JIMENEZ v. CITY OF MANILA
Breach of Obligations – Article 2189 and 2176 in relation to 1173 of the Civil Code
BERNARDINO JIMENEZ vs. CITY OF MANILA and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
GR No 71049
May 29, 1987
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings and other public works under their control or supervision.
FACTS:
In the morning of Aug 15, 1974, petitioner Jimenez, together with his neighbors, went to
Sta Ana public market to buy bagoong and at that time, the public market was flooded with ankle
deep rainwater. After purchasing bagoong, he turned around to return home but he stepped on
an uncovered opening which could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty
and rusty 4-inch nail, stuck inside the uncovered opening, to pierce the left leg of Jimenez. He felt
ill, developed a fever and had to be administered medicine. His left leg swelled with great pain so
he was rushed to the Veterans Memorial Hospital where he had to be confined for 20 days due
to high fever and severe pain. Upon his discharge, he had to walk around with crutched for 15
days which prevented him from attending to the school buses he is operating. He had to engage
the services of Valdez to supervise his business for an aggregate compensation of P900.
Petitioner sued for damages respondent City of Manila and the Asiatic Integrated Corporation
under whose administration the Sta. Ana Public Market had been placed by virtue of a
Management and Operating Contract. The lower Court decided in favor of respondents for
insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the IAC held Asiatic Integrated liable but absolved City of
Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Manila may be held liable for the injuries sustained by petitioner
in the public market despite Asiatic Integrated Corporation assuming all responsibility for
damages which may be suffered by 3rd persons for any cause attributable to it, as provided under
the Management and Operating Contract, as well as the provision on the Revised Charter of
Manila (RA 409)
RULING:
Yes. The Court held that it appears evident that the City of Manila is likewise liable
for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, having retained control and supervision
over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by
reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works
under their control or supervision.”
JIMENEZ v. CITY OF MANILA
Breach of Obligations – Article 2189 and 2176 in relation to 1173 of the Civil Code
It constitutes a particular prescription making "provinces, cities and municipalities ... liable
for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason" — specifically — "of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision." In other words, Art. 1, sec. 4, R.A. No. 409 refers to liability arising from
negligence, in general, regardless of the object, thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil Code
governs liability due to "defective streets, public buildings and other public works" in particular
and is therefore decisive on this specific case.
The Supreme Court clarified further that under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not
necessary for the liability therein established to attach, that the defective public works belong to
the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires
is that the province, city or municipality has either "control or supervision" over the public building
in question.
In the case at bar, there is no question that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the
Management and Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated
Corporation remained under the control of the City of Manila. The fact of supervision and control
of the City over subject public market was admitted by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing in his letter to
Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata. In fact, the City of Manila employed a market master for the
Sta. Ana Public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that
particular market, more specifically, to check the safety of the place for the public.
As a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-delict, one must have exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family. (Art. 1173 of the Civil Code) There is no argument that it is
the duty of the City of Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably
safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. While it may be conceded that
the fulfillment of such duties is extremely difficult during storms and floods, it must however, be
admitted that ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize the
dangers to life and limb under those difficult circumstances.
For instance, the drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls instead of on the
passage ways. Even more important is the fact, that the City should have seen to it that the
openings were covered. Sadly, the evidence indicates that long before petitioner fell into the
opening, it was already uncovered, and five (5) months after the incident happened, the opening
was still uncovered. Moreover, while there are findings that during floods the vendors remove the
iron grills to hasten the flow of water there is no showing that such practice has ever been
prohibited, much less penalized by the City of Manila. Neither was it shown that any sign had
been placed thereabouts to warn passersby of the impending danger. Petitioner had the right to
assume that there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that they were
adequately covered. Had the opening been covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus
the negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered, the City is
therefore liable for the injury suffered by petitioner.