TITLE: Fernando vs. Court of Appeals CITATION: 208 SCRA 714 (1992) TOPIC: Negligence As Proximate Cause Facts

TITLE: Fernando vs.
Court of Appeals
CITATION: 208 SCRA 714 (1992)
TOPIC: Negligence as Proximate Cause
FACTS:
On November 7, 1975, Bibiano Morta, market master of the Agdao Public Market filed a requisition
request with the Chief of Property of the City Treasurer's Office for the re-emptying of the septic tank in
Agdao. An invitation to bid was issued to Aurelio Bertulano, Lito Catarsa, Feliciano Bascon, Federico Bolo
and Antonio Suñer, Jr. Bascon won the bid. On November 26, 1975 Bascon was notified and he signed
the purchase order. However, before such date, specifically on November 22, 1975, bidder Bertulano
with four other companions namely Joselito Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando and Jose Fajardo,
Jr. were found dead inside the septic tank. The bodies were removed by a fireman. One body, that of
Joselito Garcia, was taken out by his uncle, Danilo Garcia and taken to the Regional Hospital but he
expired there. The City Engineer's office investigated the case and learned that the five victims entered
the septic tank without clearance from it nor with the knowledge and consent of the market master. In
fact, the septic tank was found to be almost empty and the victims were presumed to be the ones who
did the re-emptying. Dr. Juan Abear of the City Health Office autopsied the bodies and in his reports, put
the cause of death of all five victims as "asphyxia" caused by the diminution of oxygen supply in the
body working below normal conditions. The lungs of the five victims burst, swelled in hemmorrhagic
areas and this was due to their intake of toxic gas, which, in this case, was sulfide gas produced from the
waste matter inside the septic tank.
A case against The City of Davao was filed but was dismissed by the trial court and the CA. Petitioners
fault the city government of Davao for failing to clean a septic tank for the period of 19 years resulting in
an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas which killed the laborers. They contend that such failure was
compounded by the fact that there was no warning sign of the existing danger and no efforts exerted by
the public respondent to neutralize or render harmless the effects of the toxic gas. They submit that the
public respondent's gross negligence was the proximate cause of the fatal incident.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Davao City is negligent and its negligence is the proximate cause therefore can be liable
for damages.
RULING:
No.
To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must
establish the relation between the omission and the damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of the
New Civil Code that the defendant's negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury.
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. Proof of such relation of cause and effect is not an arduous one if the claimant did not in any
way contribute to the negligence of the defendant. However, where the resulting injury was the product
of the negligence of both parties, there exists a difficulty to discern which acts shall be considered the
proximate cause of the accident. In Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., this Court set a
guideline for a judicious assessment of the situation:
Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which
there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it,
but contributing to his own proper hurt. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only
to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay
for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
While it may be true that the public respondent has been remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank
annually, such negligence was not a continuing one. Upon learning from the report of the market master
about the need to clean the septic tank of the public toilet in Agdao Public Market, the public
respondent immediately responded by issuing invitations to bid for such service. Thereafter, it awarded
the bid to the lowest bidder, Mr. Feliciano Bascon. The public respondent, therefore, lost no time in
taking up remedial measures to meet the situation. It is likewise an undisputed fact that despite the
public respondent's failure to re-empty the septic tank since 1956, people in the market have been using
the public toilet for their personal necessities but have remained unscathed.
Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se as defined in Article 694 of the New Civil Code which
would necessitate warning signs for the protection of the public. While the construction of these public
facilities demands utmost compliance with safety and sanitary requirements, the putting up of warning
signs is not one of those requirements. Accident such as toxic gas leakage from the septic tank is unlikely
to happen unless one removes its covers. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank
especially one which has not been cleaned for years, an ordinarily prudent person should undoubtedly
be aware of the attendant risks. The victims are no exception; more so with Mr. Bertulano, an old hand
in this kind of service, who is presumed to know the hazards of the job. His failure, therefore, and that of
his men to take precautionary measures for their safety was the proximate cause of the accident.
Proximate and immediate cause of the death of the victims was due to their own negligence.
Consequently, the petitioners cannot demand damages from the public respondent.

TITLE: Fernando vs. Court of Appeals CITATION: 208 SCRA 714 (1992) TOPIC: Negligence As Proximate Cause Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE: Fernando vs. Court of Appeals CITATION: 208 SCRA 714 (1992) TOPIC: Negligence As Proximate Cause Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE: Fernando vs. Court of Appeals CITATION: 208 SCRA 714 (1992) TOPIC: Negligence As Proximate Cause Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE: Fernando vs.

You might also like