View full case

GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. GLORIA E. CHATTO

FACTS:

Plaintiffs Gloria Chatto and her 15-year old daughter, Lina Delza E. Chatto, went to watch a movie at Superama I theater owned by defendant Gotesco Investment Corporation. Despite buying balcony tickets, they were unable to find seats due to the large number of people in the theater. Ten minutes after entering, the ceiling of the balcony collapsed, causing panic and darkness. The plaintiffs managed to crawl out from under the fallen ceiling and sought medical treatment. Plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto suffered various injuries, while plaintiff Gloria Chatto also sustained injuries and subsequently traveled to the United States for further treatment.

This case involves an appeal filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of a theater, claiming that the lower court erred in admitting certain evidence and in finding that the appellant was grossly negligent in failing to properly maintain the building. The respondent court ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the exhibits in question, including hospital records, flight coupons, and photographs, as the petitioner did not object to their admissibility during the trial. The court also found that the appellant was grossly negligent in failing to adequately inspect, maintain, and upkeep the building, leading to the collapse of the ceiling and the resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. The court awarded moral damages to the plaintiffs, considering the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, and serious anxiety they experienced, as well as the permanent deformities suffered by one of the plaintiffs. The appellant appealed the decision of the respondent court, raising various issues related to the admissibility of evidence and the finding of gross negligence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the photographs presented as evidence are hearsay.

  2. Whether the collapse of the ceiling was due to construction defects or force majeure.

  3. Whether the petitioner's evidence of due diligence in the care and maintenance of the building was considered by the court.

  4. Whether the cause of the collapse of the ceiling was due to force majeure.

  5. Whether the admission of the exhibits in question was correct.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner is liable for negligence despite the contention that the collapse was caused by force majeure.

RULING:

  1. The objection to the photographs as hearsay is incorrect. The photographs can be admitted as evidence if they are shown to be a true and faithful representation of the place or objects they refer to. In this case, the plaintiff identified the photographs as a true representation of her wearing a surgical neckwear.

  2. The lower court did not err in finding that the collapse of the ceiling was due to construction defects and not force majeure. The burden of proof was on the defendant to prove that the theater did not suffer from any structural defect and was well maintained. Since the defendant failed to conduct an exhaustive study of the reason for the collapse, it cannot establish that it was a force majeure event.

  3. The court did not seriously consider the evidence of due diligence presented by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that it had hired engineers to conduct frequent inspections and maintenance precautions, which demonstrated its diligence in care and maintenance of the building.

  4. The cause of the collapse of the ceiling was not due to force majeure. Petitioner failed to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. The building was constructed only four years prior to the accident and there was no evidence to show that any of the causes denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at the time of the collapse. The trial court's finding that the collapse was due to construction defects was not overturned.

  5. The admission of the exhibits in question was correct. The fact that the structural designs and plans of the building were approved by the City Engineer and that building permits and certificate of occupancy were issued does not prove that there were no defects in the construction, especially as regards the ceiling. No testimony was offered to prove that the ceiling was ever inspected.

  6. The petitioner is liable for negligence even if the collapse was caused by force majeure. The presumption of negligence on the part of the petitioner was not overcome. Additionally, even if force majeure was established, the petitioner would still be liable because it was found guilty of gross negligence. It is established that for one to be exempt from liability due to force majeure, they must have exercised care and should not have been guilty of negligence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Photographs can be admitted as evidence if they are shown to be a true representation of the place or objects they refer to.

  • The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that a collapse or incident was due to force majeure and not construction defects.

  • Due diligence in care and maintenance of a building can be established through frequent inspections and maintenance precautions.

  • Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to it, and its findings of fact are conclusive, except in certain exceptions.

  • Force majeure refers to unavoidable accidents or casualties caused by physical causes which are irresistible, such as lightning, tempest, perils of the sea, inundation, or earthquake. It does not include causes that could have been prevented with reasonable oversight, pains, and care.

  • The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement implies a warranty that the premises, appliances, and amusement devices are safe for their intended purpose.

  • If a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured and the accident could have been prevented with proper care, there is a presumption or inference of negligence on the part of the owner or proprietor.

  • To be exempt from liability due to force majeure, one must have exercised care and should not have been guilty of negligence.

  • The admission of exhibits as part of testimonial evidence does not violate the hearsay rule if the fact that the statement was made is relevant, regardless of its truth or falsity.

  • The objection to documentary exhibits should focus on their authenticity and proper authentication, rather than on them being hearsay evidence.