Southeastern College vs.

CA
Facts: 1) Private respondents Juanita de Jesus Vda. de Dimaano, et al., own a house at College Road in Quezon City. Petitioner Southeastern College, Inc. (Southeastern) owns a four-storey school building along the same College Road. 2) Typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila. the roof of Southeastern's building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents' house. According to the city building official's report, some of the factors that may have led to the calamitous event was the formation of Southeastern's building and the improper anchorage of its roofing trusses (neither bolted nor nailed, hence relatively easily dislodged by the strong winds of the typhoon) to the roof beams; he recommended therein that the fourth floor of Southeastern's building be declared as a structural hazard. 3) Private respondents filed before the Pasay RTC a case for damages based on culpa aquiliana, alleging that the damage to their house rendered the same uninhabitable, forcing them to stay temporarily in other people's houses. They sought to recover P117,116 as actual damages, P1,000,000 as moral damages, P300,000 as exemplary damages, P100,000 for attorney's fees, and costs. 4) Southwestern averred that its school building had withstood several devastating typhoons in the past without its roofing giving way, and that it had not been remiss in its responsibility to see to it that its building is in tip-top condition, and that Typhoon Saling is an act of god, beyond human control, such that it (Southwestern) cannot be answerable for the damages wrought absent any negligence on its part. 5) The trial court, giving credence to report saying that the school building had a "defective roofing structure", ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring that the damage to private respondents' houses could have been avoided had the construction of the school building's roof been not faulty. The CA affirmed the decision, with modification.

Issue: Is Southeastern liable for the damage caused to private respondents by Typhoon Saling, being an act of God? Ruling: No, Southwestern is not liable for damages. There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. In order to be exempt from liability arising from any adverse consequence engendered thereby, there should have been no human participation amounting to a negligent act. A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his injury or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact. Private respondents merely relied on the report submitted by a team which made an ocular (i.e. by means of actual sight or viewing) inspection of Southeastern's school building after the typhoon. However, what is visual to the eye is not always reflective of the real cause behind. The relationship of cause and effect must be clearly shown. Other than the said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the partial unroofing of Southeastern's school building. Private respondents did not even show that the plans, specifications and design of said school building were deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any substantial deviation from the approved plans and specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish that the construction of such building was basically flawed. Southeastern, on the other hand, showed that the original plans and design of petitioner's school building were approved by the city government prior to its construction. Furthermore, when part of the building's roof needed repairs in the wake of the damage caused by Typhoon Saling, the same city official (mentioned in the facts, that is) gave the go-signal for such repairs -without any deviation from the original design. This proves that the school building suffers from no structural defect. Southeastern also revealed that an annual maintenance inspection and repair drive of its school building was regularly undertaken. Decision reversed.

Dioquino vs. Laureano

Facts: 1) Plaintiff Atty. Pedro Dioquino (Dioquino) had a car. 2) Dioquino went to the office of the MVO (Motor Vehicle [I don't know what the "O" stands for -probably "operator", but I don't really think so]) to register the car, and met defendant Federico Laureano, who was waiting for a jeepney to take him to the office of the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary (PC). Dioquino requested Laureano to introduce him to one of the clerks in the MVO office, so as to facilitate the registration of his car -- this was done. 3) Laureano rode on Dioquino's car, driven by Dioquino's driver, en route to the PC Barracks. While about to reach their destination, the car was stoned by some "mischievous boys", and its windshield was broken. Laureano chased the boys and was able to catch one of them. The boy was taken to Dioquino and admitted to having thrown the stone that broke the car's windshield. Dioquino and Laureano called the boy's father, but no satisfactory arrangements were made about the damage to the windshield. 4) Laureano refused to file any charges against the boy and his parents, thinking that the stonethrowing was merely accidentaly and due to force majeure. He likewise refused to pay for the windshield himself and challenged that the case be brought to court for adjudication, despite Dioquino's attempts to amicably settle the matter, because he believes that he could not be held liable because a minor throw a stone accidentally on the car's windshield and therefore, the same was due to force majeure. Issue: Is Laureano liable for damages? Ruling: No, he is not. Laureano's belief that he could not be held liable was justified. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the

assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be, foreseen, or which, though foreseen were inevitable.

