View full case

FERNANDO v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court to reverse the amended decision of the Court of Appeals. The trial court initially dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals later reversed that decision and ordered the City of Davao to pay damages to the plaintiffs. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals issued an amended decision reversing its earlier decision and dismissing the case.

The antecedent facts, as summarized by the trial court, reveal that five individuals named Bertulano, Garcia, Liagoso, Fernando, and Fajardo were found dead inside a septic tank in Agdao Public Market. They entered the tank without clearance or knowledge from the market master and died from asphyxia due to toxic gas. On appeal, the petitioners argued that the City of Davao was negligent and that its negligence caused the deaths of the victims.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the city government of Davao was negligent in failing to clean the septic tank, resulting in the accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas.

  2. Whether the public respondent's negligence was the proximate cause of the fatal incident.

  3. Whether or not the lack of a ventilation pipe in the toilet constitutes negligence on the part of the city government.

  4. Whether or not warning signs of noxious gas should have been put up in the toilet.

  5. Whether or not the victims' negligence in opening the septic tank is the proximate cause of the accident.

  6. Whether or not the failure of the market master to supervise the area where the septic tank is located constitutes negligence on the part of the public respondent.

  7. Whether or not there was a contractual relationship between the victims and the City Government of Davao City.

  8. Whether or not the City Government of Davao City can be held liable for the death of the victims.

RULING:

  1. The court found that while the city government of Davao was negligent in failing to re-empty the septic tank annually, such negligence was not a continuing one. The public respondent immediately responded and took remedial measures to clean the septic tank upon receiving the report. Despite the negligence, people have been using the public toilet for their personal necessities without any casualties. Therefore, the negligence did not directly cause the fatal incident.

  2. The court ruled that the public respondent’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the fatal incident. It stated that where the resulting injury was the product of the negligence of both parties, it is difficult to discern which acts shall be considered the proximate cause of the accident. The court established that the cause of the accident was the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it, which produced the sinking of the track and sliding of the iron rails. The act of walking by the side of the car did not contribute to the accident itself, but only to the victim's own injury. Therefore, the public respondent's negligence contributed only to the injury, not to the accident itself.

  3. The lack of a ventilation pipe in the toilet does not constitute negligence on the part of the city government. Engineer Demetrio Alindada testified that the safety requirements for emission of gases in the construction of the toilet and septic tank have been complied with. The petitioners did not present competent evidence to rebut this testimony.

  4. Warning signs of noxious gas were not required to be put up in the toilet. Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se that would necessitate the putting up of warning signs. While compliance with safety and sanitary requirements is necessary in the construction of public facilities, warning signs are not one of those requirements.

  5. The victims' negligence in opening the septic tank is the proximate cause of the accident. It is unlikely that an accident such as toxic gas leakage would happen unless the septic tank covers are removed. The victims, who were not authorized to open the septic tank, should have been aware of the risks and taken precautionary measures. Their failure to do so was the proximate cause of the accident.

  6. The failure of the market master to supervise the area where the septic tank is located does not constitute negligence on the part of the public respondent. The market master knew that work on the septic tank was still forthcoming and the bidding process had just been conducted. The duty of supervision would only arise once the contract has been awarded.

  7. The Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court that there was no contractual relationship between the victims and the City Government of Davao City. The victims did not win the bid for the project, and therefore, there was a total absence of contractual relations that could give rise to any contractual obligation or liability on the part of Davao City.

  8. The Court held that the proximate and immediate cause of the death of the victims was their own negligence. The victims undertook the job of cleaning the septic tank without clearance from the market master or any security guards. Therefore, the City Government of Davao City cannot be held liable for damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Negligence of both parties can make it difficult to determine the proximate cause of an accident.

  • Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury, with acts of the victim contributing only to the injury, not the accident itself.

  • Negligence that contributes to the principal occurrence makes the claimant unable to recover, while negligence that contributes only to the claimant's own injury allows limited recovery.

  • Lack of a ventilation pipe in a toilet does not necessarily constitute negligence if it is shown that safety requirements for emission of gases have been complied with.

  • Warning signs of noxious gas are not required in toilets and septic tanks as they are not nuisances per se.

  • The victims' negligence in opening a septic tank, without authority and without taking precautionary measures, may be considered the proximate cause of an accident.

  • The duty to supervise arises when the contract has been awarded and work on a project has commenced.

  • The absence of a contractual relationship precludes any contractual obligation or liability on the part of the government entity.

  • Proximate cause is the cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.