G.R. No. 150304 ; June 15, 2005
QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT and Engineer RAMIR J. TIAMZON, Petitioners, vs. FULGENCIO DACARA, Respondent.

FACTS

On February 28, 1988, Fulgencio Dacara, Jr., driving his Toyota Corolla, rammed into a pile of earth from street diggings on Matahimik Street, Quezon City, causing the vehicle to overturn and sustain damage. The diggings were part of a repair project by the Quezon City Government. Respondent Fulgencio Dacara, Sr., filed a complaint for damages against the city and Engineer Ramir Tiamzon, alleging negligence for failing to install adequate warning devices. Petitioners admitted the incident but claimed they had exercised due care by placing reflectorized paint, sticks, and a buried “gasera” (lantern) as barricades, asserting that the accident was due to the driver’s own negligence.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners negligent under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, holding them liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, noting petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of sufficient warning signs, relying instead on a police report stating there was no warning device. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in applying Article 2189—which they claimed covers only death or physical injuries, not property damage—and in awarding moral damages without definite proof of injury.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) affirming the finding of negligence and applying Article 2189 of the Civil Code to a case involving property damage, and (2) awarding moral damages absent a definite finding of the injury suffered.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On the first issue, the Court held that a Rule 45 review is limited to errors of law, and factual findings of the lower courts, when supported by evidence, are conclusive. The CA correctly upheld the RTC’s finding of negligence, as petitioners failed to present evidence proving adequate precautionary measures, contrary to the police report. On the application of Article 2189, the Court ruled that the provision on liability for defective public works is not limited to death or physical injuries; it extends to all damages caused by such defects, including property damage, as the law aims to ensure public safety.
On the second issue, the Court modified the award by deleting the moral damages. It reiterated that moral damages must compensate for actual injury, not penalize the wrongdoer. The RTC’s award was based on a generic finding without specifying the nature of the suffering, making it a penalty rather than compensation. However, the award of exemplary damages was sustained as warranted by petitioners’ negligent acts. The Court emphasized that legal theories not raised in the trial court cannot be introduced on appeal.