G.R. No. L-29993 - Torio vs. Fontanilla

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29993)

Key Dates and Procedural History

Incident: January 22–23, 1959 (collapse and death). Complaint filed: September 11, 1959 (Court of First Instance of Manila). Trial court decision: July 10, 1962 (dismissal). Court of Appeals decision: October 31, 1968 (reversed; awarded damages, attorney’s fees). Supreme Court review decision: rendered in 1978 (Supreme Court affirmed liability of the municipality but absolved the municipal councilors).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

Primary statutory authorities and rules invoked in the decision: Revised Administrative Code (Municipal Law) sec. 2125 (municipal corporate powers) and sec. 2282 (authority to fix and permit celebration of fiestas); Civil Code provisions on delict and respondeat superior (Arts. 2176 and 2180), statute imposing liability for defective public works (Art. 2189), and grant of attorney’s fees (Art. 2208(11)). Constitutional context: the court applied the legal framework applicable at the time of decision (the constitution in force at that time), while grounding municipal powers and liabilities in the Revised Administrative Code and Civil Code.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the celebration of a municipal town fiesta under sec. 2282 of the Revised Administrative Code is a governmental (public) function or a corporate/proprietary (private) function of the municipality; and 2) Consequent civil liability for the Municipality and for individual municipal councilors and agents for the death caused by the stage collapse.

Governing Legal Principles on Municipal Functions

Municipalities possess a dual character: governmental (public, political) functions and corporate/proprietary (private) functions. The classification dictates liability: generally, no civil liability attaches to municipalities for torts arising from governmental acts (absent statute), whereas proprietary functions expose the municipality to liability ex delicto or ex contractu under ordinary principles of civil responsibility (respondeat superior). Determination whether an act is governmental or proprietary depends on the nature and purpose of the act and its surrounding circumstances; no single test is conclusive. Precedents and authorities cited include Mendoza v. de Leon and relevant American municipal law doctrine illustrating the dual-capacity analysis.

Characterization of the Fiesta as Proprietary

Applying the foregoing tests and focusing on sec. 2282 (which grants authority but does not impose a duty to hold a fiesta), the court concluded that holding the town fiesta was a proprietary function. Rationale: the fiesta was an activity undertaken for the special benefit and entertainment of the local community rather than the execution of a state policy for the general public welfare; it did not implicate core governmental duties such as policing, administration of justice, or public instruction. Analogies were drawn to maintenance of parks and recreational facilities (proprietary) as contrasted with strictly governmental services (e.g., schools, prisons). The court emphasized that the absence of profit does not convert an activity into a governmental one if its essential character is local and private in nature.

Municipal Liability under Respondeat Superior

Because the fiesta was proprietary, the Municipality stood in the position of an ordinary corporate actor and could be held liable for torts committed by its agents. Under Arts. 2176 and 2180, the municipality is civilly liable for harm caused by the negligence of persons for whom it is responsible. The Court of Appeals’ factual findings of negligence were accepted: the stage was inadequately constructed (limited appropriation of P100; bamboo posts and braces; apparent insufficiency of support); testimony that essential braces were removed was found implausible; lack of supervision allowed many spectators to mount a stage not designed for the extra load. Those circumstances established negligence and a failure to exercise the care of a prudent person (or “good father of the family”) in supervising and ensuring the safety of the stage. Accordingly, the Municipality was liable for damages to Fontanilla’s heirs.

Agency and Responsibility of the Stage Constructor

Jose Macaraeg, as chairman of the subcommittee on entertainment and the person designated to supervise stage construction, acted as an agent of the Municipality. The Municipality cannot evade responsibility by pointing to the agent who actually constructed the stage because, under respondeat superior, the principal (municipality) is answerable for negligent acts of its agents acting within assigned duties. The court relied on the established rule that political subdivisions remain liable for negligence in proprietary undertakings performed through appointed committees and agents.

Liability of Municipal Councilors

The Court of Appeals had applied Article 27 of the Civil Code (covering remedies against public officers who refuse or neglect to perform official duties) to impose joint and several liability on the municipal councilors. The Supreme Court determined that Article 27 addresses nonfeasance (refusal or neglect to perform an official duty) and is not the proper basis to impose liability for misfeasance or negligence in performance of official duties. Moreover, where a municipality ac

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29993)

Case Title, Citation, and Decision

Reported in 175 Phil. 94, First Division, G.R. No. L-29993 and G.R. No. L-30183, both decided October 23, 1978.
Decision authored by Justice Muñoz Palma; Justices Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, and Guerrero concurred.
The case presents consolidated petitions: one by members of the 1959 Municipal Council of Malasiqui (G.R. L-29993) and another by the Municipality of Malasiqui (G.R. L-30183), both seeking review of Court of Appeals rulings.

