FACTS:

Jasmin Cardaña, a 12-year-old school child, died when a branch of a caimito tree within the San Roque Elementary School premises fell on her while she was walking along the perimeter fence on February 1, 1993. Her parents filed a case for damages against Joaquinita Capili, the school's principal. The parents alleged that Capili was grossly negligent and lacked foresight for failing to take appropriate action even after being informed about the danger posed by the tree. According to the parents, a resident had reported the potential hazard on December 15, 1992. Capili, however, denied the allegations and claimed to have no knowledge that the tree was dead and rotting. She presented witnesses who testified that she had even brought up the idea of buying the tree during a meeting on the same date and had assigned someone to negotiate the purchase. The trial court dismissed the complaint, while the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding Capili liable for Jasmin's death. Consequently, Capili now seeks a review of the appellate court's decision before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner negligent and therefore liable for damages

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner negligent and therefore liable for damages. The trial court had already dismissed the complaint for failure to establish negligence on the part of the petitioner. The court noted that there is an exception to the general rule that questions of fact are not proper in a petition for review when the findings of the Court of Appeals are incongruent with the findings of the lower court. In this case, the trial court ruled that the petitioner exercised the degree of care and vigilance required by the circumstances and that there was no evidence to require her to use a higher standard of care. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioner should have known the condition of the tree and should have had it removed immediately. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner liable for negligence.

PRINCIPLES:

• Negligence refers to an inadvertent act done carelessly and lacking ordinary prudence, which creates an unreasonable risk to another. It is an act that an ordinary prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would foresee as causing harm to others.