Case Digest (G.R. No. 164749)
Facts:
The petitioners, Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar, sued Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc. and Intergames, Inc. for damages after their son Rommel Abrogar, age eighteen, was fatally bumped by a passenger jeepney during the 1st Pop Cola Junior Marathon held on June 15, 1980 in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment for the petitioners on May 10, 1991; the Court of Appeals reversed on March 10, 2004, and the case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.Issues:
- Was Intergames, Inc. negligent in organizing the marathon?
- If negligent, was such negligence the proximate cause of Rommel Abrogar’s death despite the jeepney driver’s negligence?
- Does the doctrine of assumption of risk bar recovery by the petitioners?
- Can Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc. be held jointly and solidarily liable as sponsor?
- Are the petitioners entitled to damages for loss of earning capacity and other awards?
Ruling:
The Court partly granted the petition. It held I Case Digest (G.R. No. 164749)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar filed suit for damages for the death of their son, Rommel, a participant in the 1st Pop Cola Junior Marathon held June 15, 1980.
- Intergames, Inc. organized and supervised the marathon; Cosmos Bottling Company sponsored the event and furnished P55,000 under a written sponsorship contract.
- The plotted 10-kilometer course started at the Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP Lane) and ran through public roads including Don Mariano Marcos Avenue to Quezon City Hall (finish line).
- Rommel, aged 18 at the time, applied, was accepted, received an official number, attended a pre-race briefing and surveyed the route, and signed a waiver and parental consent as conditions of participation.
- During the race on Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Rommel was bumped by a passenger jeepney allegedly racing a minibus and other vehicles; he sustained severe head injuries and died the same day; a criminal case was filed against the jeepney driver.
- Preparations and precautions for the marathon
- Intergames, Inc. conducted an ocular inspection, sought permits and police assistance, put up directional signs and water stations, and requested medical teams and ambulances from cooperating agencies.
- The Northern Police District permitted the race only if the road was not blocked off from vehicular traffic; Intergames acknowledged this restriction and testified that it had argued for blocking but was denied.
- Intergames had no paid personnel for race-manning and relied on cooperating agencies and volunteers: seven traffic operatives, five motorcycle policemen, fifteen patrolmen, fifteen Boy Scouts, twelve CATs, twenty barangay tanods, three ambulances and three medical teams, Citizens Traffic Action (CTA) units, and police detailees.
- Witness testimony established limited written planning, no general assembly of all cooperating agencies, no comprehensive written action plan or rehearsal/dry run, sporadic meetings with agency leaders, and no direct meetings with some police supervisors.
- Procedural history
- Complaint instituted October 28, 1980 in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) for actual and compensatory damages, loss of earning capacity, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
- Cosmos pleaded it was only sponsor, not organizer, relied on a hold-harmless stipulation in its contract with Intergames, and cross-claimed against Intergames.
- Intergames denied liability, invoked par...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary contested questions
- Whether Intergames, Inc. was negligent in organizing and conducting the marathon and whether that negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel Abrogar’s death.
- Whether Cosmos Bottling Company can be held jointly and solidarily liable with Intergames, Inc. assuming Intergames was negligent and such negligence was the proximate cause.
- Ancillary and remedial questions
- Whether the doctrine of assumption of risk precludes recovery by the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to dam...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)