Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9928) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In City of Manila vs. Teotico (G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968), Genaro N. Teotico, a practicing public accountant, businessman, and university professor, was injured on January 27, 1958 at about 8:00 p.m. at the corner of Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila. While waiting in a designated “loading and unloading” zone for a jeepney, Teotico hailed one that stopped, took a few steps from the curb, and fell into an uncovered, unlighted catchbasin on P. Burgos Avenue. His eyeglasses shattered on impact and glass fragments pierced his left eyelid, causing profuse bleeding that impeded his vision. Bystanders extracted him from the manhole and he received emergency treatment at the Philippine General Hospital, followed by private medical care costing P1,400.00. He also suffered contusions on the left thigh and arm, right leg, upper lip, and an abrasion below the right knee, as well as allergic reactions to tetanus injections. The accident incapacitated him for twenty days, resul Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9928) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Circumstances of the Accident
- On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico was standing in a “loading and unloading” zone at the corner of Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, waiting for a jeepney.
- As he stepped off the curb to board the jeepney, he fell into an uncovered, unlighted catchbasin (manhole). His head struck the rim, breaking his eyeglasses; fragments pierced his left upper eyelid.
- Injuries Sustained and Consequences
- Physical injuries included a lacerated left upper eyelid, contusions on the left thigh, left upper arm, right leg, and upper lip, and an abrasion below the right patella. He also suffered allergic eruptions from anti-tetanus injections.
- Teotico was treated at the Philippine General Hospital and by a private practitioner (medical expenses: ₱1,400.00). He was incapacitated for 20 days, losing an alleged ₱50.00 per day (₱1,000.00). He endured humiliation, anxiety for his minor children (for whom he was sole support), and incurred counsel fees of ₱2,000.00.
- Procedural History
- Teotico filed a complaint (later amended) for damages against the City of Manila and several city officers before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the individual officers but held the City of Manila liable for ₱6,750.00 (₱1,400.00 medical fees; ₱350.00 lost income; ₱3,000.00 moral damages; ₱2,000.00 attorney’s fees). The City of Manila then appealed to this Court.
Issues:
- Applicable Statutory Provision
- Whether liability of the City of Manila is governed by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (City Charter) or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code (liability for defective public works).
- Scope of City’s Responsibility and Negligence
- Whether P. Burgos Avenue was under the control or supervision of the City of Manila.
- Whether the City exercised the requisite care in maintaining and covering its catchbasins, and thus was negligent.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)