Title
Jarco Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 129792
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1999
A 6-year-old died after a department store's unstable counter collapsed; court ruled store negligent, awarded damages, citing lack of maintenance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129792)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners operated and supervised a department store counter. Respondents filed a civil action for damages following their daughter’s fatal injuries allegedly caused by that counter.

Key Dates

• Accident: May 9, 1983
• RTC Judgment (Makati City, Branch 60): January 15, 1992 (dismissing respondents’ complaint and petitioners’ counterclaim)
• CA Decision (Second Division): June 17, 1996 (setting aside RTC, awarding damages to respondents)
• CA Resolution Denying Reconsideration: July 16, 1997
• SC Decision: December 21, 1999

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (as case decided in 1999)
• Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict (Arts. 2176, 2187)
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 (certiorari)
• Evidence Code, Rule 130, Section 42 (res gestae exception)

Factual Background

On May 9, 1983, Criselda Aguilar and her daughter were at the store’s second-floor gift-wrapping counter. Without warning, the overhanging wooden counter toppled, pinning Zhieneth. She was rushed to Makati Medical Center, underwent surgery, lost her speech, and died fourteen days later from massive intra-abdominal injuries, liver laceration, duodenal transection, stomach rupture, retroperitoneal hematoma, and severe lung contusions.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

Respondents sought actual, moral, exemplary damages, funeral expenses, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners denied liability, alleging contributory negligence by mother and child and due diligence in counter maintenance. The Regional Trial Court found that the child’s act of clinging caused the counter to fall and that the mother failed to supervise properly. The RTC dismissed both complaint and counterclaim, absolving petitioners of liability.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed. It held the counter was structurally defective—shaped like an inverted “L,” top-heavy, unstable, and previously reported as dangerous by two former employees. The CA applied the conclusive presumption that children under nine are incapable of negligence, excused the mother’s conduct, credited a disinterested witness’s res gestae account that the counter “just fell” on Zhieneth, and disbelieved petitioners’ witnesses. It awarded respondents reimbursement for hospital expenses, compensatory damages for death, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether Zhieneth’s death was an accident or the result of negligence.
  2. If negligence, whether it rested on petitioners for maintaining a defective structure or on respondents for contributory negligence.

Applicable Legal Principles on Accident and Negligence

– Accident: an unforeseen event without human fault or preventable by ordinary care.
– Negligence: failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances.
– Accident and negligence are mutually exclusive. The test is whether a defendant exercised the degree of care an ordinarily prudent person would.

Credibility of Witnesses and Res Gestae

A store employee, Gerardo Gonzales, testified that, while at the emergency room, the child said she “did nothing” and that the counter “just fell” on her. This statement, made under the influence of a startling event, is admissible as part of the res gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 42). The Court found it implausible that a six-year-old in extreme pain would fabricate. Two former employees also testified they wa

...continue reading

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