Case Digest (G.R. No. 150304)
Facts:
Quezon City Government and Engineer Ramir J. Tiamzon v. Fulgencio Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.
On February 28, 1988 at about 1:00 A.M., Fulgencio Dacara, Jr. was driving an 87 Toyota Corolla when his vehicle struck a pile of earth/road diggings on Matahimik Street, Quezon City, turned turtle and sustained extensive damage; the younger Dacara allegedly suffered bodily injury. The excavation was part of road repair works being done by the Quezon City Government. An indemnification claim against the city was unsuccessful.
Thereafter, Fulgencio P. Dacara, Sr., for and in behalf of his minor son, filed Civil Case No. Q-88-233 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 101, Quezon City, seeking compensatory damages (not less than P20,000), moral damages (P150,000), exemplary damages (P30,000), and attorneys’ fees (P20,000). Defendants (the City and Engr. Ramir Tiamzon) admitted the collision but asserted that they had exercised due care by installing a mound of soil, reflectorized traffic paint, barricades and a gasera; they contended the son’s negligence caused the accident.
After trial the RTC (Judge Pedro T. Santiago) rendered a June 29, 1990 Decision holding the City and its employee liable under Article 2189 of the Civil Code and awarding P20,000 actual damages, P10,000 moral damages, P5,000 exemplary damages, P10,000 attorneys’ fees and other costs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (Third Division, penned by Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole) affirmed the RTC on February 21, 2001, concluding that petitioners failed to prove that they had placed adequate warning devices and that their negligence was the proximate cause; it also held Article 2189 applicable even where physical injury to person was not extensive. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on October 9, 2001.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA’s affirmance of mora...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the award of moral damages of P10,000.00?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the award of exemplary damages of P5,000.00 and attorneys’ fees of P10,000.00?
- Was the Court of Appeals erroneous in holding that petitioners’ negligence, and not respondent’s son’s alleged negligence, was the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)