GR 121964; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121964 June 17, 1997
DRA. ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, LEONOR PRIETOS, LEONORA RODRIGUEZ NOLASCO, LUZVIMINDA ANTIG and JUANITA RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HARRY VILORIA, MARGARITA MILAGROS VILORIA and JOHN P. YOUNG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, owners and lessees of apartment buildings, filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against private respondents Harry Viloria, Margarita Milagros Viloria (owners of a construction site), and John P. Young (the building contractor). The complaint alleged that a fire on March 15, 1989, which damaged petitioners’ properties, started from the respondents’ construction site due to the gross negligence of their workers. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the fire was not caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants and that petitioners failed to prove negligence. The trial court also awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to the private respondents on their counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but deleted the award of damages to the private respondents, finding no legal basis for them. Petitioners then filed this petition for review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for damages, specifically concerning: (1) the evaluation of witness testimony; (2) the admissibility of the fire investigation report; and (3) the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in toto.
1. On the evaluation of testimony, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, which found the principal witness for the petitioners, Noel Villarin, not credible. The trial court noted Villarin’s apparent ill-will against respondent Young and that his account was belied by other witnesses. The Court deferred to the trial court’s firsthand opportunity to observe witness demeanor.
2. On the admissibility of the fire investigation report, the Court ruled it was hearsay and properly excluded. The report was based on statements from informants who were not shown to have a duty to report the facts, and the investigating officer had no personal knowledge of the events.
3. On the application of res ipsa loquitur, the Court found the doctrine inapplicable. One of its requisites is that the instrumentality causing the injury must be under the exclusive control of the defendant. The Court agreed with the lower courts that petitioners failed to establish that the fire originated from an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the private respondents. The cause of the fire was not definitively ascertained.
The Court also sustained the deletion of the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees to the private respondents, as there was no evidence of a wrongful act, fraud, or bad faith on the part of the petitioners in filing the suit.