View full case

SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE v. CA

FACTS:

Private respondents are owners of a house in Pasay City, while petitioner owns a four-storey school building along the same road. During a typhoon, the roof of petitioner's building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents' house. The city building official conducted an ocular inspection and found that the improper anchorage of the roof had caused the damage. Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, alleging that the damage rendered their house uninhabitable. The trial court awarded damages in favor of private respondents, while the Court of Appeals reduced the amount of moral damages awarded. Petitioner filed this petition for review seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the award of actual damages to respondent Dimaanos, based on speculation without proof or receipts, is legally justified.

  2. Whether the award of moral damages to respondent Dimaanos, without having suffered actual damage, has legal basis.

  3. Whether respondent Dimaanos, who are no longer the owners of the property subject matter of the case during its pendency, has the right to pursue their complaint.

  4. Whether the award of attorney's fees is legally justified when the case was already moot and academic.

  5. Whether petitioner is liable for damage caused by typhoon "Saling," being an act of God.

  6. Whether the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, ex-parte or without hearing, has support in law.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that no clear and convincing evidence was provided to justify the award of actual damages.

  2. The Supreme Court held that without establishing negligence or bad faith on the part of the petitioner, the claim for moral damages must fail.

  3. Since the damages awarded were not justified, the issue of ownership during the pendency of the complaint was unnecessary to resolve.

  4. The award for attorney's fees is unwarranted as the damages claimed were not justified.

  5. The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner is not liable for the damages as typhoon "Saling" was a fortuitous event, and the petitioner’s construction and maintenance of the building were not proven to be negligent.

  6. The writ of execution issued without a hearing is nullified and set aside.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 1174 of the Civil Code: No person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

  • An act of God cannot be invoked for protection if there is concurrent human negligence.

  • The burden of proving negligence rests on the party claiming damages.

  • Damages must be proved with clear and convincing evidence, not merely speculative estimates.