QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT AND ENGINEER RAMIR J. TIAMZON, PETITIONERS, VS. FULGENCIO DACARA, RESPONDENT.

Quezon City Government versus Dacara

The Case

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, brought by the Quezon City Government and Engineer Ramir J. Tiamzon against Fulgencio Dacara, the father of a minor driver whose car struck an unlit pile of earth left by a city road repair. The action below was one for damages arising from quasi-delict, and the case matters because it fixes three rules a reviewee must carry into the examination room: the liability of local governments under Article 2189 of the Civil Code extends to damage to property and not only to death or physical injury; moral damages for a quasi-delict require proof of physical injury and definite proof of the suffering; and exemplary damages lie where the negligence is gross.

Procedural History

Fulgencio Dacara, for and in behalf of his minor son, filed a complaint for damages against the Quezon City Government and Engineer Ramir Tiamzon before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101, Quezon City. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the city government and its employee negligent under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, and ordering them to pay actual or compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full, with costs against the appellants. The Court of Appeals also denied their motion for reconsideration. The case then reached the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

In the early hours of February 28, 1988, at about one o'clock in the morning, Fulgencio Dacara, Junior, the son of Fulgencio Dacara, Senior, was driving a Toyota Corolla sedan along Matahimik Street in Quezon City. The street was then being repaired by the Quezon City government, and a pile of earth from the diggings lay in the roadway. The car rammed into the pile, turned turtle, and suffered extensive damage. The son claimed he sustained bodily injuries.

Dacara sought indemnification from the city government, but his demand yielded negative results. He then filed the complaint for damages against the city and Engineer Tiamzon. The defendants admitted the incident but claimed they had exercised due care, alleging that the diggings were provided with a mound of soil and barricaded with reflectorized traffic paint and sticks, visible at the time. They blamed the son's own negligence and failure to exercise due care.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals both found that no sufficient and adequate warning devices were in place, and that the negligence of the petitioners was the proximate cause of the damage. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising for the first time the claim that the son was overspeeding in violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.

Issues

• Whether or not the negligence of the petitioners was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by the respondent's vehicle.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of moral damages.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

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 on which the liability of the city government rests, and the Court reads the word injuries to cover damage to property as well.

Article 2219 of the Civil Code provides:

Moral damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

This is the basis for moral damages in a quasi-delict, and it requires that the quasi-delict caused physical injuries.

Article 2185 of the Civil Code provides:

Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

The petitioners invoked this presumption, but the Court refused to consider it because it was raised too late.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the negligence of the petitioners was the proximate cause of the damage. Proximate cause is any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. The finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals was unanimous and amply supported by the evidence, and a review under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law. The Court also refused to consider the belated claim that the son was overspeeding in violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, because points of law, theories, or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that the award of moral damages must be deleted. To award moral damages, the court must be satisfied with proof of an injury clearly sustained, a culpable act or omission, that act or omission as the proximate cause of the injury, and that the case falls under Article 2219. While the complaint alleged physical injuries, no medical certificate or proof of medical expenses was presented, and the decisions were silent on any moral suffering. The Court stressed that moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered, not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.

On the third issue, the Court held that exemplary damages were proper. Article 2231 of the Civil Code allows exemplary damages in quasi-delicts where the defendant acted with gross negligence, which means such utter want of care as to raise a presumption that the persons at fault were conscious of the probable consequences of their carelessness and were indifferent to the danger. The Court found gross negligence in the complete disregard of any adverse consequence of failing to install even a single warning device at a dimly lit excavation site.

Doctrine

First, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, local governments are liable for damages for the defective condition of roads and streets under their control or supervision, and this liability covers damage to property, not only death or physical injury. Second, moral damages under Article 2219 for a quasi-delict require proof of physical injury and definite proof of the suffering experienced; absent such proof, the award becomes a penalty rather than compensation. Third, exemplary damages under Article 2231 may be awarded in a quasi-delict where the defendant acted with gross negligence, which is a reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Disposition

The petition was partly granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with the modification that the award of moral damages was deleted, and no costs were imposed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that moral damages compensate actual injury and are never a penalty, so they demand definite proof of the suffering. Examiners use this case to test the scope of Article 2189, the requisites of moral damages in quasi-delict, and the standard of gross negligence for exemplary damages.