Case Summary (G.R. No. 204866)
Facts
Adworld owned a 75×60 ft billboard whose foundation and alignment were impaired when Transworld’s adjacent billboard, built by Ruks, collapsed under strong winds. Adworld incurred P474,204.00 in repair costs and lost rental income, prompting a demand on Transworld and Comark International Corporation. Transworld admitted liability but refused payment; Comark disclaimed ownership; Ruks acknowledged construction work but denied negligence, asserting it merely completed the upper structure over an existing foundation.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC held Transworld and Ruks jointly and severally liable for P474,204.00 actual damages plus legal interest and P50,000.00 attorney’s fees. It found:
- Transworld knew the lower structure lacked proper foundation and relied on Ruks to reinforce it.
- Ruks proceeded to erect the upper structure despite knowing of the inadequate foundation.
- Their successive negligent acts were the proximate causes of Adworld’s damage.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings, emphasizing that Transworld failed to secure compliance with approved plans and that Ruks ignored the structural deficiencies. An attempt by Transworld to appeal was dismissed due to procedural defaults. Ruks’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s declaration of joint and several liability of Ruks and Transworld for damages to Adworld’s billboard.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Finality of Findings
- Under the 1987 Constitution and relevant rules, factual findings of both the RTC and the CA, when consistent and supported by evidence, are final and conclusive.
Negligence and Proximate Cause
- Negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in injury to another.
- Both parties were aware of the weak foundation yet took no remedial measures, thereby committing acts of omission constituting negligence.
- Their combined negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the collapse and ensuing damage.
Joint Tortfeasors and Solidary Liability
- Und
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204866)
Procedural History
- Adworld Sign and Advertising Corporation filed a complaint for damages against Transworld Media Ads, Inc. and Comark International Corporation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Civil Case No. 03-1452).
- Transworld answered with a counterclaim and third-party complaint against Ruks Konsult and Construction, alleging that Ruks had built a billboard structure on a weak foundation prone to collapse.
- Comark denied liability and sought exemplary damages from Transworld for unjust inclusion in the complaint.
- Ruks admitted its contract to construct Transworld’s billboard but denied negligence, asserting reliance on an existing foundation.
- The RTC rendered a Decision on August 25, 2009, holding Transworld and Ruks jointly and severally liable for ₱474,204.00 plus legal interest and attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.00.
- Transworld failed to file its appellant’s brief on time before the Court of Appeals (CA) and its appeal was dismissed by Resolution dated February 3, 2011.
- Ruks appealed the RTC decision to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 94693).
- The CA, in its Decision dated November 16, 2011, affirmed the RTC ruling and, in a Resolution dated December 10, 2012, denied Ruks’s motion for reconsideration.
- Transworld filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 197601 and 205120), both of which were dismissed or denied for procedural failures.
Facts
- Adworld owned a 75 ft. × 60 ft. billboard structure at EDSA Tulay, Guadalupe, Barangka, Mandaluyong.
- On August 11, 2003, Transworld’s adjacent billboard collapsed—allegedly due to extraordinarily strong winds and a weak foundation—and crashed into Adworld’s structure, misaligning it and impairing its foundation.
- On August 19, 2003, Adworld sen