Indeed, the rule is well-settled that in the absence of a legal provision or an express covenant, no one should be held to account for fortuitous cases. If it could be shown that such was indeed the case, liability is ruled out. There is no requirement of "diligence beyond what human care and foresight can provide". The error committed by the lower court in holding defendant Federico Laureano liable appears to be obvious. Its own findings of fact repel the motion that he should be made to respond in damages to the plaintiff for the broken windshield. What happened was clearly unforeseen -- a fortuitous event resulting in a loss which must be borne by the owner of the car. An element of reasonableness in the law would be manifestly lacking if, on the circumstances as thus disclosed, legal responsibility could be imputed to an individual in Laureano's situation. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code guards against the possibility of its being visited with such a reproach. Unfortunately, the lower court was of a different mind and thus failed to heed its command. Decision reversed.

Ylarde vs. CA
Nature of action: petition for review of CA decision affirming the decision of the CFI of Pangasinan dismissing the complaint for damages against herein private respondents Facts: 1) In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano (Soriano) was the principal of Gabaldon Primary School, in Pangasinan, and private respondent Edgardo Aquino (Aquino) was a teacher therein. 2) At the time, the school was fettered with several concrete blocks -- remnants of the old school shop which was destroyed during WWII. Realizing that these blocks were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher, Sergio Banez started burying them one by one as early as 1962 and was able to bury ten of said blocks all by himself. 3) Deciding to help Banez, Aquino gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven,

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

after class and ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole where the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The day after, Aquino called four of the original eighteen (Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde) to continue the digging until the excavation was one meter and forty centimetres deep. At this point, Aquino alone continued digging while the four pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging. When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, Aquino and the four got out of the hole. Then, Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about thirty meters away, intending to borrow from the latter the key to the school workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone". A few minutes after, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning, Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara managed to scramble out in time, but unfortunately, Ylarde was pinned by the block against the wall in a standing position, sustaining crushing injury. Three days later, Ylarde died. Ylarde's parents filed a suit for damages against Aquino and Soriano. The court below dismissed the complaint on the following grounds: (a) the digging done by the students is in line with one of their subjects -- Work Education; and (b) Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person; and (c) Ylarde's demise was due to his own reckless imprudence. The CA affirmed the lower court's decision; hence, the present petition.

Soriano cannot be made responsible for Ylarde's death, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Under Art. 2180, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. (In a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable.) Besides, Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging. As regards Edgardo Aquino: It can be easily seen that Aquino can be held liable under Art. 2180, being the teacher-incharge of the children, for his negligence in his supervision over them and for his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons. However, petitioners base Aquino's alleged liability on Art. 2176, which is separate and distinct from that provided for in Art. 2180. Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he (a) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (b) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (c) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling; (d) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety; and (e) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance. Aquino's negligent act in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to Ylarde's death. Left by themselves, it was but natural for the children to play around. Tired from the strenuous digging, they just had to amuse themselves with whatever they found. Driven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not knowing the risk they were facing three of them jumped into

Issue: Are private respondents liable for damages under Arts. 2176 and 2180? Ruling: As regards the principal:

the hole while the other one jumped on the stone. Since the stone was so heavy and the soil was loose from the digging, it was natural that the stone would fall into the hole beside it, causing injury on the unfortunate child caught by its heavy weight. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of Aquino's negligent act. Needless to say, Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company. A truly careful and cautious person would have acted in all contrast to the way Aquino did. Were it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and Ylarde would probably be alive today, a grown- man of thirty-five. Due to Aquino's failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish all these years. Decision reversed. Aquino is ordered by the Supreme Court to pay petitioners the following: (1) indemnity for the death of Ylarde (P30,000.00); (2) exemplary damages (P10,000.00); and (3) moral damages (P20,000.00). Facts: 1) A Mercedes Benz panel truck of petitioner Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. (Sanitary Steam) and a Cimarron collided at the Aguinaldo Highway in Imus, Cavite, causing the death of three persons and the injuries of several others. All the victims were riding in the Cimarron, one of which (a casualty) was the driver. 2) The Makati RTC found Sanitary Steam's driver responsible for the vehicular accident and

accordingly held Sanitary Steam liable to private respondents for P472,262.30 in damages and attorney's fees. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.