (ithin si BF months by the ONEE to the ONO@ for the latterTs appro al,(hich appro al shall not be unreasonably (ithheld as lon+ as entire properties donatedare de eloped as a ;ports Comple . Any chan+e or modification in the basic desi+n or concept of said ;ports Center must ha e the prior (ritten consent of the ONO@.

S . No commercial buildin+, commercial comple , mar1et or any other similar comple , mass or tenament Bsic housin+ buildin+sBs shall be constructed in the properties donated nor shall coc1fi+htin+, be allo(ed in the premises.

S6. 'he construction of the ;ports Center shall commence (ithin a period of one B!year from %" -arch !"$6 and shall be completed (ithin a period of fi e B# years from%" -arch !"$6.

SF. 'he properties donated B(hich is more than fi e B# percent of the total land areaof the ONO@Ts subdi ision shall constitute the entire open space for ONO@Tssubdi ision and all other lands or areas pre iously reser ed or desi+nated, includin+ )ot !and )ot 2A of *loc1 2 and the (hole *loc1 2" are dispensed (ith, and rendered free, asopen spaces, and the ONEE hereby a+rees to e ecute and deli er all necessary consents,appro als, endorsements, and authori/ations to effect the fore+oin+.

. 'he properties donated are de oted and described as Uopen spacesT of theONO@Ts subdi ision, and to this effect, the ONEE, upon acceptance of this donation,releases the ONO@ and or assumes any and all obli+ations and liabilities appertainin+to the properties donated.

$. Any substantial breach of the fore+oin+ pro isos shall entitle the ONO@ tore o1e or rescind this eed of onation, and in such e entuality, the ONEE a+rees toacate and return the premises, to+ether (ith all impro ements, to the ONO@

peacefully (ithout necessity of 0udicial action.V

On July !", !"$$, petitioners started the construction of a dru+ rehabilitation center on a portion of the donated land. 9pon learnin+ thereof, pri ate respondent protested such


40/80

action for bein+ iolati e of the terms and conditions of the amended deed and pre0udicialto its interest and to those of its clients and residents. Pri ate respondent also offeredanother site for the rehabilitation center. 3o(e er, petitioners i+nored the protest,maintainin+ that the construction (as not iolati e of the terms of the donation. 'healternati e site (as re0ected because, accordin+ to petitioners, the site (as too isolated

and had no electric and (ater facilities.On Au+ust $, !"$$, pri ate respondent filed a complaint (ith the @e+ional 'rial Court,*ranch #F, in An+eles City a+ainst the petitioners, alle+in+ breach of the conditionsimposed in the amended deed of donation and see1in+ the re ocation of the donation anddama+es, (ith preliminary in0unction and or temporary restrainin+ order to halt theconstruction of the said center.

On Au+ust !%, !"$$, the trial court issued a temporary restrainin+ order to en0oin the petitioners from further proceedin+ (ith the construction of the center, (hich at that time(as already 6%W complete.

3o(e er, the trial court denied the prayer for preliminary in0unction based on the prohibition in Presidential ecree No. !$!$.

In their Ans(er (ith counterclaim, petitioners admitted the commencement of theconstruction but alle+ed inter alia that the conditions imposed in the amended deed (erecontrary to -unicipal Ordinance No. !, ;eries of !"F2, other(ise 1no(n as the;ubdi ision Ordinance of the -unicipality of An+eles. FK

On October !#, !"$$, pri ate respondent filed a -otion for Partial ;ummary Jud+menton the +round that the main defense of the petitioners (as anchored on a pure 5uestion of la( and that their le+al position (as untenable.

'he petitioners opposed, contendin+ that they had a meritorious defense as B! pri aterespondents had no ri+ht to dictate upon petitioners (hat to do (ith the donated land andho( to do it so lon+ as the purpose remains for public useD and B2 the cause of action of the pri ate respondent became moot and academic (hen the An+eles City Councilrepealed the resolution pro idin+ for the construction of said dru+ rehabilitation center and adopted a ne( resolution chan+in+ the purpose and usa+e of said center to a Usportsde elopment and youth centerT in order to conform (ith the sports comple pro0ectconstructed on the donated land.

