099 QC Govt V Dacara (2005)

Q.C. GOVERNMENT v. DACARA | G.R. No. 150304| 15 June 2005| Panganiban, J. supervision over the same.
supervision over the same. Failure of the defendant to comply with the
statutory provision found in the subject-article is tantamount to
Topic: Liability for Damages negligence per se which renders the City government liable. Harsh
application of the law ensues as a result thereof but the state assumed
SUMMARY: Dacara was driving his sedan along Matahimik St., QC when he hit a pile the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roads and
of earth from an excavation in the street, which was not indicated by warning signs as bridges and neither exception nor exculpation from liability would deem
the QC government failed to do so. SC affirmed the lower courts’ finding of negligence just and equitable.
on the part of QC, holding them negligent and liable for actual/compensatory damages  While government raised the defense that Dacara was concurrently
under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, in addition to exemplary damages. negligent for overspeeding, this argument cannot be given due course
by the Court as it has been not been raised during trial.
FACTS: 2. W/N moral damages may be recovered by Dacara? NO
 Fulgencio Dacara, Jr. was driving his Toyota Sedan along Matahimik St in QC at  According to QC, moral damages may only be recovered under Art 2219
around 1:00 AM, 28 Feb 1988, when he rammed a pile of earth/street diggings of the Civil Code as a quasi-delict, and not evidence of physical injuries
from an excavation in the street, which was being repaired. The vehicle thus were presented. Proof required must be 1) an injury; 2) culpable act or
toppled, causing bodily injuries to Dacara and severely damaging the car. omission factually established; 3) such act or omission as proximate
Indemnification was sought with the city government, which was denied, so a cause of injury; and 4) award of damages predicated on Art 2219 (No
civil case for damages was filed with the RTC. recovery of damages in quasi-delict cases unless there is injury).
 As a defense, the city government said that the area of the diggings was lighted  While it was alleged that Dacara sustained physical injuries, no evidence
with reflectorized traffic paint with sticks placed before the mound of dirt, which to prove this was presented in court. There was also no explanation
would have made it visible during the time of the incident. This was their given in the Decisions of the lower courts on how Dacara was damaged
testimony, but they presented no other evidence to prove the same, and it must morally in connection with the injury.
be noted that even the police report indicated that there were no warning signs in  No moral damages.
the area. 3. W/N exemplary damages may be recovered? YES
 As an added defense, the city government stated that Dacara was driving well  Art 2231 indicates that exemplary damages may be granted in cases of
above the speed limit (limit of 30kph but driving at around 60kph), making him gross negligence
responsible for his own injury. Such defense, however, was only presented in the  While QC was not found to be in gross negligence by the lower courts in
MR. the performance of their duty and responsibility, it was sufficiently
 RTC ruled in favor of Dacara, holding QC government liable under Art. 2189 (CC) established that their negligence caused injury to Dacara, thus Dacara
for 10k moral and 5k exemplary damages, and 10k attorney's fees. CA affirmed had a right to actual or compensatory damages. SC finds though that QC
RTC decision. did act with gross negligence. However, may exemplary damages be
 QC appealed with SC for finding of negligence and also award of damages as granted in addition to compensatory damages?
according to them, Art 2189 does not apply to cases of damage to property.  Since exemplary damages are awarded to correct a wrong for the public
good, and since the responsibility of the QC government in under
ISSUE/S & RATIO: questions involves a situation for public safety, it must be imposed with
1. W/N the QC government's negligence is the proximate cause of Dacara's injury? such damages in order to deter similar instances of negligence in the
YES future.
 QC alleges that they provided the sufficient warning signs in the area of
excavation but they have not given further evidence to support such s
claim as they have in the RTC and CA. SC cannot give them exception to
the general rule that the SC may not delve into issues relating to RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the
questions of fact. Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFCATION that the award of moral
 Since both lower courts have ruled on the presence of negligence on the damages is DELETED. No costs.
part of QC, the SC should give due respect to such finding and hold QC
in the same light. NOTES:
 Police report also shows that there were no warning signs in the Art 2189: Provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of,
excavation area. or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
 [RTC Discussion] The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil Code bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
capsulizes the responsibility of the city government relative to the
maintenance of roads and bridges since it exercises the control and

099 QC Govt V Dacara (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

099 QC Govt V Dacara (2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

099 QC Govt V Dacara (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q.C. GOVERNMENT v. DACARA | G.R. No. 150304| 15 June 2005| Panganiban, J. supervision over the same.

You might also like