Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto.
Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto.
Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
DAVIDE, JR. , J : p
Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are both the
Decision 1 promulgated on 27 July 1988 and the Resolution dated 14 March 1989 2 of the
respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 09699 which, respectively affirmed in toto
the decision of Branch XXI of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu in Civil Case No. R-22567
entitled "Gloria Chatto, et al. versus Gotesco Investment Corporation", and denied
petitioner's motion to reconsider the same.
The trial court ordered the defendant, herein petitioner, to pay the plaintiff Lina Delza E.
Chatto the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages and the plaintiff Gloria E. Chatto the sum
of P49,050.00 as actual and consequential damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages and
P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus the cost of the suit. These awards, except for the
attorney's fees, were to earn interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum
beginning from the date the complaint was filed, 16 November 1982, until the amounts
were fully paid.
The antecedent facts, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the respondent Court, are
summarized by the latter in the challenged decision as follows:
"The evidence shows that in the afternoon of June 4, 1982 plaintiff Gloria E.
Chatto, and her 15-year old daughter, plaintiff Lina Delza E. Chatto went to see the
movie 'Mother Dear' at Superama I theater, owned by defendant Gotesco
Investment Corporation. They bought balcony tickets but even then were unable
to find seats considering the number of people patronizing the movie. Hardly ten
(10) minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. The
theater was plunged into darkness and pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt,
plaintiffs managed to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to
get out to the street they walked to the nearby FEU Hospital where they were
confined and treated for one (1) day.
The next day, they transferred to the UST hospital. Plaintiff Gloria Chatto was
treated in said hospital from June 5 to June 19 and plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto
from June 5 to 11. Per Medico Legal Certificate (Exh. "C") issued by Dr. Ernesto G.
Brion, plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto suffered the following injuries:
Physical injuries:
Contusions:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
forehead and drental region, scalp left with hematoma; chest anterior
upper bilateral; back right, scapular region; back, mid-portion,
thoracolumbar regions, bilateral.
Abrasions:
back lumbar region, horizontal, across midline, from left to right; hand right,
palm, near wrist; hand left, index finger, dorsum, proximal phalanx.
Conclusion, cerebral.
X-Ray — Skull; Thoraco-lumbar
region — All negative.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Physical injuries noted on the subject.
2. That under normal condition in the absence of complication, said
physical injuries will require medical attendance and/or incapacitate the
subject for a period of from two to four weeks.
On the other hand, the ndings on plaintiff Gloria Chatto per Medico Legal Certi cate
(Exh. "D") of Dr. Brion are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
Physical injuries:
Lacerated wounds:
scalp vertex, running across suggittal line, from left to right, 3.0 cm
sutured;
Contusion, forearm right, anterior aspect, upper third,
Abrasions:
Shoulder and upper third, arm right, posterior aspect, linear;
backright, scapular region, two in number, linear; elbow right,
posterior aspect; forearm right, anterior aspect, middle third.
Concusion (sic) cerebral.
X-Ray — Skull — Negative.
Cervical spines — Straightening of cervical spine, probably due to
muscular spasm.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Physical injuries noted on subject.
2. That under normal condition, in the absence of complication,
said physical injuries will require medical attendance and/or incapacitate
the subject for a period of from two to four weeks.
Due to continuing pain in the neck, headache and dizziness, plaintiff went to
Illinois, USA in July 1982 for further treatment (Exh. "E") She was treated at the
Cook County Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. She stayed in the U.S. for about three
(3) months during which time she had to return to the Cook County Hospital five
(5) or six (6) times.
