Title
Perla Compania de Seguros Inc. vs. Spouses Sarangaya
Case
G.R. No. 147746
Decision Date
Oct 25, 2005
A car fire caused by negligence destroyed a leased building; the Supreme Court upheld liability under *res ipsa loquitur* and vicarious liability, remanding for further evidence on damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147746)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Construction and Lease
    • In 1986, spouses Gaudencio Sarangaya III and Primitiva B. Sarangaya erected the “Super A Building,” a semi-concrete, single-storey commercial structure with three doors, and a two-storey residence behind doors II and III, fronting the Santiago, Isabela provincial road.
    • In 1988, Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., through its branch manager Bienvenido S. Pascual, leased door I, renovated it into office and garage space, and used the garage to park a company-provided 1981 Ford Cortina.
  • Incident and Damages
    • July 10, 1988: Pascual, after attempting to start the car, observed flames from the engine compartment, alighted, and pushed the car out; fire erupted from the rear compartment, engulfing the garage and trapping Pascual, who suffered burns.
    • The fire spread to respondents’ adjoining residence, destroying the building and personal property; the city fire marshal ruled the fire “accidental” and noted absence of a fire permit.
  • Procedural History
    • Criminal complaint for reckless imprudence filed against Pascual; later withdrawn. Respondents filed a civil action in quasi-delict for actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
    • RTC awarded ₱2,904,880 actual damages, applying res ipsa loquitur against Pascual and vicarious liability against the corporation; CA affirmed liability but reduced award to ₱600,000 nominal damages, then on motion remanded case for additional evidence on actual damages. Petitioners sought certiorari relief.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
  • Did the Court of Appeals err in finding Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vicariously liable for lack of supervision of its employee?
  • Did the Court of Appeals err in remanding the case to the RTC for reception of additional evidence on actual damages?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.