Case Digest (G.R. No. 226319)
Facts:
Joaquinita P. Capili v. Sps. Dominador Cardana and Rosalita Cardana, G.R. No. 157906, November 02, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.On February 1, 1993, twelve‑year‑old Jasmin Cardana, a Grade 6 pupil of San Roque Elementary School, was walking along the school's perimeter fence when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school grounds fell on her, causing instantaneous death. Her parents, Dominador and Rosalita Cardana, thereafter filed a civil action for damages against the school principal, Joaquinita P. Capili, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palo, Leyte, alleging negligence and lack of foresight in the maintenance of the school premises.
The Cardanas alleged that as early as December 15, 1992 a barangay resident, Eufronio Lerios, had reported the dangerous condition of the (dead/rotting) tree and that Lerios even pointed the tree out to petitioner. Petitioner denied knowledge that the tree was dead or rotting and testified that Lerios had only offered to buy the tree; she further said she discussed the matter with teachers at a December 15 meeting and assigned teacher Remedios Palana to negotiate the sale. Petitioner presented witnesses to corroborate that she had delegated the disposition of the tree.
In a Decision dated February 5, 1996, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of the Cardanas to establish petitioner’s negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CV. No. 54412, reversed by Decision dated October 18, 2002, finding petitioner liable for negligence resulting in Jasmin’s death and awarding P50,000.00 for the life of Jasmin, P15,010.00 for burial expenses, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P10,000.00 attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on March 20, 2003.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals, in light of the facts, err in finding petitioner negligent and liable for damages under the Civil Code?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s motion for reco...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)