don't read this! the moment you do you can never turn back! 2

7/31/2019 Don't Read This! the Moment You Do You Can Never Turn Back! 2

1/4

Southeastern College vs. CA

Facts:

1) Private respondents Juanita de Jesus Vda. deDimaano, et al., own a house at College Road inQuezon City. Petitioner Southeastern College,Inc. (Southeastern) owns a four-storey school

building along the same College Road.2) Typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila. the roof of

Southeastern's building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroyingportions of the roofing of private respondents'house. According to the city building official'sreport, some of the factors that may have led tothe calamitous event was the formation of Southeastern's building and the improperanchorage of its roofing trusses (neither boltednor nailed, hence relatively easily dislodged bythe strong winds of the typhoon) to the roof beams; he recommended therein that thefourth floor of Southeastern's building bedeclared as a structural hazard.

3) Private respondents filed before the Pasay RTCa case for damages based on culpa aquiliana ,alleging that the damage to their houserendered the same uninhabitable, forcing themto stay temporarily in other people's houses.They sought to recover P117,116 as actualdamages, P1,000,000 as moral damages,P300,000 as exemplary damages, P100,000 for

attorney's fees, and costs.4) Southwestern averred that its school building

had withstood several devastating typhoons inthe past without its roofing giving way, and thatit had not been remiss in its responsibility to seeto it that its building is in tip-top condition, andthat Typhoon Saling is an act of god, beyondhuman control, such that it (Southwestern)cannot be answerable for the damages wroughtabsent any negligence on its part.

5) The trial court, giving credence to report saying

that the school building had a "defective roofingstructure", ruled in favor of privaterespondents, declaring that the damage toprivate respondents' houses could have beenavoided had the construction of the schoolbuilding's roof been not faulty. The CA affirmedthe decision, with modification.

Issue: Is Southeastern liable for the damage caused toprivate respondents by Typhoon Saling, being an act of God?

Ruling: No, Southwestern is not liable for damages.

There is no question that a typhoon or storm is afortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be

foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. In order to be exempt fromliability arising from any adverse consequenceengendered thereby, there should have been no humanparticipation amounting to a negligent act.

A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of faultor negligence causative of his injury or loss. The factsconstitutive of negligence must be affirmativelyestablished by competent evidence, not merely bypresumptions and conclusions without basis in fact.Private respondents merely relied on the reportsubmitted by a team which made an ocular (i.e. bymeans of actual sight or viewing) inspection of Southeastern's school building after the typhoon.However, what is visual to the eye is not alwaysreflective of the real cause behind. The relationship of cause and effect must be clearly shown.

Other than the said ocular inspection, no investigationwas conducted to determine the real cause of thepartial unroofing of Southeastern's school building.

Private respondents did not even show that the plans,specifications and design of said school building weredeficient and defective. Neither did they prove anysubstantial deviation from the approved plans andspecifications. Nor did they conclusively establish thatthe construction of such building was basically flawed.

Southeastern, on the other hand, showed that theoriginal plans and design of petitioner's school buildingwere approved by the city government prior to itsconstruction. Furthermore, when part of the building's

roof needed repairs in the wake of the damage causedby Typhoon Saling, the same city official (mentioned inthe facts, that is) gave the go-signal for such repairs --without any deviation from the original design . Thisproves that the school building suffers from nostructural defect. Southeastern also revealed that anannual maintenance inspection and repair drive of itsschool building was regularly undertaken.

Decision reversed.


2/4

Dioquino vs. Laureano

Facts:

1) Plaintiff Atty. Pedro Dioquino (Dioquino) had acar.

2) Dioquino went to the office of the MVO (Motor

Vehicle [I don't know what the "O" stands for --probably "operator", but I don't really think so])to register the car, and met defendant FedericoLaureano, who was waiting for a jeepney totake him to the office of the ProvincialCommander of the Philippine Constabulary(PC). Dioquino requested Laureano to introducehim to one of the clerks in the MVO office, so asto facilitate the registration of his car -- this wasdone.

