Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents-spouses Eliseo G. Baloyo and Soledad Ramos de Baloyo filed a suit for damages after their nine-year-old daughter, Edna Baloyo, died on March 21, 1964. The tragic incident occurred within the school grounds of A. Mabini Elementary School when a portion of the school's adobe stone fence collapsed. The collapse was attributed to the gross negligence of petitioners Benigno C. Gutierrez, the contractor, and Domingo N. Balisalisa, the project engineer, who were undertaking the construction of the N. Reyes-Severino Drainage Main nearby. Their workers, using a crane, piled excavated earth and mud against the school fence, causing it to give way and fall upon the child. Procedural History: The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to pay P50,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, P6,000.00 for actual expenses, and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, totaling P61,000.00. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, modifying the breakdown of damages to P12,000.00 for indemnity for death, P12,000.00 for mental anguish, P6,000.00 for the child's physical pain, and P10,000.00 each for exemplary damages, still aggregating P61,000.00. The appellate court also affirmed the awards for actual damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, primarily assigning as error the appellate court's rejection of their defense regarding the non-existence of an employer-employee relationship with the crane operators. They argued that this defense was not raised in the lower court and thus could not be considered on appeal. The Supreme Court found this contention to be without merit, upholding the appellate court's finding that the defense was indeed raised for the first time on appeal and that the evidence sufficiently established the employer-employee relationship. The petitioners also challenged the amount and character of the damages awarded, which the Supreme Court also found to be without merit, affirming the totality of the award granted by the appellate court.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of non-existence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the crane operators can be raised for the first time on appeal. Whether the petitioners are liable for damages due to the death of the child resulting from the collapse of the school fence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in toto, holding the petitioners jointly and severally liable for the total award of P61,000.00, and declared the decision immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of raising a defense for the first time on appeal: The Court held that the defense of non-existence of an employer-employee relationship was never raised in the lower court and thus could not be raised or entertained for the first time on appeal. The respondent appellate court correctly stressed this procedural bar. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the defense were considered, the evidence sufficiently established the employer-employee relationship, as the contract with the Bureau of Public Works stipulated that petitioner Gutierrez would furnish his own labor, and the crane operator was undeniably working for the defendants in connection with their construction job. The Court also found the petitioners' denial for want of sufficient knowledge or information regarding the employment of the crane operators to be evasive and ineffective, constituting a judicial admission of the averment of the relationship. On the issue of liability for damages: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the negligence of the petitioners was clearly established. Piling a large volume of excavated earth against a fragile adobe stone wall without reinforcements could reasonably be expected to cause its collapse. The danger to anyone on the other side of the wall, particularly in a school ground, could have been anticipated by the defendants. Their failure to take necessary precautions made them responsible for moral and exemplary damages. The Court found the award of P61,000.00, encompassing actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, to be justified under the undisputed facts and the need for imposing exemplary damages by way of example or correction for the public good.
Main Doctrine
A contractor and project engineer are liable for damages arising from the death of a child caused by the gross negligence of their workers, even if the employer-employee relationship with the crane operators is not explicitly raised as a defense in the lower court, as an evasive denial of such relationship is deemed an admission.