Batal v. San Pedro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Luz and Kenichiro San Pedro (respondents) contracted the services of Frank Batal (petitioner), who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their lot (Lot 1509-C-3) for P6,500.00. They again hired him for P1,500.00 to determine the exact boundaries for the construction of a perimeter fence. Frank placed concrete monuments (P.S.) on the corners, which respondents used to build an eight-foot high concrete fence costing P250,000.00. It was later discovered that Erlinda Batal, Frank's wife and a licensed geodetic engineer, was the one who supervised his work. In 1996, a complaint was filed alleging that the northern portion of the fence encroached on a right-of-way (Lot 1509-D). A verification survey confirmed the encroachment. During barangay confrontations, Frank admitted fault and promised to share demolition and reconstruction costs but failed to do so, leading respondents to file a suit for damages. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan, ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioners to pay P6,500.00 as refund for professional fees, P300,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs. The RTC found that respondents built the fence based on Frank's markers and assurances, and the negligence stemmed from Erlinda's lack of supervision. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners questioned the CA's ruling, arguing that the CA erred in basing its decision on cited jurisprudence and that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a misapprehension of facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners failed to exercise due care and diligence in the conduct of the resurvey, causing damage to the respondents; and whether they are liable for damages due to culpa contractual. Whether the CA erred in ruling for the respondents based on cited jurisprudence and a misapprehension of facts; and whether the award of moral and exemplary damages was proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Petitioners are ordered to pay respondents damages as determined by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence, failure to exercise due diligence, liability for damages, and the nature of negligence: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA that the petitioners failed to exercise due care and diligence in the performance of their contractual obligation, leading to damages. The respondents relied on the concrete monuments placed by petitioner Frank Batal and his assurances. The negligence was attributed to the lack of adequate supervision by petitioner Erlinda Batal. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight. The Court found the petitioners liable for damages based on culpa contractual under Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code. They breached their contract by failing to exercise the diligence required. The Court distinguished between culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual, finding this case to fall under culpa contractual. The Court affirmed the RTC's award of P300,000.00 in actual damages and attorney's fees. On the alleged misapprehension of facts, erroneous application of jurisprudence, and the award of moral and exemplary damages: The Court found no misapprehension of facts by the CA. The petitioners' insistence that the error was respondents' own negligence was contradicted by the evidence. The Court applied the principle that a party who performs affirmative acts upon which another bases subsequent actions cannot later refute those acts. The Court also upheld the trial court's findings of fact. The Court denied the claims for moral and exemplary damages, finding no legal or factual basis, and reiterating that moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or fraud or bad faith.
Main Doctrine
Surveyors who fail to exercise the diligence required by the nature of their obligation and the circumstances of the case, particularly in the placement of boundary markers, are liable for damages arising from the breach of their contract, even if the actual construction is done by the client based on the erroneous markers.