3) Laureano rode on Dioquino's car, driven byDioquino's driver, en route to the PC Barracks.While about to reach their destination, the carwas stoned by some "mischievous boys", and itswindshield was broken. Laureano chased theboys and was able to catch one of them. Theboy was taken to Dioquino and admitted tohaving thrown the stone that broke the car'swindshield. Dioquino and Laureano called theboy's father, but no satisfactory arrangementswere made about the damage to thewindshield.

4) Laureano refused to file any charges against theboy and his parents, thinking that the stone-throwing was merely accidentaly and due toforce majeure. He likewise refused to pay forthe windshield himself and challenged that thecase be brought to court for adjudication,despite Dioquino's attempts to amicably settlethe matter, because he believes that he couldnot be held liable because a minor throw astone accidentally on the car's windshield andtherefore, the same was due to force majeure .

Issue: Is Laureano liable for damages?

Ruling: No, he is not.

Laureano's belief that he could not be held liable was justified. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by thelaw, 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.

Indeed, the rule is well-settled that in the absence of alegal provision or an express covenant, no one shouldbe held to account for fortuitous cases. If it could beshown that such was indeed the case, liability is ruledout. There is no requirement of "diligence beyond whathuman care and foresight can provide".

The error committed by the lower court in holdingdefendant Federico Laureano liable appears to beobvious. Its own findings of fact repel the motion thathe should be made to respond in damages to theplaintiff for the broken windshield. What happened wasclearly unforeseen -- a fortuitous event resulting in aloss which must be borne by the owner of the car. Anelement of reasonableness in the law would bemanifestly lacking if, on the circumstances as thusdisclosed, legal responsibility could be imputed to anindividual in Laureano's situation. Art. 1174 of the CivilCode guards against the possibility of its being visitedwith such a reproach. Unfortunately, the lower courtwas of a different mind and thus failed to heed itscommand.

Decision reversed.

Ylarde vs. CA

Nature of action: petition for review of CA decisionaffirming the decision of the CFI of Pangasinandismissing the complaint for damages against hereinprivate respondents

Facts:

1) In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano(Soriano) was the principal of Gabaldon PrimarySchool, in Pangasinan, and private respondentEdgardo Aquino (Aquino) was a teacher therein.

2) At the time, the school was fettered withseveral concrete blocks -- remnants of the oldschool shop which was destroyed during WWII.Realizing that these blocks were serious hazardsto the schoolchildren, another teacher, SergioBanez started burying them one by one as earlyas 1962 and was able to bury ten of said blocksall by himself.

3) Deciding to help Banez, Aquino gatheredeighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven,


3/4

after class and ordered them to dig beside aone-ton concrete block in order to make a holewhere the stone can be buried. The work wasleft unfinished.

4) The day after, Aquino called four of the originaleighteen (Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara,Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde) to continuethe digging until the excavation was one meter

and forty centimetres deep. At this point,Aquino alone continued digging while the fourpupils remained inside the pit throwing out theloose soil that was brought about by thedigging.

5) When the depth was right enough toaccommodate the concrete block, Aquino andthe four got out of the hole. Then, Aquino leftthe children to level the loose soil around theopen hole while he went to see Banez who wasabout thirty meters away, intending to borrowfrom the latter the key to the school workroomwhere he could get some rope. Before leaving,Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touchthe stone".

6) A few minutes after, Alonso, Alcantara andYlarde playfully jumped into the pit. Then,without any warning, Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide downtowards the opening. Alonso and Alcantaramanaged to scramble out in time, butunfortunately, Ylarde was pinned by the blockagainst the wall in a standing position,

sustaining crushing injury. Three days later,Ylarde died.

7) Ylarde's parents filed a suit for damages againstAquino and Soriano. The court below dismissedthe complaint on the following grounds: (a) thedigging done by the students is in line with oneof their subjects -- Work Education; and (b)Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a verycautious person; and (c) Ylarde's demise wasdue to his own reckless imprudence.