Defendant tried to avoid liability by alleging that the collapse of the ceiling of its
theater was done due to force majeure. It maintained that its theater did not suffer
from any structural or construction defect. (Exh. 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5)" 3
In justifying its award of actual or compensatory and moral damages and attorney's fees,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
the trial court said:
"It has been established thru the uncontradicted testimony of Mrs. Chatto that
during the chaos and confusion at the theater she lost a pair of earrings worth
P2,500 and the sum of P1,000.00 in cash contained in her wallet which was lost,
and that she incurred the following expenses P500.00 as transportation fare from
Cebu City to Manila on the first leg of her trip to the United States, P350.00 for her
passport, and P46,978.00 for her expense relative to her treatment in the United
States, including the cost of a round-trip ticket (P11,798.00) hospital and medical
bills and other attendant expenses. The total is P51,328.00, which is more than
the sum of P49,050.00 claimed in the complaint, hence should be reduced
accordingly.
The same testimony has also established that Mrs. Chatto contracted to pay her
counsel the sum of P20,000.00 which this court considers reasonable
considering, among other things, the professional standing of work (sic) involved
in the prosecution of this case. Such award of attorney's fees is proper because
the defendant's omission to provide the plaintiffs proper and adequate safeguard
to life and limb which they deserved as patrons to (sic) its theater had compelled
the plaintiffs to hire the services of a counsel, file this case and prosecute it, thus
incurring expenses to protect their interest.
The plaintiffs are entitled to moral damages, which are the direct and proximate
result of the defendant's gross negligence and omission. Such moral damages
include the plaintiffs' physical suffering, mental anguish, fright and serious
anxiety. On the part of Mrs. Chatto, who obviously suffered much more pain,
anguish, fright and anxiety than her daughter Lina Delza, such damages are
compounded by the presence of permanent deformities on her body consisting of
a 6-inch scar on the head and a 2-inch scar on one arm. The court believes that
the sum of P75,000.00 for plaintiff Gloria E. Chatto and the sum of P10,000.00
for plaintiff Lina Delza E. Chatto would be reasonable." 4
Petitioner submitted before the respondent Court the following assignment of errors: LLjur
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT 'THE CEILING OF THE
BALCONY COLLAPSED DUE TO SOME STRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION OR
ARCHITECTURAL DEFECT,' AND NOT DUE TO AN ACT OF GOD OR FORCE
MAJEURE.
III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS
GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING 'TO CAUSE PROPER AND ADEQUATE
INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THE BUILDING.' " 5
In its decision, respondent Court found the appeal to be without merit. As to the first
assigned error, it ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the exhibits in question in
the light of the ruling in Abrenica vs. Gonda 6 on waiver of objections arising out of failure
to object at the proper time Thus:
"Exh "A", the letter dated June 9, 1982 of Tina Mojica of defendant-appellant to
the Administrator of UST Hospital expressing their willingness to guaranty the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
payment of the hospital bills of the plaintiffs-appellees was not objected to in trial
court for lack of authentication. It is too late to raise that objection on appeal.
Exhibits "B", "C", "D", "F" to "F-13" are the hospital records at FEU, UST and Cook
County Hospital. It may be true that the doctors who prepared them were not
presented as witnesses. Nonetheless, the records will show that counsel for
defendant-appellant cross examined plaintiff-appellee Gloria Chatto on the matter
especially the content of Exhibits "F" to "F-13". Consequently, defendant-appellant
is estopped from claiming lack of opportunity to verify their textual truth.
Moreover, the record is full of the testimony of plaintiffs-appellees on the injuries
they sustained from the collapse of the ceiling of defendant-appellant's theater.
Their existence is crystal clear.
Exh. "E" is the flight coupon and passenger ticket (Northwest Orient) of plaintiff-
appellee Gloria Chatto from the Philippines to the U.S. (Manila-Chicago-Manila).
Certainly" this is relevant evidence on whether or not she actually travelled (sic) to
the U.S. for further medical treatment. Defendant-appellant's contention that the
best evidence on the issue is her passport is off the mark. The best evidence rule
applies only if the contents of the writing are directly in issue. In any event, her
passport is not the only evidence on the matter.
Exh. "G" is the summary of plaintiff-appellee Gloria Chatoo's (sic) expenses in the
U.S. in her own handwriting. Defendant-appellant's objection that it is self serving
goes to the weight of the evidence. The truth of Exh. "G" could be and should have
been tested by cross examination. It cannot be denied however that such
expenses are within the personal knowledge of the witness.
