Recently, the Philippines endured the parade and march of tropical storms from Crising to Dante to Emong which resulted to serious flooding all over the country. News about Metro Manila having been inundated for days because of these weather disturbances had filled the internet. One video showing a child, more or less at the age of three, who fell in a manhole or open construction having been pushed by the flood and was fortunately saved by a bystanders, became trending.
Netizens had different comments and stand as to who shall be liable to the injuries sustained by the child. Blaming the parents the open manhole, the city and the storm. Although, the said legal scenario need to consider several factual issues and circumstances and is best resolved in our court, I found it necessary to expound why some of the netizens point to the city as the one being responsible for the injuries sustained by the child.
The basis of the netizens in saying that the city where the said construction was located may be held liable is found in Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. As enshrined therein: Provinces, Cities and Municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision.
The Supreme Court had already clarified that under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach, that the defective public works belong to the Province, City or Municipality from which responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality has either “control or supervision” over the public building in question.[1]
The case of Bernardino Jimenez vs City of Manila, where a man was pierced in his foot by a nail after stepping on an uncovered opening which could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater. In the said case, the Supreme Court expounded:
“There is no argument that it is the duty of the City of Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. While it may be conceded that the fulfillment of such duties is extremely difficult during storms and floods, it must however, be admitted that ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize the dangers to life and limb under those difficult circumstances.
For instance, the drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls instead of on the passage ways. Even more important is the fact, that the City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. Sadly, the evidence indicates that long before petitioner fell into the opening, it was already uncovered, and five (5) months after the incident happened, the opening was still uncovered.
To recapitulate, it appears evident that the City of Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
One of the defenses which a Province, City or Municipality may invoke against liability in case like this or on the basis of a quasi-delict, is that one must have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family as expressed under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.
Jurisprudence defines diligence of a good father of a family as the reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation. The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable case and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.[2]
[1] G.R. No. 71049 May 29, 1987
[2] G.R. No. 138334