Title
Supreme Court
Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Co.
Case
G.R. No. 164749
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2017
A minor died during a marathon due to inadequate safety measures; organizers held liable for negligence, while the sponsor was absolved. Damages awarded for loss of earning capacity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164749)

Procedural History

The Abrogars sued Cosmos and Intergames for damages (actual, moral, exemplary, loss of earning capacity, attorney’s fees). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both jointly and severally liable and awarded damages. Cosmos cross-claimed against Intergames for indemnification under their sponsorship contract. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, absolving both respondents on grounds of ordinary diligence, assumption of risk, and lack of liability for a mere sponsor. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicts in factual findings and legal conclusions.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Intergames was negligent in organizing the marathon.
  2. Whether any negligence by Intergames was the proximate cause of Rommel’s death despite the jeepney driver’s fault.
  3. Whether Rommel assumed the risk of vehicular accident, barring recovery.
  4. Whether Cosmos, as sponsor, can be held liable for injuries arising from the event.
  5. Whether the heirs may recover loss of earning capacity for a minor with no employment history.

Negligence of the Organizer

Negligence is the failure to exercise the diligence required by the nature of the obligation, considering person, time, and place (Art. 1173). An organizer must foresee dangers and take precautions a prudent person would take. Intergames chose a busy highway route without traffic closure, fully aware of heightened risks. It lacked its own marshals and relied on volunteers and multiple agencies but held few preparatory meetings, no written action plan, no dry run, and provided no systematic instructions. Given the participants’ youth and inexperience, this ad hoc coordination fell short of ordinary diligence. The Supreme Court found that Intergames’ decision to proceed on a non-insulated highway and its failure to ensure proper volunteer coordination constituted gross negligence.

Proximate Cause of Death

Proximate cause requires a continuous causal link from defendant’s negligence to injury. Although the jeepney driver’s recklessness intervened, it was a foreseeable risk set in motion by Intergames’ inadequate safety measures. The dangerous condition (running beside traffic) and lack of proper supervision directly enabled the fatal collision. No independent, unforeseeable cause broke that chain. Intergames’ negligence remained the proximate cause of Rommel’s death.

Assumption of Risk

Assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepts a specific, appreciated danger. Death by vehicular impact on a public road is neither an inherent nor obvious risk of marathon running; participants reasonably expect an organizer to ensure a safe course. Rommel’s general awareness of traffic did not equate to knowledge and appreciation of the fatal risk. As a minor, his consent through waiver cannot bar recovery for grossly negligent safety failures.

Liability of the Sponsor

Cosmos Bottling’s role was limited to financial sponsorship under a written agreement expressly delegating organization, route selection, staffing, and permits to Intergames. Absent evidence of Cosmos’s participation in event planning or safety measures, it cannot be deemed a proximate cause of the injury. Sponsorship alone, without operational control, is too remote to impose tort liability.

Damages and Recoveries

Under Articles 2202 and 2206 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs reco







...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.