Exh. "H" is the surgical neckwear worn by the plaintiff-appellee Gloria Chatto as
part of her treatment in the U.S. Defendant-appellant objects to its admission
because it is self-serving. The objection is without merit in view of the evidence on
record that plaintiff-appellee Gloria Chatto sustained head injuries from the
collapse of the ceiling of defendant-appellant's theater. In fact, counsel for
defendant-appellant cross examined the said witness on the medical finding of
Cook County Hospital that she was suffering from neck muscle spasm. (TSN,
April 17, 1984, p. 11) The wearing of a surgical neckwear has proper basis. LLjur
Exh. "I" is the photograph of plaintiff-appellee Gloria Chatto in the U.S. showing
the use of her surgical neckwear. Defendant-appellant objects to this exhibit as
hearsay because the photographer was not presented as a witness. The objection
is incorrect. In order that photographs or pictures may be given in evidence, they
must be shown to be a true and faithful representation of the place or objects to
which they refer. The photographs may be verified either by the photographer who
took it or by any person who is acquainted with the object represented and testify
(sic) that the photograph faithfully represents the object. (Moran, Comments in
the Rules of Court, Vol. V, 1980 ed., p. 80 citing New York Co. vs. Moore, 105 Fed.
725) In the case at bar, Exh. "I" was identified by plaintiff appellee Gloria Chatto."
7
A Yes, sir.
Q And do you personally inspect these buildings under your
construction?
A Yes, whenever I can.
A Yes, sir.
Q Particularly in the months of May and June of 1982?
A Yes, in that (sic) months.
Q Now, you said also that sometime in June 1982 you remember that
one of these theaters.
Atty. Barcelona:
continuing particularly Superama 1, the ceiling had collapsed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you conduct an investigation?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your finding?
A There was really nothing, I cannot explain. I could not give any
reason why the ceiling collapsed.
Q Could it not be due to any defect of the plan?
Atty. Florido:
Already answered, Your Honor, he could not give any reason.
COURT:
Objection sustained.
Atty. Barcelona:
Sustained.
Atty. Barcelona:
Q What did the owner of Gotesco do when the ceiling collapsed, upon
knowing that one of the cinemas you maintained collapsed?
A He asked for a thorough investigation.
Q And as a matter of fact he asked you to investigate?
A Yes, Sir.
Its motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied by the respondent Court,
petitioner filed this petition assailing therein the challenged decision on the following
grounds:
"1. The basis of the award for damages stems from medical reports issued
by private physicians of local hospitals without benefit of cross-examination and
more seriously, xerox copies of medical findings issued by American doctors in
the United States without the production of originals, without the required
consular authentication for foreign documents, and without the opportunity for
cross-examination.
2. The damage award in favor of respondents is principally made to depend
on such unreliable, hearsay and incompetent evidence for which an award of
more then P150.000.00 in alleged actual, moral and 'consequential' damages are
awarded to the prejudice of the right of petitioner to due process . . .
3. Unfortunately, petitioner's evidence of due diligence in the care and
maintenance of the building was not seriously considered by the Court of
Appeals, considering that frequent inspections and maintenance precautions had
to be observed by hired engineers of petitioner, which enjoys an unsullied
reputation in the business of exhibiting movies in a chain of movie-houses in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Metro Manila." 9
After the private respondents filed their Comment as required in the Resolution of 17 May
1989, this Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file
their respective memoranda. Subsequently, private respondents, in a motion, prayed for
leave to adopt their Comment as their Memorandum, which this Court granted on 6
December 1989. Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 10 January 1990. cdphil
The petition presents both factual and legal issues. The first relates to the cause of the
collapse of the ceiling while the latter involves the correctness of the admission of the
exhibits in question.
We find no merit in the petition.
