You are on page 1of 3

PS. FERNANDO VERGARA and HERMINIA VERGARA vs.

ERLINDA TORRECAMPO SONKIN


G.R. No. 193659, June 15, 2015
Doctrine: Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for
his own protection.
FACTS:

The petitioners-spouses Vergara (Sps. Vergara) and Spouses Sonkin (Sps. Sonkin) are adjoining
landowners. The property owned by the Sps. Sonkin (Sonkin Property) is slightly lower in
elevation than that owned by Sps. Vergara (Vergara Property).

The Sps Sonkin constructed a house on their property using a portion of the partition wall as
part of the wall of the masters bedroom and bathroom.

Thereafter, the Sps. Vergara levelled the uneven portion of their property making it even higher
than that of the Sonkin Property. Eventually, Sps. Sonkin began to complain that water coming
from the Vergara Property was leaking into their bedroom through the partition wall, causing
cracks, as well as damage, to the paint and the wooden parquet floor. Sps. Sonkin repeatedly
demanded that Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall on their property in order to contain the
landfill that they had dumped thereon, but the same went unheeded.

Sps. Sonkin filed the instant complaint for damages and injunction with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction and issuance of a temporary restraining order.

The CA on appeal ruled that while the act of the Sps Vergara in elevating their property was the
proximate cause of the water seepage, the Sps. Sonkin were guilty of contributory negligence in
building their house directly abutting the perimeter wall. Thus, it deleted the actual damages
ordered by the RTC. It nevertheless awarded the Sonkins moral damages and attorneys fees.

Hence this appeal by the Sps Vergara.


ISSUE: Whether or not the Sps Sonkin are entitled to moral damages
HELD:
NO. Article 2179 of the Civil Code reads:

o Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
Verily, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to
conform for his own protection.
The CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the house of
Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus,
pushing the perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water seepage, the
former is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only failing to observe the two
(2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but also for disregarding the legal
easement (to receive water from higher estates) constituted over their property. As such, Sps.
Sonkin must necessarily and equally bear their own loss.

In view of Sps. Sonkins contributory negligence, the Court deems it appropriate to delete the
award of moral damages in their favor. While moral damages may be awarded whenever the
defendants wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in
Article 2219 of the Civil Code, they are only given to ease the defendants grief and suffering and
should, therefore, reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the
wrong done.

AFIALDA VS HISOLE

FACTS:

Deceased Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their
carabaos at a fixed compensation.
On March 21, 1947, while he was tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and
consequently died of his injuries.
Thus, herein appellant, Loretos elder sister who depended on him for support, filed the
action for damages. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court upon granting a
motion to dismiss filed by spouses Hisole. Subsequently, the plaintiff had taken the
present appeal.

Issue: Whether or not defendants may be held liable for damages when damage is caused to
the animals caretaker.

Ruling of the Court:

Under Article 1905 of the old Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable only for
damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the
animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under Article
1902 of the same code.
In the case at hand, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker,
who was paid for his work as such. Thus, it was his business to try to prevent the animal
from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself.
Being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of
the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences. Deceased does not fall within the ambit of stranger, which is significant
for the claim for damages under the said article.
Moreover, under the said circumstances, the action should not come under Article 1905
of the Civil Code but under the labor laws, i.e. Workmens Compensation Act. The
complaint contained no allegation as to constitute liability under the Civil Code nor the
Workmens Compensation Act. Hence, it alleges no cause of action.

The order appealed from was affirmed.

You might also like