On 7ebruary !#, !"$", the trial court rendered its decision, in rele ant part readin+ asfollo(s:

S the Court finds no inconsistency bet(een the conditions imposed in the eeds of onation and the pro ision of the ;ubdi ision Ordinance of the City of An+eles re5uirin+subdi isions in An+eles City to reser e at least one B! hectare in the subdi ision assuitable sites 1no(n as open spaces for par1s, play+rounds, playlots and or other areas to be dedicated to public use. On the contrary, the condition re5uirin+ the defendant city of


41/80


42/80

rulin+ of the trial court. ;ubse5uently, the petitionersT motion for reconsideration (asalso denied for lac1 of merit.

Conse5uently, this Petition for @e ie(.

'he Issues'he 1ey issues raised by petitioners may be restated as follo(s:

I.


43/80


44/80

plantin+ on such parts of the subdi ision as may be desi+nated by the Authority.

9pon their completion certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, side(al1s and play+rounds shall be donated by the o(ner or de eloper to the city or municipality and itshall be mandatory for the local +o ernments to accept pro ided, ho(e er, that the par1s

and play+rounds may be donated to the 3omeo(ners Association of the pro0ect (ith theconsent of the city or municipality concerned. No portion of the par1s and play+roundsdonated thereafter shall be con erted to any other purpose or purposes.T

;EC'ION . ;ections 2 and # of Presidential ecree No. "# are hereby repealed andother la(s, decrees, e ecuti e orders, institutions, rules and re+ulations or parts thereof inconsistent (ith these pro isions are also repealed or amended accordin+ly.

;EC'ION 6. 'his ecree shall ta1e effect immediately.V

Pursuant to the (ordin+ of ;ec. ! of P. . "# as abo e amended by the afore5uoted P. .

No. !2!F, pri ate respondent is under le+al obli+ation to donate the open spacee clusi ely allocated for par1s, play+rounds and recreational use to the petitioner.

'his can be clearly established by referrin+ to the ori+inal pro ision of ;ec. ! of P. ."# , (hich reads as follo(s:

S;EC'ION !. onation of roads and open spaces to local +o ernment. 8 'here+istered o(ner or de eloper of the subdi ision or condominium pro0ect, uponcompletion of the de elopment of said pro0ect may, at his option, con ey by (ay of donation the roads and open spaces found (ithin the pro0ect to the city or municipality(herein the pro0ect is located. 9pon acceptance of the donation by the city or municipality concerned, no portion of the area donated shall thereafter be con erted toany other purpose or purposes unless after hearin+, the proposed con ersion is appro ed by the Authority.V BItalics supplied

It (ill be noted that under the afore5uoted ori+inal pro ision, it (as optional on the partof the o(ner or de eloper to donate the roads and open spaces found (ithin the pro0ect tothe city or municipality (here the pro0ect is located. Else(ise stated, there (as no le+alobli+ation to ma1e the donation.

3o(e er, said ;ec. ! as amended no( states in its last para+raph:

S9pon their completion , the roads, alleys, side(al1s and play+rounds shall bedonated by the o(ner or de eloper to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatoryfor the local +o ernment to acceptD pro ided, ho(e er, that the par1s and play+roundsmay be donated to the 3omeo(ners Association of the pro0ect (ith the consent of the cityor municipality concerned. .V

It is clear from the afore5uoted amendment that it is no lon+er optional on the part of thesubdi ision o(ner de eloper to donate the open space for par1s and play+roundsD rather


45/80

there is no( a le+al obli+ation to donate the same. Althou+h there is a pro iso that thedonation of the par1s and play+rounds may be made to the homeo(ners association of the pro0ect (ith the consent of the city of municipality concerned, nonetheless, theo(ner de eloper is still obli+ated under the la( to donate. ;uch option does not chan+ethe mandatory character of the pro ision. 'he donation has to be made re+ardless of

(hich donee is pic1ed by the o(ner de eloper. 'he consent re5uirement before the samecan be donated to the homeo(nersT association emphasi/es this point.