The rule is well-settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from this
Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its
findings of fact being conclusive, 1 0 except only where a case is shown as coming under
the accepted exceptions. 1 1 None of the exceptions which this Court has painstakingly
summarized in several cases 1 2 has been shown to exist in this petition. Petitioner's claim
that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not
even founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted that "he
could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed." Having interposed it as a defense, it
had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. It could not
have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation does not
imply force majeure. As early as eighty-five (85) years ago, this Court had the occasion to
define force majeure. In Pons y Compañia vs. La Compañia Maritima, 1 3 this Court held:
"An examination of the Spanish and American authorities concerning the
meaning of force majeure shows that the jurisprudence of these two countries
practically agree upon the meaning of this phrase.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on English Law, defines it as —
'Inevitable accident or casualty; an accident produced by any
physical cause which is irresistible; such as lightning, tempest, perils of the
sea, inundation, or earthquake; the sudden illness or death of a person.' (2
Blackstone's Commentaries, 122; Story on Bailments, sec. 25.)
Escriche, in his Diccionario de Legislacion y Jurisprudence, defines fuerza mayor
as follows:
'The event which we could neither foresee nor resist; as, for example,
the lightning stroke, hail, inundation, hurricane, public enemy, attack by
robbers; Vis major est, says Cayo, ea quae consilio humano neque
provideri neque vitari potest. Accident and mitigating circumstances.'
Bouvier defines the same as —
'Any accident due to natural causes, directly, exclusively without
human intervention, such as could not have been prevented by any kind of
oversight, pains, and care reasonably to have been expected.' (Law
Reports, 1 Common Pleas Division, 423; Law Reports, 10 Exchequer, 255.)
Cockburn, chief justice, in a well-considered English case (1 Common Pleas
Division, 34, 432), said that where a captain —
Petitioner could have easily discovered the cause of the collapse if indeed it were due to
force majeure. To Our mind, the real reason why Mr. Ong could not explain the cause or
reason is that either he did not actually conduct the investigation or that he is, as the
respondent Court impliedly held, incompetent. He is not an engineer, but an architect who
had not even passed the government's examination. Verily, the post-incident investigation
cannot be considered as material to the present proceedings. What is significant is the
finding of the trial court, affirmed by the respondent Court, that the collapse was due to
construction defects. There was no evidence offered to overturn this finding. The building
was constructed barely four (4) years prior to the accident in question. It was no shown
that any of the causes denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at
the time of the collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could have been easily discovered if
only petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises.
But as disclosed by the testimony of Mr. Ong, there was no adequate inspection of the
premises before the date of the accident. His answers to the leading questions on
inspection disclosed neither the exact dates of said inspection nor the nature and extent of
the same. That the structural designs and plans of the building were duly approved by the
City Engineer and the building permits and certificate of occupancy were issued do not at
all prove that there were no defects in the construction, especially as regards the ceiling,
considering that no testimony was offered to prove that it was ever inspected at all.
It is settled that:
"The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that
the premises, appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for
which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or
qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not
discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means." 1 4
"Where, regardless of the truth or the falsity of a statement, the fact that it has
been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply, but the statement may be
shown. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue, or be
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact." 1 6
Furthermore, and with particular reference to the documents issued in the United States of
America (Exhibits "F", "F-1" to "F-13", inclusive), the main objection thereto was not that they
are hearsay. In its written comment and/or opposition to documentary exhibits, petitioner
objected to their admission on the following grounds only:
". . . for being incompetent evidence considering that the game were not duly
authenticated by the responsible consular and/or embassy officials authorized to
authenticate the said documents." 1 7
2. Id., 36-37.
3. Rollo, 24-26.
4. Rollo, 26-27.
5. Rollo, 27-28.
6. 34 Phil. 739 [1916].
7. Rollo, 29-30.
8. Rollo, 30-32.
10. Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 737 [1970], citing a host of cases.
11. FNCB Finance vs. Estavillo, 192 SCRA 514 [1990].
12. See Remalante vs. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138 [1988].