CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. GENERO M. TEOTICO AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

City of Manila versus Teotico

The Case

This is an action for damages brought by Genero M. Teotico, a public accountant, businessman, and professor, against the City of Manila and several of its officials, arising from injuries he suffered when he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catchbasin on P. Burgos Avenue. The case matters because it settles a classic conflict of laws question: which governs when a city is sued for a defective street, the general negligence provision of the Manila Charter or the specific provision of the Civil Code on defective public works. It also teaches that ownership of the road is not the test of liability; control or supervision is.

Procedural History

Teotico filed a complaint, later amended, for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila against the City of Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer, and chief of police. After appropriate proceedings, the trial court sustained the theory of the defendants and dismissed the amended complaint, without costs. Teotico appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal except as to the City of Manila, which it sentenced to pay damages in the aggregate sum of 6,750 pesos. The City of Manila then brought this appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the evening of January 27, 1958, at about eight o'clock, Teotico stood at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue in Manila, within a loading and unloading zone, waiting for a jeepney. After about five minutes he hailed one, and as he stepped down from the curb to board it, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted catchbasin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. His head struck the rim of the manhole, breaking his eyeglasses, and pieces of the glass pierced his left eyelid. Bystanders pulled him out and brought him to the Philippine General Hospital.

Beyond the lacerated wound on his left upper eyelid, Teotico suffered contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg, and the upper lip, and an abrasion on the right knee region. Anti-tetanus injections caused allergic eruptions, and further treatment by a private practitioner cost him 1,400 pesos. He was prevented from engaging in his customary occupation for twenty days and lost daily income of about 50 pesos. He was humiliated before business associates and friends, feared for his minor children whom he alone supported, and obligated himself to pay counsel 2,000 pesos.

The City, for its part, showed that its Storm Drain Section received a report of an uncovered catchbasin at that corner on January 24, 1958, and covered it the same day; that the iron cover was again reported missing on January 30, 1958, and replaced the next day; and that no report of an uncovered catchbasin was received between January 25 and 29, 1958. The City also showed that stealing of iron covers was rampant, that it filed complaints over such thefts, and that it had been relocating catchbasins under sidewalks with concrete covers as funds allowed.

Issues

• Whether or not the liability of the City of Manila is governed by Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the City may escape liability on the ground that the accident took place on a national highway.
• Whether or not the City may escape liability on the ground that it was not negligent in maintaining the road.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act Number 409, the Charter of the City of Manila, provides:

The city shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other city officer, to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.

The City invoked this provision as a special law that should prevail over the general Civil Code.

Article 2189 of the Civil Code provides:

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

This is the provision the Court held decisive, because the action rests on the defective condition of a road.

Section 18, paragraph x, of the Manila Charter, on the legislative powers of the Municipal Board, provides in part:

Subject to the provisions of existing law to provide for the laying out, construction and improvement, and to regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, wharves, piers, parks, cemeteries, and other public places; to provide for lighting, cleaning, and sprinkling of streets and public places; ... to provide for the inspection of, fix the license fees for and regulate the openings in the same for the laying of gas, water, sewer and other pipes, the building and repair of tunnels, sewers, and drains, and all structures in and under the same and the erecting of poles and the stringing of wires therein; to provide for and regulate cross-walks, curbs, and gutters therein; ... to regulate traffic and sales upon the streets and other public places; to provide for the abatement of nuisances in the same and punish the authors or owners thereof; to provide for the construction and maintenance, and regulate the use, of bridges, viaducts, and culverts; ...

This shows the City's own charter grants it authority over streets, drains, and structures in and under them, supporting its control or supervision over P. Burgos Avenue.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Article 2189 of the Civil Code governs. It conceded that, territorially, the Manila Charter is special and the Civil Code general, but as to subject matter the relationship is reversed. Section 4 of the Charter establishes a general rule on liability for negligence in general, regardless of the object, while Article 2189 is a particular prescription governing liability due specifically to defective streets. Since the action is based on the defective condition of a road, Article 2189 is decisive.

On the second issue, the Court held that the national highway defense fails. It was not pleaded in the answer; the City had in effect admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was under its control and supervision; and the assertion was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, presenting a question of fact that cannot be set up for the first time on appeal. At any rate, the Court ruled, Article 2189 does not require ownership, only control or supervision:

What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision" over said street or road.

On the third issue, the Court held that the findings of the Court of Appeals that the avenue was under the City's control or supervision and that the City was negligent in its maintenance are findings of fact, not subject to review.

Doctrine

First, between a general negligence provision in a city charter and the specific provision of Article 2189 of the Civil Code, the latter prevails as the particular prescription for defective roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works. Second, liability under Article 2189 does not depend on ownership of the defective road; it is enough that the province, city, or municipality has control or supervision over it. Third, defenses and factual assertions not raised in the answer or in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, much less in a motion for reconsideration. Fourth, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals on control, supervision, and negligence are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the City of Manila, so Teotico recovered damages in the aggregate sum of 6,750 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that Article 2189 requires only control or supervision, not ownership, of the defective road. Examiners use this case to test the special versus general law conflict and the rule that a city cannot hide behind the national character of a highway it supervises.