8) The CA affirmed the lower court's decision;

hence, the present petition.

Issue: Are private respondents liable for damages underArts. 2176 and 2180?

Ruling:

As regards the principal:

Soriano cannot be made responsible forYlarde's death, he being the head of anacademic school and not a school of arts andtrades. Under Art. 2180, it is only the teacherand not the head of an academic school whoshould be answerable for torts committed bytheir students. (In a school of arts and trades, itis only the head of the school who can be held

liable.)

Besides, Soriano did not give any instructionregarding the digging.

As regards Edgardo Aquino:

It can be easily seen that Aquino can be heldliable under Art. 2180, being the teacher-in-charge of the children, for his negligence in hissupervision over them and for his failure to takethe necessary precautions to prevent any injuryon their persons. However, petitioners baseAquino's alleged liability on Art. 2176, which isseparate and distinct from that provided for inArt. 2180.

Aquino acted with fault and gross negligencewhen he (a) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized hispupils to make an excavation near the one-tonconcrete stone which he knew to be a veryhazardous task; (b) required the children to

remain inside the pit even after they hadfinished digging, knowing that the huge blockwas lying nearby and could be easily pushed orkicked aside by any pupil who by chance may goto the perilous area; (c) ordered them to levelthe soil around the excavation when it was soapparent that the huge stone was at the brinkof falling; (d) went to a place where he wouldnot be able to check on the children's safety;and (e) left the children close to the excavation,an obviously attractive nuisance.

Aquino's negligent act in leaving his pupils insuch a dangerous site has a direct causalconnection to Ylarde's death. Left bythemselves, it was but natural for the childrento play around. Tired from the strenuousdigging, they just had to amuse themselves withwhatever they found. Driven by their playfuland adventurous instincts and not knowing therisk they were facing three of them jumped into


4/4

the hole while the other one jumped on thestone. Since the stone was so heavy and the soilwas loose from the digging, it was natural thatthe stone would fall into the hole beside it,causing injury on the unfortunate child caughtby its heavy weight. Everything that occurredwas the natural and probable effect of Aquino'snegligent act. Needless to say, Ylarde would not

have died were it not for the unsafe situationcreated by private respondent Aquino whichexposed the lives of all the pupils concerned toreal danger.

A reasonably prudent person would haveforeseen that bringing children to an excavationsite, and more so, leaving them there all bythemselves, may result in an accident. Anordinarily careful human being would notassume that a simple warning "not to touch thestone" is sufficient to cast away all the seriousdanger that a huge concrete block adjacent toan excavation would present to the children.Moreover, a teacher who stands in locoparentis to his pupils would have made surethat the children are protected from all harm inhis company. A truly careful and cautiousperson would have acted in all contrast to theway Aquino did. Were it not for his grossnegligence, the unfortunate incident would nothave occurred and Ylarde would probably bealive today, a grown- man of thirty-five. Due to

Aquino's failure to take the necessaryprecautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde'sparents suffered great anguish all these years.

Decision reversed. Aquino is ordered by the SupremeCourt to pay petitioners the following: (1) indemnity forthe death of Ylarde (P30,000.00); (2) exemplarydamages (P10,000.00); and (3) moral damages(P20,000.00).

Facts:

1) A Mercedes Benz panel truck of petitionerSanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. (Sanitary Steam)and a Cimarron collided at the AguinaldoHighway in Imus, Cavite, causing the death of three persons and the injuries of several others.All the victims were riding in the Cimarron, oneof which (a casualty) was the driver.

2) The Makati RTC found Sanitary Steam's driverresponsible for the vehicular accident and

accordingly held Sanitary Steam liable to privaterespondents for P472,262.30 in damages andattorney's fees. The CA affirmed the trial courtsdecision.

don't read this! the moment you do you can never turn back! 2

Documents