Fernando v. CA

Fernando v. CA| G.R No. 92087 | May 8, 1992 | madialdea, J.
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA.

Plaintiffs/Appellants: Sofia Fernando (in her behalf and as legal guardian of her minor children, Alberto and
Roberto); Anita Garcia; Nicolas Liagoso; Rosalia Bertulano (in her behalf and as legal guardian of her
minor children, Eduardo, Rolando, Daniel, and Jocelyn); Primitiva Fajardo (in her behalf and as legal
guardian of her minor children. Gilbert, Glen, Jocelyn, and Joselito); and Emeteria Liagoso (in her
behalf and as guardian ad litem of her minor grandchildren, Noel, Genevieve, and Gerry)
Defendants/Appellee: Hon. Court of Appeals; and City of Davao
TOPIC Torts > Basic Elements > Causal Relationship Between Act/Omission and Injury > Plaintiff's Own Conduct
Caused the Harm
SUMMARY Public Respondent City of Davao put out a bid to re-empty the septic tank in Agdao. On Nov 1975, one of
the losing bidders, together with 4 others, were found dead inside the almost-empty tank. It was presumed that they
opened the tank and cleaned it, without knowledge or authority of the public respondent. The cause of death is
inhalation of toxic gas. The heirs of the victims, the petitioners in this case, sought to recover from the respondent,
alleging negligence on the latter’s part which they claim is the proximate death of the 5 victims. Court ruled in favor
of respondent, holding that the latter was compliant to the safety requirements for sanitation. Gas could not have
leaked from the tank because it was air-tight, unless somebody opens it. The act of the victims of opening the tank
and attempting to re-empty it is the proximate cause of their death.
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 that the defendant’s negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury. But, where the victim 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 less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
FACTS
 Market master Bibiano Morta filed a requisition request to re-empty the septic tank in Agdao. Because of
this, an invitation to bid was issued, which Feliciano Bascon won.
o On Nov 22, 1975, bidder Aurelio Bertulano was found dead inside the tank with 4 others (Joselito
Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando, and Jose Fajardo, Jr.).
o Cause of death: asphyxia caused by diminution of oxygen supply in the body. Their lungs burst due
to their intake of toxic gas produced from the waste matter inside the tank.
o Since the tank was found almost empty, it was presumed that the victims entered the tank to re-
empty it, without knowledge and consent of the market master.
 Petitioners (heirs of the 5 deceased) sued the Respondent (City of Davao) for the deaths, faulting the
government for failing to clean the tank for 19 years, resulting in an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas
which killed the 5 laborers. They also alleged that the fault is compounded by the absence of warning signs
indicating the existence of danger and because Respondent exerted no efforts to neutralize the harm.
o Petitioners aver that it was Respondent’s gross negligence which was the proximate cause of the
fatal incident that led to the deaths.
 RTC ruled in favor Respondents, dismissing the complaint. CA initially ruled in favor of Petitioners, ordering
Respondents to pay Petitioners. But on motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself and ruled in favor
of Respondents, holding them not liable to the Petitioners.
ISSUE: WON Respondent City of Davao is guilty of negligence, such that will make them liable to the Petitioners? –
NO
[Jump to issue #2 for the topical issue]
1) WON there was negligence? – NO

 Negligence: failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.
 Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
 What would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must always be determined in
the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case.
 If a prudent man can foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued, it is his duty to take
precautions to guard against that harm.
 Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the
conduct or guarding against its consequences.
2) WON the alleged acts/omissions of Respondents is the proximate cause of the deaths of the victims? – 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 that the defendant’s
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury.
 Proximate cause: 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.
 Test: Where the victim 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.
 Public respondent had been remiss in its duty to re-empty the tank annually, but such negligence is not a
continuing one. In fact, upon learning that the tank needs to be cleaned, they immediately took steps to
remedy it.
 It is an undisputed fact that people have been using the toilet but have remained unscathed. They pass
over it, but since it’s well-covered they are unharmed. The absence of any accident was u to the public
respondent’s compliance with the sanitary and plumbing specifications in constructing the toilet and
tank.
 The toxic gas from the waste matter could not have leaked out because the tank was air-tight.
The only indication that it was full was when water came out of it. Yet even when it was full
there was no report of any casualty of gas poisoning despite the people’s continued use of it.
 Engineer Demetrio Alindada of the city government testified as to the safety of the tank and the toilet.
An accident such as toxic gas leakage is unlikely to happen unless the cover is removed.
 The accident which caused the victims’ deaths happened because the victims, on their own and
without authority from the public respondent, opened the tank.
 Victim Bertulano is an old hand in the service and is presumed to know the hazards of the job (of
cleaning septic tanks). Their failure to take precautions is the proximate cause of the accident.
Other issues:
3) As to the lack of ventilation pipe in the toilet, which Petitioners allege emphasize the negligence of the public
respondent, the court held that theirs is not an expert witness. On the other hand, Engr Alindada testified that
the sanitary plan would not have been approved unless it is in conformance with sanitary requirements
(ventilation pipe need not be constructed separately/outside the building, but could also be embodied in the
hollow blocks).
4) As to the lack of warning signs, toilets and septic tanks are not nuisance per se which the Civil Code necessitates
warning signs for.
5) Court also held that there was no contractual relationship whatsoever between the victims and the public
respondent.
DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 1990 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.

Fernando v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fernando v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Fernando v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fernando v. CA| G.R No. 92087 | May 8, 1992 | madialdea, J.

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA.

1) WON there was negligence? – NO

You might also like