EN BANC

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

CITY OF MANILA , petitioner, vs. GENERO M. TEOTICO and THE

COURT OF APPEALS , respondents.

City Fiscal Manuel T. Reyes for petitioner.

Sevilla, Daza & Associates for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF CIVIL CODE,

THOUGH A GENERAL LAW, PREVAIL OVER MANILA CHARTER, SPECIAL LAW. — Insofar
as its territorial application is concerned, Republic Act 409 is a special law and the Civil
Code is a general legislation; but as regards the subject-matter of the provisions of sec.
4, Rep. Act 409 and Article 2189 of the Civil Code, the former establishes a general rule
regulating the liability of the City of Manila for damages or injury to persons or property
arising from the failure of city o cers to enforce the provisions of said Act; while
article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making provinces,
cities and municipalities liable for damages for the death or injury suffered by any
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets and other public works
under the control or supervision of said municipal governments. In other words, sec. 4
of Rep. Act 409 refers to liability arising from negligence in general regardless of the
object thereof, whereas Article 2189 of the Civil Code, governs liability due to defective
streets in particular. The Civil Code is decisive herein because the present action is
based on the alleged defective condition of a road.
2. PLEADINGS; ANSWER; ALLEGATIONS NOT SET FORTH IN ANSWER,
CANNOT BE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The assertion that P. Burgos
Avenue is a national highway for which the City of Manila is not liable, was made for the
rst time in the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of
Appeals. It was not alleged in the answer. Such assertion raised a question of fact
which had not been put in issue in the trial court and cannot, therefore, be raised for the
first time on appeal much less after the rendition of the decision of the appellate court.
3. ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF COURT OF APPEALS, CONCLUSIVE. — The
determination of whether or not P. Burgos Avenue is under the control or supervision of
the City of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence in connection with the
maintenance of said road is a question of fact — a question already decided by the
Court of Appeals and the factual ndings of said Court are not subject to a review by
the Supreme Court.

DECISION

CONCEPCION , C.J : p

Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico was at the corner of
the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone,
waiting for a jeepney to take him down town. After waiting for about ve minutes, he
managed to hail a jeepney that came along to a stop. As he stepped down from the
curb to board the jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and
unlighted catchbasin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, his head hit the
rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to
pierce his left eyelid. As blood owed therefrom, impairing his vision, several persons
came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them brought
Teotico to the Philippine General Hospital, where his injuries were treated, after which
he was taken home. In addition to the lacerated wound in his left upper eyelid, Teotico
suffered contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip,
apart from an abrasion on the right infra-patella region. These injuries and the allergic
eruptions caused by anti-tetanus injections administered to him in the hospital, required
further medical treatment by a private practitioner who charged therefor P1,400.00.
As a consequence of the foregoing occurrence, Teotico led, with the Court of
First Instance of Manila, a complaint — which was, subsequently, amended — for
damages against the City of Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health o cer, city
treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and quoted with
approval by the Court of Appeals,
"At the time of the incident, plaintiff was a practicing public accountant, a
businessman and a professor at the University of the East. He held responsible
positions in various business rms like the Philippine Merchandising Co., the A. U.
Valencia and Co., the Silver Swan Manufacturing Company and the Sincere
Packing Corporation. He was also associated with several civic organizations
such as the Wack Wack Golf Club, the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines,
Y's Men Club of Manila and the Knight's of Rizal. As a result of the incident,
plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his customary occupation for twenty
days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of about P50.00 during his incapacity to
work. Because of the incident, he was subjected to humiliation and ridicule by his
business associates and friends. During the period of his treatment, plaintiff was
under constant fear and anxiety for the welfare of his minor children since he was
their only support. Due to the ling of this case, plaintiff has obligated himself to
pay his counsel the sum of P2,000.00.

"On the other hand, the defense presented evidence, oral and documentary,
to prove that the Storm Drain Section, O ce of the City Engineer of Manila,
received a report of the uncovered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of P.
Burgos and Old Luneta Streets, Manila, on January 24, 1958, but the same was
covered on the same day (Exhibit 4); that again the iron cover of the same
catchbasin was reported missing on January 30, 1958, but the said cover was
replaced the next day (Exhibit 5); that the O ce of the City Engineer never
received any report to the effect that the catchbasin in question was not covered
between January 25 and 29, 1958; that it has always been a policy of the said
o ce, which is charged with the duty of installation, repair and care of storm
drains in the City of Manila, that whenever a report is received from whatever
source of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is immediately attended to,
either by immediately replacing the missing cover or covering the catchbasin with
steel matting; that because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailing,
stealing of iron catchbasin covers was rampant; that the O ce of the City
Engineer has led complaints in court resulting from theft of said iron covers; that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 in order to prevent such thefts, the city government has changed the position and
layout of catch basins in the City by constructing them under the sidewalk with
concrete cement covers and openings on the sides of the gutter; and that these
changes had been undertaken by the city from time to time whenever funds were
available."

After appropriate proceedings the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered the
aforementioned decision sustaining the theory of the defendants and dismissing the
amended complaint, without costs.
On appeal taken by plaintiff, this decision was a rmed by the Court of Appeals,
except insofar as the City of Manila is concerned, which was sentenced to pay
damages in the aggregate sum of P6,750.00. 1 Hence, this appeal by the City of Manila.
The rst issue raised by the latter is whether the present case is governed by
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) reading:
"The city shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to persons or
property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other
city o cer, to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or
ordinance, or from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other o cers
while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."

or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:

"Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition
of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision."

Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because
Republic Act 409 is a special law, intended exclusively for the City of Manila, whereas
the Civil Code is a general law, applicable to the entire Philippines.
The Court of Appeals, however, applied the Civil Code, and, we think, correctly. It
is true that, insofar as its territorial application is concerned, Republic Act No. 409 is a
special law and the Civil Code a general legislation; but, as regards the subject- matter
of the provisions above quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a general
rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages or injury to persons or
property arising from the failure of" city o cers "to enforce the provisions of" said Act
"or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence" of the city "Mayor, Municipal Board,
or other o cers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions." Upon the
other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making
"provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for damages for the death of, or injury
suffered by, any person by reason" — speci cally — "of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision." In other words, said section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in
general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability due to
"defective streets, "in particular. Since the present action is based upon the alleged
defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon.
It is urged that the City of Manila cannot be held liable to Teotico for damages: 1)
because the accident involving him took place in a national highway; and 2) because the
City of Manila has not been negligent in connection therewith.
As regards the rst issue, we note that it is based upon an allegation of fact not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 made in the answer of the City. Moreover, Teotico alleged in his complaint, as well as in
his amended complaint, that his injuries were due to the defective condition of a street
which is "under the supervision and control" of the City. In its answer to the amended
complaint, the City, in turn, alleged that "the streets aforementioned were and have been
constantly kept in good condition and regularly inspected and the storm drains and
manholes thereof covered, by the defendant City and its o cers concerned" who "have
been ever vigilant and zealous in the performance of their respective functions and
duties as imposed upon them by law." Thus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P.
Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and supervision.
Moreover, the assertion to the effect that said avenue is a national highway was
made, for the first time, in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of
Appeals. Such assertion raised, therefore, a question of fact, which had not been put in
issue in the trial court, and can not be set up, for the rst time, on appeal, much less
after the rendition of the decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the
reconsideration thereof.
At any rate, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability
therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province,
city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is
that the province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said
street or road. Even if P. Burgos avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this
circumstance would not necessarily detract from its "control or supervision" by the City
of Manila, under Republic Act 409. In fact Section 18(x) thereof provides:
"SEC. 18. Legislative powers. — The Municipal Board shall have the
following legislative powers:
xxx xxx xxx

"(x) Subject to the provisions of existing law to provide for the laying
out, construction and improvement, and to regulate the use of streets, avenues,
alleys, sidewalks, wharves, piers, parks, cemeteries, and other public places; to
provide for lighting, cleaning, and sprinkling of streets and public places; . . . to
provide for the inspection of, x the license fees for and regulate the openings in
the same for the laying of gas, water, sewer and other pipes, the building and
repair of tunnels, sewers, and drains, and all structures in and under the same and
the erecting of poles and the stringing of wires therein; to provide for and regulate
cross-walks, curbs, and gutters therein; . . . to regulate tra c and sales upon the
streets and other public places; to provide for the abatement of nuisances in the
same and punish the authors or owners thereof; to provide for the construction
and maintenance, and regulate the use, of bridges, viaducts, and culverts; to
prohibit and regulate ball playing, kite ying, hoop rolling, and other amusements
which may annoy persons using the streets and public places, or frighten horses
or other animals; to regulate the speed of horses and other animals, motor and
other vehicles, cars, and locomotives within the limits of the city; to regulate the
lights used on all such vehicles, cars, and locomotives; . . . to provide for and
change the location, grade, and crossing of railroads, and compel any such
railroad to raise or lower its tracks to conform to such provisions or changes; and
to require railroad companies to fence their property, or any part thereof, to
provide suitable protection against injury to persons or property, and to construct
and repair ditches, drains, sewers, and culverts along and under their tracts, so
that the natural drainage of the streets and adjacent property shall not be
obstructed."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 This authority has been neither withdrawn nor restricted by Republic Act No. 917
and Executive Order No. 113, dated May 2, 1955, upon which the City relies. Said Act
governs the disposition or appropriation of the highway funds and the giving of aid to
provinces, chartered cities and municipalities in the construction of roads and streets
within their respective boundaries, and Executive Order No. 113 merely implements the
provisions of said Republic Act No. 917, concerning the disposition and appropriation
of the highway funds. Moreover, it provides that "the construction, maintenance and
improvement of national primary, national secondary and national aid provincial and city
roads shall be accomplished by the Highway District Engineers and Highway City
Engineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of Public Highways and shall be
nanced from such appropriations as may be authorized by the Republic of the
Philippines in annual or special appropriation Acts."
Then, again, the determination of whether or not P. Burgos Avenue is under the
control or supervision of the City of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence,
in connection with the maintenance of said road, which were decided by the Court of
Appeals in the a rmative, is one of fact, and the ndings of said Court, thereon are not
subject to our review.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby a rmed, with
costs against the City of Manila. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Medical fees-P1,400.00; Lost income-P350.00; Moral damages-P3,000.000; and Attorney

fees-P2,000.00.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com