Central Legal Question

Whether the celebration of a town fiesta authorized by a municipal council under Section 2282 of the Municipal Law (Revised Administrative Code) is a governmental (public) function or a corporate/proprietary (private) function of the municipality.
The legal classification determines municipal and councilors' civil liability for damages arising from a death during the 1959 town fiesta allegedly due to municipal negligence.

Undisputed Factual Background

On October 21, 1958, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui passed Resolution No. 159 resolving "to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration on January 21, 22, and 23, 1959."
Resolution No. 182 created the "1959 Malasiqui Town Fiesta Executive Committee," which organized a subcommittee on entertainment and stage chaired by Jose Macaraeg.
The council appropriated P100.00 for construction of two stages: one for the "zarzuela" and another for the "cancionan".
The "zarzuela" stage as constructed: 5-1/2 meters by 8 meters, wooden floor higher at the rear, supported by 24 bamboo posts described as "4 in a row in front, 4 in the rear and 5 on each side" and with bamboo braces (petitioners’ brief, pp. 3-4).
The "Midas Extravaganza" zarzuela troupe, donated by an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan, Rizal, arrived the evening of January 22; Vicente Fontanilla, a member of the troupe, was present.
Program started about 10:15 p.m. of January 22 with speeches; before the dramatic part, the stage collapsed, pinning Vicente Fontanilla at the rear.
Vicente Fontanilla was taken to San Carlos General Hospital and died the following afternoon.

Procedural History

Heirs of Vicente Fontanilla filed complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 11, 1959, naming the Municipality of Malasiqui, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, and individual 1959 council members as defendants.
Defendants’ principal defenses:
- Municipality: as a public corporation performing sovereign/governmental functions (town fiesta was governmental), thus immune from liability for negligence of its agents.
- Councilors: acted as municipal agents implementing ordinance to manage the fiesta, non-profit undertaking, exercised due care and diligence.
Trial court (Presiding Judge Gregorio T. Lantin) limited issue to whether defendants exercised due diligence in stage construction; found Executive Committee exercised due diligence "like a good father of the family" in selecting a competent builder, and concluded collapse was due to forces beyond committee's control; complaint dismissed (decision dated July 10, 1962).
Court of Appeals, Fourth Division (Justices Salvador V. Esguerra, Nicasio A. Yatco, Eulogio S. Serrano), reversed on October 31, 1968, finding negligence and ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally: P12,000.00 (moral and actual damages), P1,200.00 (attorney's fees), plus costs.
Consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court challenged the Court of Appeals' rulings; main contention centered on classification of fiesta as governmental vs. proprietary function.

Statutory and Doctrinal Authorities Considered

Section 2282, Chapter on Municipal Law, Revised Administrative Code: authorizes a municipality to hold a yearly fiesta on a date fixed by the municipal council, with allowance for postponement upon weighty reasons.
Section 2125, Art. 1, Municipal Law (Revised Administrative Code): municipalities are political bodies corporate and may sue and be sued.
Civil Code provisions cited:
- Art. 2176: "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done."
- Art. 2180: Obligation under Art. 2176 is demandable for acts/omissions of persons for whom one is responsible (respondeat superior).
- Art. 2189: Provinces, cities, and municipalities liable for damages caused by defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision (cited as example of statutory liability).
- Art. 2208, paragraph 11: Court may grant attorney's fees when just and equitable.
Doctrinal sources and cases referenced:
- Mendoza v. de Leon (33 Phil. 508): classification examples of governmental vs. proprietary municipal functions.
- McQuillin on Municipal Corporations; City of Kokomo v. Loy (112 N.E. 994-995) — dual capacity test for municipalities.
- Dillon on Municipal Corporations — principles on liability and doctrine of respondeat superior.
- Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte (L-10659) — province not liable for road construction death due to governmental function.
- Sanders v. City of Long Beach (129 P.2d 511) — "Know your City Week" held proprietary; municipality owed ordinary care to invitees.
- Pope v. City of New Haven (99 A.R. 51) — differing treatment in Connecticut; surrounding political/social context influential.
- Supporting jurisprudence cited regarding appellate fact findings and non-disturbance absent abuse: De Gala-Sison v. Manalo; Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.; Tan v. Court of Appeals; Chan v. Court of Appeals.

Governing Tests and Principles Applied

Dual-capacity doctrine: municipalities exercise governmental (public) functions and corporate/proprietary (private) functions; characterization depends on nature and purpose of the activity and surrounding circumstances.
No single conclusive test;