SC:

PETITIONER
ISSUE:
W/N
P. Burgos Ave
is under control
of the its
City of Manila
(1) Petitioner
filed
a complaint
for damages
against or
thesupervision
City of Manila,
RESPONDENT
andcity
W/N
the latter
is health
guilty officer,
of negligence
in connection
w the
maintenance of said
Petitioner: Genaro N. Teotico
mayor,
engineer,
city
city treasurer,
and chief
of police.
(1) Defense presented
evidence,
oral and documentary, to prove that
raod.
(YES)
Respondent: City of Manila
(2) At the
time
of the incident, he was a practicing pubic accountant, a
the Storm Drain Section, Office of the City Engineer of Manila,
businessman, and a professor at UE. He held responsible positions in
received a report of(1)
the Although
uncoveredinsofar
catchbasin/missing
cover on
as territorial
concerned, RA 409 is a
NATURE: Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the CA
various business
firms and was associated
withapplication
several civicis organizations.
several occasions, however
the
same
was
covered
on
the
day of however, as regards the subjectspecial
law
and
CC
a
general
legislation;
As a result of the incident, plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his
the incident. The Office
never
received
any report quoted,
that said
matter
of for
the
provisions
PONENTE: Concepcion, CJ.
customary occupation
20
days andabove
has lost a daily income of P50/day
catchbasin was uncovered
from
January
25-29,
1968;
That
it hasrule regulating the liability of the
- incapacity
Sec 4 oftoRA
409 Because
establishes
during his
work.
of athegeneral
incident,
he was subject to
always been a policy ofCity
theofOffice
that
whenever
a
report
is persons or property arising from
Manila
damages
or injury he
to
DOCTRINE: A local government unit may be held liable for quasi-delict
humiliation and ridicule;
andfor
during
his treatment,
was under constant
received, the matter isfailure
immediately
attended
to, either
by
officers
to enforce
the provisions
of was
saidtheir
act, or any other
under a special provision of the Civil Code
fear and anxiety for of
thecity
welfare
of his
minor children
since he
immediately replacing missing
cover
or
covering
it
with
steel
only support. law or ordinance or from negligence of the city Mayor, Municipal Board
matting; That due to lucrative
scrap iron
business
prevailing,
or other
officers
while
enforcing
of attempting to enforce said provisions.
RULING FORMAT:
(3) The CA applied
Article2189oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:
stealing of iron covers
was
rampant;
That
they
have
fileda particular prescription making
Whereas,
Art
2189
of
CC
constitutes
CFI- Rendered decision sustaining theory of defendants and dismissed
"Provinces,citiesandmunicipalitiesshallbeliablefordamagesfor
complaints in court
resulting
from
theft
of
such;
In
order
to for damages for the death or
provinces,
and
municipalities
liable
amended complaint.
death
of, or cites,
injuries
suffered
by, anyand
person
by reason of
prevent thefts, thethe
city
government
has
changed
the
position
injury suffered by any reasonspecificallyof the defective condition of
CA- Affirmed decision of the CFI; modified costs sentencing City of
defectiveconditionsofroads,streets,bridges,publicbuildings,and
layout of the catchbasins
constructing
them buildings,
under theand other public works under their
roads,by
streets,
bridges, public
Manila to pay damages. Defendant appealed to SC.
otherpublicworksundertheircontrolorsupervision."
sidewalks with concrete
cement
covers
and
openings
on
the side
control
supervision.
Teotico
alleged
in hisorcomplaint
andwhen
amended
complaint
injuries were
of the(4)gutter;
Changes
were
undertaken
funds
were that
In
short, Art.
4 refers
negligence
defective
condition
of to
theliability
a streetarising
whichfrom
is under
the in general,
available. due to the
regardless
of
the
object
thereof;
whereas,
Art
2189
governs
liability
due to the
supervision
and control
of the City.
(2) On appeal to
the SC,defective
respondent
maintained
that the present
streets,
in particular.
Since case
case at bar is based upon alleged
FACTS:
is governed by Sec.defective
4, RA 409
(Charter
the City
of Manila),
condition
of of
a road,
Art 2189
governs.
(1) On January 27, 1958, at about 8pm, Teotico was at the corner of
because RA 409 is a special law, intended exclusively for the City
Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue in Manila, within the loading
of Manila, whereas (2)
the Civil
Codeitsisanswer
a general
law,
applicable
to
Through
to the
amended
complaint,
City of Manila had in effect
and unloading zone, waiting for a jeepney. Upon hailing one, he
the entire Philippines. admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and
stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney and fell inside
"The city shall notsupervision.
be liable or held for damages or injuries
an uncovered and unlighted catchbasin or manhole. Due to the
to persons or(3)property
from
failure
the highway, such assertion raised
As to itsarising
assertion
thatthe
Avenue
is aofnational
fall, his eyeglasses broke causing broken pieces to pierce his left
Mayor, the Municipal
Board,
or
any
other
city
officer,
to
for the first time in its motion for reconsideration
is a question of fact,
eyelid, impairing his vision. He was brought to PGH where his
enforce the provisions
of
this
chapter,
or
any
other
law
or
which had not been put in issue in the trial court, and cannot be set up for
injuries were treated. These included: lacerated wound in his left
ordinance, or from
said Mayor, Municipal
thenegligence
first time onofappeal.
upper eyelid, contusions on the left thigh, left upper arm, right leg
Board, or other
officers
while
enforcing
or itattempting
to
(4) Under Article 2189 of CC,
is not necessary
for the liability established to
and upper lip, abrasion on the right infra-patella region. He was
enforce said provisions."
attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or
charged a total of P1,400 for medical treatment.
(3) Further alleged that it cannot
be held for
damages:
municipality.
What
article requires is that such have either control or
(2)
1. Because accident took
place
in
national
highway,
to if P. Burgos Ave. were a national
supervision over said
street orpursuant
rad. Even
RA 917 and EO highway,
113which
withdraws
and
restricts
it would not detract from its control and supervision by the City
authority of City. of Manila, under RA 409.
2. Because City of(5)
Manila
has not been negligent in connection
ThisauthorityhasbeenneitherwithdrawnnorrestrictedbyRA917and
therewith
EO113,uponwhichtheCityrelies.SaidActgovernsthedispositionor
(4) In its answer to Teoticos complaint, it alleged that "the streets
appropriationofthehighwayfundsandthegivingofaidtoprovinces,
aforementioned were and have been constantly kept in good
charteredcitiesandmunicipalitiesintheconstructionofroadsandstreets
condition and regularly inspected and the storm drains and
withintheirrespectiveboundaries,andEO113merelyimplementsthe
manholes thereof covered
by the defendant City and the officers
concerned" who "have provisionsofsaidRA917,concerningthedispositionandappropriationof
been ever viligant and zealous in the
thehighwayfunds.Moreover,itprovidesthatconstruction,maintenance,
performance of their respective
functions and duties as imposed
shallbeaccomplishedbyHighwayCityEngineers.
upon them by law."
TEOTICO v CITY OF MANILA

Wherefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed.