Fernando v. CA
Fernando v. CA
Fernando v. CA
To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the
relation between the omission and the damage. He must prove that the defendant’s negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury. But, where the victim contributes to the principal occurrence, as one
of its determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to
his own injury, he may recover less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
FACTS
Market master Bibiano Morta filed a requisition request to re-empty the septic tank in Agdao. Because of
this, an invitation to bid was issued, which Feliciano Bascon won.
o On Nov 22, 1975, bidder Aurelio Bertulano was found dead inside the tank with 4 others (Joselito
Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando, and Jose Fajardo, Jr.).
o Cause of death: asphyxia caused by diminution of oxygen supply in the body. Their lungs burst due
to their intake of toxic gas produced from the waste matter inside the tank.
o Since the tank was found almost empty, it was presumed that the victims entered the tank to re-
empty it, without knowledge and consent of the market master.
Petitioners (heirs of the 5 deceased) sued the Respondent (City of Davao) for the deaths, faulting the
government for failing to clean the tank for 19 years, resulting in an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas
which killed the 5 laborers. They also alleged that the fault is compounded by the absence of warning signs
indicating the existence of danger and because Respondent exerted no efforts to neutralize the harm.
o Petitioners aver that it was Respondent’s gross negligence which was the proximate cause of the
fatal incident that led to the deaths.
RTC ruled in favor Respondents, dismissing the complaint. CA initially ruled in favor of Petitioners, ordering
Respondents to pay Petitioners. But on motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself and ruled in favor
of Respondents, holding them not liable to the Petitioners.
ISSUE: WON Respondent City of Davao is guilty of negligence, such that will make them liable to the Petitioners? –
NO
[Jump to issue #2 for the topical issue]
Other issues:
3) As to the lack of ventilation pipe in the toilet, which Petitioners allege emphasize the negligence of the public
respondent, the court held that theirs is not an expert witness. On the other hand, Engr Alindada testified that
the sanitary plan would not have been approved unless it is in conformance with sanitary requirements
(ventilation pipe need not be constructed separately/outside the building, but could also be embodied in the
hollow blocks).
4) As to the lack of warning signs, toilets and septic tanks are not nuisance per se which the Civil Code necessitates
warning signs for.
5) Court also held that there was no contractual relationship whatsoever between the victims and the public
respondent.
DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 11, 1990 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.