;econd Issue: Percenta+e of Area for Par1s and Play+rounds

Petitioners contend that the .#W to "W allotted by ;ec. ! for par1s, play+rounds andrecreational uses should be based on the +ross area of the entire subdi ision, and notmerely on the area of the open space alone, as contended by pri ate respondent and asdecided by the respondent Court. !%K

'he petitioners are correct. 'he lan+ua+e of ;ection ! of P. . "# as amended by

;ection 2 of P. . !2!F is (antin+ in clarity and e actitude, but it can be easily inferredthat the phrase S+ross areaV refers to the entire subdi ision area. 'he said phrase (asused four times in the same section in t(o sentences, the first of (hich reads:

S 7or subdi ision pro0ects one B! hectare or more, the o(ner or de eloper shallreser e thirty per cent B %W of the +ross area for open space. .V

3ere, the phrase S %W of the +ross areaV refers to the total area of the subdi ision, not of the open space. Other(ise, the definition of Sopen spaceV (ould be circular. 'hus, lo+icdictates that the same basis be applied in the succeedin+ instances (here the phrase SopenspaceV is used, i.e., S"W of +ross area . . . W of +ross area . . . .#W of +ross area . . .V-oreo er, (e a+ree (ith petitioners that construin+ the .#W to "W as applyin+ to thetotality of the open space (ould result in far too small an area bein+ de oted for par1s, play+rounds, etc., thus renderin+ meanin+less and defeatin+ the purpose of the statute.'his becomes clear (hen ie(ed in the li+ht of the ori+inal re5uirement of P. . "#BS@e5uirin+ the Plantin+ of 'rees in Certain Places, etc.V , ;ection 2 of (hich reads:

S;ec. 2. E ery o(ner of land subdi ided into residential commercial industrial lots after the effecti ity of this ecree shall reser e, de elop and maintain not less than thirty percent B %W of the total area of the subdi ision, e clusi e of roads, ser ice streets andalleys, as open space for par1s and recreational areas.

No plan for a subdi ision shall be appro ed by the )and @e+istration Commission or anyoffice or a+ency of the +o ernment unless at least thirty percent B %W of the total area of the subdi ision, e clusi e of roads, ser ice streets and alleys, is reser ed as open spacefor par1s and recreational areas .V

'o our mind, it is clear that P. . !2!F (as an attempt to achie e a happy compromise anda realistic balance bet(een the imperati es of en ironmental plannin+ and the need tomaintain economic feasibility in subdi ision and housin+ de elopment, by reducin+ the


46/80

re5uired area for par1s, play+rounds and recreational uses from thirty percent B %W toonly .#W 4 "W of the entire area of the subdi ision.

'hird Issue: Imposition of Conditions in onation of Open ;pace

Petitioners ar+ue that since the pri ate respondent is re5uired by la( to donate the par1sand play+rounds, it has no ri+ht to impose the condition in the Amended eed of onation that Sthe properties donated shall be de oted and utili/ed solely for the site of the An+eles City ;ports Center.V It cannot prescribe any condition as to the use of thearea donated because the use of the open spaces is already +o erned by P. . !2!F. Inother (ords, the donation should be absolute. Conse5uently, the conditions in theamended deed (hich (ere alle+edly iolated are deemed not (ritten. ;uch bein+ thecase, petitioners cannot be considered to ha e committed any iolation of the terms andconditions of the said amended deed, as the donation is deemed unconditional, and itfollo(s that there is no basis for re ocation of the donation.

3o(e er, the +eneral la( on donations does not prohibit the imposition of conditions ona donation so lon+ as the conditions are not ille+al or impossible. !!K

In re+ard to donations of open spaces, P. . !2!F itself re5uires amon+ other thin+s thatthe recreational areas to be donated be based, as aforementioned, on a percenta+e B .#W,W, or "W of the total area of the subdi ision dependin+ on (hether the subdi ision islo( 4, medium 4, or hi+h4density. It further declares that such open space de oted to par1s, play+rounds and recreational areas are non4alienable public land and non4 buildable. 3o(e er, there is no prohibition in either P. . "# or P. . !2!F a+ainstimposin+ conditions on such donation.


47/80


48/80

the City &o ernment to construct a ru+ @ehabilitation Center on the donated property, by Uchan+in+ the purpose and usa+e of the ru+ @ehabilitation Center to ;portse elopment and =outh Center to ma1e it conform to the ;ports Comple Pro0ecttherein.T 9nder this @esolution No. 22 , the appellants claimed that they ha e abandonedall plans for the construction of the ru+ @ehabilitation Center. Nonetheless, (hen

0ud+ment (as finally rendered on 7ebruary !#, !"$", the appellants (ere 5uic1 to statethat they ha e not after all abandoned their plans for the center as they ha e in factinau+urated the same on April !#, !"$". In plain and simple terms, this act is a moc1eryof our 0udicial system perpetrated by the appellants. 7or them to ar+ue that the courtcannot deal on their ru+ @ehabilitation Center is not only preposterous but alsoridiculous.

It is interestin+ to obser e that under the appealed decision the appellants and their officers, employees and all other persons actin+ on their behalf (ere perpetually en0oinedto cease and desist from constructin+ a ru+ @ehabilitation Center on the donated property. 9nder ;ection 6 of @ule " of the @ules of Court, it is pro ided that:

S;ection 6 8 A 0ud+ment in an action for in0unction shall not be stayed after its renditionand before an appeal is ta1en or durin+ the pendency of an appeal.V

Accordin+ly, a 0ud+ment restrainin+ a party from doin+ a certain act is enforceable andshall remain in full force and effect e en pendin+ appeal. In the case at bar, the cease anddesist order therefore still stands. AppellantsT persistence and continued construction and,subse5uent, operation of the ru+ @ehabilitation Center iolate the e press terms of the(rit of in0unction la(fully issued by the lo(er court.V

'his Court finds no co+ent reason to re erse the abo e mentioned findin+s of therespondent court. 'he alle+ation of the petitioners that the construction of the center (asfinished before the 0ud+ment of the trial court (as rendered deser es scant consideration because it is self4ser in+ and is completely unsupported by other e idence.

'he fact remains that the trial court rendered 0ud+ment en0oinin+ the construction of thedru+ rehabilitation center, re o1in+ the donation and orderin+ the return of the donatedland. In spite of such in0unction, petitioners publicly flaunted their disre+ard thereof (iththe subse5uent inau+uration of the center on Au+ust !#, !"$". 'he operation of thecenter, after inau+uration, is e en more censurable.

7ifth Issue: @e ocation of a -andatory onation *ecause of Non4compliance


49/80


50/80

In theory, the cost of such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public fundse pended in the construction thereof, should be borne by the officials of the City of An+eles (ho ordered and directed such construction. 'his Court has time and a+ainruled that public officials are not immune from dama+es in their personal capacities

arisin+ from acts done in bad faith. Other(ise stated, a public official may be liable inhis personal capacity for (hate er dama+e he may ha e caused by his act done (ithmalice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or 0urisdiction. 2%K In theinstant case, the public officials concerned deliberately iolated the la( and persisted intheir iolations, +oin+ so far as attemptin+ to decei e the courts by their pretended chan+eof purpose and usa+e for the center, and Sma1in+ a moc1ery of the 0udicial system.VIndisputably, said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and 0urisdiction and (ith e ident bad faith. 3o(e er, as noted by the trial court, 2!K the petitioners mayor and members of the ;an++unian+ Panlun+sod of An+eles City (eresued only in their official capacities, hence, they could not be held personally liable(ithout first +i in+ them their day in court. Pre ailin+ 0urisprudence 22K holdin+ that

public officials are personally liable for dama+es arisin+ from ille+al acts done in badfaith are premised on said officials ha in+ been sued both in their official and personalcapacities.

After due consideration of the circumstances, (e belie e that the fairest and moste5uitable solution is to ha e the City of An+eles, donee of the sub0ect open space and,ostensibly, the main beneficiary of the construction and operation of the proposed dru+rehabilitation center, underta1e the demolition and remo al of said center, and if feasible,reco er the cost thereof from the city officials concerned.


