Tweet Share: Chanrobles On-Line Bar Review
Tweet Share: Chanrobles On-Line Bar Review
Tweet Share: Chanrobles On-Line Bar Review
com™
Like 1
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > January 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 204866, January 21,
2015 - RUKS KONSULT AND CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. ADWORLD SIGN AND ADVERTISING CORPORATION*
AND TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC., Respondents.:
G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015 - RUKS KONSULT AND CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. ADWORLD SIGN
AND ADVERTISING CORPORATION* AND TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC., Respondents.
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated November 16, 2011 and the
Resolution3 dated December 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94693 which
affirmed the Decision4 dated August 25, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 142 (RTC)
in Civil Case No. 03-1452 holding, inter alia, petitioner Ruks Konsult and Construction (Ruks) and
respondent Transworld Media Ads, Inc. (Transworld) jointly and severally liable to respondent Adworld
Sign and Advertising Corporation (Adworld) for damages. cralawred
The Facts
The instant case arose from a complaint for damages filed by Adworld against Transworld and Comark
International Corporation (Comark) before the RTC.5 In the complaint, Adworld alleged that it is the
DebtKollect Company, Inc. owner of a 75 ft. x 60 ft. billboard structure located at EDSA Tulay, Guadalupe, Barangka Mandaluyong,
which was misaligned and its foundation impaired when, on August 11, 2003, the adjacent billboard
structure owned by Transworld and used by Comark collapsed and crashed against it. Resultantly, on
August 19, 2003, Adworld sent Transworld and Comark a letter demanding payment for the repairs of its
billboard as well as loss of rental income. On August 29, 2003, Transworld sent its reply, admitting the
damage caused by its billboard structure on Adworld’s billboard, but nevertheless, refused and failed to
pay the amounts demanded by Adworld. As Adworld’s final demand letter also went unheeded, it was
constrained to file the instant complaint, praying for damages in the aggregate amount of P474,204.00,
comprised of P281,204.00 for materials, P72,000.00 for labor, and P121,000.00 for indemnity for loss of
income.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In its Answer with Counterclaim, Transworld averred that the collapse of its billboard structure was due to
extraordinarily strong winds that occurred instantly and unexpectedly, and maintained that the damage
caused to Adworld’s billboard structure was hardly noticeable. Transworld likewise filed a Third-Party
Complaint against Ruks, the company which built the collapsed billboard structure in the former’s favor. It
was alleged therein that the structure constructed by Ruks had a weak and poor foundation not suited for
billboards, thus, prone to collapse, and as such, Ruks should ultimately be held liable for the damages
caused to Adworld’s billboard structure.7 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
For its part, Comark denied liability for the damages caused to Adworld’s billboard structure, maintaining
ChanRobles Intellectual Property that it does not have any interest on Transworld’s collapsed billboard structure as it only contracted the
use of the same. In this relation, Comark prayed for exemplary damages from Transworld for
Division unreasonably including it as a party-defendant in the complaint.8 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Lastly, Ruks admitted that it entered into a contract with Transworld for the construction of the latter’s
billboard structure, but denied liability for the damages caused by its collapse. It contended that when
Transworld hired its services, there was already an existing foundation for the billboard and that it merely
finished the structure according to the terms and conditions of its contract with the latter.9 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In a Decision10 dated August 25, 2009, the RTC ultimately ruled in Adworld’s favor, and accordingly,
declared, inter alia, Transworld and Ruks jointly and severally liable to Adworld in the amount of
P474,204.00 as actual damages, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until full
payment thereof, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00.11 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The RTC found both Transworld and Ruks negligent in the construction of the collapsed billboard as they
knew that the foundation supporting the same was weak and would pose danger to the safety of the
motorists and the other adjacent properties, such as Adworld’s billboard, and yet, they did not do
anything to remedy the situation.12 In particular, the RTC explained that Transworld was made aware by
Ruks that the initial construction of the lower structure of its billboard did not have the proper foundation
and would require additional columns and pedestals to support the structure. Notwithstanding, however,
Ruks proceeded with the construction of the billboard’s upper structure and merely assumed that
Transworld would reinforce its lower structure.13 The RTC then concluded that these negligent acts were
the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by Adworld’s billboard.14 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Aggrieved, both Transworld and Ruks appealed to the CA. In a Resolution dated February 3, 2011, the CA
dismissed Transworld’s appeal for its failure to file an appellant’s brief on time.15 Transworld elevated its
case before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 197601.16 However, in a Resolution17 dated November 23,
2011, the Court declared the case closed and terminated for failure of Transworld to file the intended
petition for review on certiorari within the extended reglementary period. Subsequently, the Court issued
an Entry of Judgment18 dated February 22, 2012 in G.R. No. 197601 declaring the Court’s November 23,
2011 Resolution final and executory.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision19 dated November 16, 2011, the CA denied Ruks’s appeal and affirmed the ruling of the
RTC. It adhered to the RTC’s finding of negligence on the part of Transworld and Ruks which brought
January-2015 Jurisprudence about the damage to Adworld’s billboard. It found that Transworld failed to ensure that Ruks will comply
with the approved plans and specifications of the structure, and that Ruks continued to install and finish
G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015 - BETTY the billboard structure despite the knowledge that there were no adequate columns to support the
GEPULLE-GARBO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN- same.20 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015 - MANUEL R. The petition is without merit.
PORTUGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. At the outset, it must be stressed that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled
to great weight by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on
G.R. No. 187892, January 14, 2015 - UNGAY record.25 Absent any exceptions to this rule – such as when it is established that the trial court ignored,
MALOBAGO MINES, INC. Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that, if considered, would
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
change the outcome of the case26 – such findings must stand.
G.R. No. 203384, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPS. JOSE After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court sees no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of
CASTUERA AND PERLA CASTUERA, Respondents. the RTC and the CA and their uniform conclusion that both Transworld and Ruks committed acts resulting
in the collapse of the former’s billboard, which in turn, caused damage to the adjacent billboard of
A.M. No. P-14-3194 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-1-01- Adworld.
MTC), January 27, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CONSTANTINO P. Jurisprudence defines negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by
REDOÑA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
TRIAL COURT, TANAUAN, LEYTE, Respondent.
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.27 It is the failure to observe for the
G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015 - SENATOR protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.28 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2011 and the Resolution dated
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO December 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94693 are hereby AFFIRMED.
DILLA Y PAULAR, Accused-Appellant.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015 - DR. DOMICIANO 6 See id. at 74-76.
F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY.
ISIDRO L. CARACOL, Respondent.
7 Id. at 76-77.
G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015 - ROMMEL B.
DARAUG, Petitioner, v. KGJS FLEET MANAGEMENT 8 Id. at 77.
MANILA, INC., KRISTIAN GERHARD JEBSEN
SKIPSREDER, MR. GUY DOMINO A. MACAPAYAG 9 Id.
AND/OR M/V “IBIS ARROW,” Respondents.
10 Id. at 97-109.
G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 - IRENE D.
OFILADA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RUBEN ANDAL AND
MIRAFLOR ANDAL, Respondents. 11 Id. at 109.
G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015 - GLENN VIÑAS, 21 See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 8, 2011; id. at 63-71.
Petitioner, v. MARY GRACE PAREL-VIÑAS,
Respondent.
22 Id. at 59-61.
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 - THE DIOCESE
OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. 23 Entitled “Transworld Media Ads, Inc. v. Adworld Signs and Advertising Corp.”
BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP
HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. 24Rollo (G.R. No. 205120), p. 164.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION
OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V.
25 See Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014, citing Maxwell Heavy
MAJARUCON, Respondents.
Equipment Corporation v. Yu, G.R. No. 179395, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 653, 658.
G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015 - GARY
FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, 26People v. Anod, 613 Phil. 565, 572 (2009).
Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 27Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Lifetime Marketing Corporation, 578 Phil. 354, 362
G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015 - RICARDO C. (2008), citing Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA, 336 Phil. 667, 676 (1997).
HONRADO, Petitioner, v. GMA NETWORK FILMS, INC.,
Respondent. 28Garcia, Jr. v. Salvador, 547 Phil. 463, 470 (2007), citing Child Learning Center, Inc. v.
Tagorio, 512 Phil. 618, 623-624 (2005).
G.R. No. 178169, January 12, 2015 - NFF
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. G & L 29 Article 2194 of the Civil Code reads:
ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE AND/OR GERARDO
TRINIDAD, Respondent. Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is
solidary.
G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 - VIRGILIO C.
BRIONES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
30 See People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 195668, June 25, 2014, citations omitted.
CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAKIM
MINANGA Y DUMANSAL, Accused-Appellant.
Copyright © 1998 - 20181998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED