SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA. DE DIMAANO, EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, CONSOLACION DIMAANO AND MILAGROS DIMAANO, RESP…

Southeastern College versus Court of Appeals

The Case

Southeastern College, the owner of a four-storey school building along College Road in Pasay City, was sued for damages by the Dimaano family, the owners of a house on the same street, after the school's roof was ripped off by a powerful typhoon and fell on and destroyed portions of the Dimaano roofing. The action was one for damages based on culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict — negligence that causes damage to another absent any pre-existing contract. The case matters because it is the Court's clearest teaching on when an act of God, a fortuitous event, will excuse a defendant from liability, and on the burden of proving negligence and actual damages.

Procedural History

The Dimaanos filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117. The trial court found that the school building had a defective roofing structure and rendered judgment for the Dimaanos, ordering Southeastern College to pay actual damages, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs, while denying exemplary damages. Southeastern College appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's disposition but reduced the award of moral damages. Southeastern College moved for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals denied the motion. Southeastern College then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Private respondents owned a house at 326 College Road, Pasay City, while petitioner owned a four-storey school building along the same street. On October 11, 1989, at about 6:30 in the morning, a powerful typhoon named Saling hit Metro Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of the school building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of the Dimaano house.

After the typhoon, a team of engineers headed by the city building official, Engineer Jesus L. Reyna, conducted an ocular inspection. Their report stated that one factor in the calamity was the formation of the buildings and the general direction of the wind, and that another factor, perhaps the most likely reason for the dislodging of the roof trusses, was the improper anchorage of the trusses to the roof beams. The report recommended that the fourth floor of the school building be declared a structural hazard.

The Dimaanos alleged that the damage rendered their house uninhabitable, forcing them to stay temporarily in other houses, and sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees. Southeastern College answered that the building had withstood several devastating typhoons in the past, that it had not been remiss in maintaining the building, and that typhoon Saling was an act of God beyond human control. The trial court gave credence to the ocular inspection report and found the school building had a defective roofing structure, holding that the damage could have been avoided had the construction of the roof not been faulty.

Issues

• Whether or not the award of actual damages to the Dimaanos, based on speculation or conjecture without proof or receipts, is legally justified.
• Whether or not the award of moral damages to the Dimaanos, without their having suffered actual damage, has legal basis.
• Whether or not the Dimaanos, who were no longer owners of the property during the pendency of the case, may still pursue their complaint when the sale rendered the case moot and academic.
• Whether or not the award of attorney's fees, when the case was already moot and academic, is legally justified.
• Whether or not petitioner is liable for damage caused to others by typhoon Saling, being an act of God.
• Whether or not the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, ex parte or without hearing, has support in law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

Art 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

This provision is the pivot of the case: if the damage was due to a fortuitous event and the petitioner was free from negligence, the petitioner cannot be held liable.

Ruling

On the pivotal issue of whether the damage was due to a fortuitous event, the Court held that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence, or care. To be exempt from liability, however, the person seeking exoneration must not be guilty of negligence. The Court ruled that the Dimaanos, who claimed damages for negligence, bore the burden of proving fault or negligence causative of their loss, and that the facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact.

The Court found that the Dimaanos relied solely on the ocular inspection report. It reasoned that an ocular inspection is one by actual sight or viewing, and what is visual to the eye is not always reflective of the real cause. No investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the partial unroofing; the Dimaanos did not show that the plans, specifications, and design were deficient, nor prove any substantial deviation from approved plans, nor conclusively establish that the construction was basically flawed.

On the other hand, the petitioner elicited from Engineer Reyna that the original plans and design were approved prior to construction, and that both a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were obtained. The Court held that these are, at the very least, prima facie evidence of regular and proper construction. The city official also gave the go-signal for repairs without deviation from the original design and authorized the use of the entire fourth floor, proving the building suffered from no structural defect. Petitioner also showed regular annual maintenance inspection and repair, and the city building official admitted no complaint regarding any defect had ever been lodged before his office prior to the case. The Court thus held that petitioner was not shown negligent, and that typhoon Saling was the proximate cause of the damage.

Consequently, the claims for actual and moral damages and attorney's fees must fail. The Court held that private respondents failed to adduce adequate and competent proof of the pecuniary loss actually incurred, and that it is not enough that the damage be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. The Dimaanos merely submitted an estimated amount for repairs. The Court also nullified and set aside the writ of execution issued by the trial court, ordering private respondents to reimburse any amount or return any property received by virtue of its enforcement.

Doctrine

A fortuitous event, or caso fortuito, is an event which takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. A typhoon is a fortuitous event. To be exempt from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, the person seeking exoneration must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. When a person's negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage, that person is not exempt from liability. The burden of proving negligence and actual damages rests on the plaintiff, who must establish fault by competent evidence, not by presumption or conjecture. A building permit and a certificate of occupancy are prima facie evidence of regular and proper construction.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the challenged Decision was reversed, the complaint of private respondents was dismissed, and the writ of execution was set aside, with private respondents ordered to return to petitioner any amount or property received by virtue of the writ, with costs against them.

Remember This

An act of God excuses liability only when the defendant is free from negligence; if human negligence concurs with the fortuitous event, the whole occurrence is humanized and the defendant remains liable. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of fortuitous event under Article 1174, the burden of proving negligence and actual damages, and the probative value of a building permit and certificate of occupancy.