51/80

G.R. No. L- 8 !ar 4 16, 198

O+!)N/O G. RA!A, "#$%$%on#r,&'.CO)RT O A**EAL+

A)A-PA=, J.:

urin+ the incumbency of @ene Espina as pro incial +o ernor of Cebu, Osmundo &.@ama as ice4+o ernor and Pablo P. &arcia, @eynaldo -. -endiola and alerians ;.Carillo as members of the ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an, said officials adopted @esolution No. ""% (hich appropriated funds for the maintenance and repair of pro incial roadsand brid+es and for the operation and maintenance of the office of the pro incial en+ineer and for other purposes. B)466#"!, @ollo, pp. 64 .

In said resolution, the pro incial +o ernment of Cebu under the aforementioned officials,declared its policy to mechani/e the maintenance and repair of all roads and brid+es of the pro ince Bincludin+ pro incial roads and brid+es recei in+ national aid JJ , toeconomi/e in the e penditure of its @oad and *rid+e 7und for the maintenance and repair of pro incial roads and brid+es recei in+ national aid JJ and to adopt a morecomprehensi e, systematic, efficient, pro+ressi e and orderly operation and maintenanceof the Office of the Pro incial En+ineer.

'o implement said policy, the pro incial board resol ed to abolish around thirty positionsH the salaries of (hich (ere paid from the JJ @oad and *rid+e 7und thus doin+ a(ay(ith the caminero Bpic14sho el4(heelbarro( system Conse5uently around 2%%employees of the pro ince (ere eased out of their respecti e 0obs and, to implement themechani/ation pro+ram in the maintenance of roads and brid+es, the pro incial+o ernment purchased hea y e5uipment (orth P6,%%%,%%%.%%. 3o(e er, contrary to itsdeclared policy to economi/e the pro incial administration later on hired around onethousand ne( employees, reno ated the office of the pro incial en+ineer and pro idedthe latter (ith a -ercedes4*en/ car B ecision in CA4&.@. No. 6" 2$4@, )466#"!, @ollo, p. .

A++rie ed by these turn of e ents, the employees (hose positions (ere abolished filedseparate petitions for mandamus, dama+es and attorneys fees aimed at the annulment of @esolution No. ""%, their reinstatement and the reco ery of dama+es 'he aforementioned pro incial officials (ho, to+ether (ith the pro incial auditor, pro incial treasurer,


52/80

pro incial en+ineer and the pro ince of Cebu, (ere named respondents in said action,(ere sued both in their official and personal capacities as a result of their alle+edun0ust, oppressi e, ille+al and malicious> acts BPetition, @ecord in Ci il Case No. @4!% %6, p. .

In Ci il Case No. @4!% %6, the Court of 7irst Instance of Cebu declared @esolution No.""% nun and oid and ordered the respondent officials to re4create the positionsabolished, to pro ide funds therefore, to reinstate the #F petitioners headed by Jose Abala,and to pay them bac1 salaries. 7or lac1 of le+al and factual basis, no dama+es (erea(arded to petitioners and no pronouncement as to attorney>s fees (ere made as the petitioners had a+reed to pay their la(yers %W of (hate er amount they (ould recei eas bac1 salaries B)466#"!, @ollo, pp. 4 6 .

All the parties appealed to the Court of Appeals BCA4&.@. No. 6" 2$4@ . E entually, saidappellate court, throu+h its 7irst i ision, affirmed the lo(er court>s decision (ith themodification that respondents (ere ordered to pay 0ointly and se erally in their

indi idual and personal capacity P!,%%%.%% moral dama+es to each of the petitionersconsiderin+ that the case in ol ed a 5uasi4delict B)466#"! @ollo, p. #6 .

7rom that decision, Osmundo &. @ama, interposed an appeal> to this Court B&.@. No. )4666$6 . Espina, &arcia,> -endiola and Carillo then filed their o(n petition for re ie(B&.@. No. )466#"! . *ut before Espina, et al. could file said petition, the pro ince of Cebu and its ;an++unian+ Panlala(i+an filed their o(n p

municipal liability muncorp

Documents