Fernando v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 22, 1975, five individuals, including Aurelio Bertulano, Joselito Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando, and Jose Fajardo, Jr., were found deceased inside a septic tank at the Agdao Public Market. Autopsies revealed the cause of death for all victims was asphyxia due to toxic hydrogen sulfide gas, a byproduct of decomposing waste within the tank. Investigations indicated that the victims entered the septic tank without authorization or clearance from city officials, and it is presumed they were attempting to empty it themselves. Procedural History: The families of the deceased victims filed a lawsuit against the City of Davao, alleging negligence. The trial court dismissed the case. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals). On January 3, 1986, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, awarding compensatory and moral damages to the plaintiffs. However, both parties filed motions for reconsideration. On January 11, 1990, the Court of Appeals issued an amended decision, reversing its original ruling and dismissing the case, prompting the current petition. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the amended decision of the Court of Appeals, arguing that the City of Davao was negligent in failing to maintain the septic tank and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the victims' deaths. They contend that the city's failure to empty the tank for 19 years, coupled with the lack of warning signs, constituted gross negligence. The petition raises two main issues: whether the respondent city was guilty of negligence, and if so, whether such negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the deaths. The petitioners are asking this Court to reinstate the original decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 1986, with modifications.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Davao City was guilty of negligence. Whether such negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the deaths of the victims.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the case. The Court held that the proximate and immediate cause of the victims' deaths was their own negligence in entering the septic tank without authority and proper precautions, and not any negligence on the part of the City of Davao.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Davao City was guilty of negligence: The Court found that while the City of Davao may have been remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank annually, this negligence was not the proximate cause of the deaths. The City had responded to the need by issuing invitations to bid and awarding the contract. Furthermore, the septic tank had been in use by the public for years without incident, and its construction complied with sanitary and plumbing specifications, with the tank being air-tight. The absence of accidents prior to the incident indicated that the toxic gas did not leak out under normal circumstances. The Court also noted that the victims entered the septic tank without authority, and their actions were surreptitious, even from their families. The testimony of the City Engineer's office indicated that ventilation pipes could be embodied within hollow blocks and did not necessarily need to be outside the building, rebutting claims of faulty construction. The Court also clarified that septic tanks are not per se nuisances requiring warning signs, and such signs are not a requirement under the National Building Code for their construction. On the issue of whether such negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the deaths of the victims: The Court held that the victims' own negligence was the proximate cause of their deaths. The Court applied the principle that conduct is negligent when a prudent person would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences. The victims, by entering the septic tank without authority and without taking necessary precautions, failed to exercise the care expected of an ordinarily prudent person, especially considering the known hazards of such a task. Mr. Bertulano, being experienced in such work, was presumed to know the risks. The Court distinguished between the accident and the injury, stating that the victims' act of opening the septic tank, which they were not authorized to do, was the principal occurrence that led to their deaths. The Court cited Culion Ice, Fish and Elect. Co., v. Phil. Motors Corporation to emphasize that one holding himself out as competent to do skilled work is liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in that work. The Court concluded that the fatal accident would not have happened but for the victims' own negligence in opening the septic tank, thus absolving the City of Davao from liability.
Main Doctrine
The proximate and immediate cause of the death of the victims was their own negligence in entering the septic tank without authority and proper precautions, not the alleged negligence of the City of Davao in failing to empty it annually. The city took remedial measures upon learning of the need and the septic tank was constructed with safety and sanitary specifications, remaining safe for use by the public for years.