SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA.

DE
DIMAANO, EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, CONSOLACION DIMAANO and MILAGROS
DIMAANO, respondents; PURISIMA, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondents are owners of a house at 326 College Road, Pasay while petitioner owns a four-storey school
building along the same College Road. That on October 11, 1989, a powerful typhoon hit Metro Manila. Buffeted by
very strong winds, the roof of the petitioners building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying
portions of the roofing of private respondents house. When the typhoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the
destroyed building was conducted by a team of engineers headed by the city building official.
In their report, they imputed negligence to the petitioner for the structural defect of the building and improper
anchorage of trusses to the roof beams to cause for the roof be ripped off the building, thereby causing damage to the
property of respondent.
Respondents filed an action before the RTC for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana. Petitioner interposed
denial of negligence and claimed that the typhoon as an Act of God is the sole cause of the damage. RTC ruled in
their favor relying on the testimony of the City Engineer and the report made after the ocular inspection. Petitioners
appeal before the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence this present appeal.
ISSUES:A
(1) Whether the damage on the roof of the building of private respondents resulting from the impact of the falling
portions of the school buildings roof ripped off by the strong winds of typhoon Saling, was, within legal
contemplation, due to fortuitous event?
(2) Whether or not an ocular inspection is sufficient evidence to prove negligence?
HELD:
1. Yes, petitioner should be exonerated from liability arising from the damage caused by the typhoon. Under Article
1174 of the Civil Code, 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.
In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous
12
negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked
for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse
consequences. When a persons negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or injury to another,
such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damages or injury
was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man whether it be from
active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the
rules applicable to acts of God.
In the case at bar, the lower court accorded full credence to the finding of the investigating team that subject school
buildings roofing had no sufficient anchorage to hold it in position especially when battered by strong winds. Based
on such finding, the trial court imputed negligence to petitioner and adjudged it liable for damages to private
respondents.
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. In other words; the person seeking exoneration from liability must not be guilty of negligence. Negligence, as
commonly understood, is conduct which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be the
failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justify demand, or the
omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man, guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do.
2. It bears emphasizing that 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
19
affirmatively established by competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact.
Private respondents, in establishing the culpability of petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned report submitted
by a team which made an ocular inspection of petitioners school building after the typhoon. As the term imparts, an

ocular inspection is one by means of actual sight or viewing. What is visual to the eye through, is not always reflective
of the real cause behind.
In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause
of the partial unroofing of petitioners school building.