G.R. No. 126389 July 10, 1998
SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA. DE DIMAANO, EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, CONSOLACION DIMAANO and MILAGROS DIMAANO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents are the owners of a house at 326 College Road, Pasay City. Petitioner owns a four-storey school building along the same road. On October 11, 1989, typhoon “Saling” hit Metro Manila. Strong winds ripped off and blew away part of the roof of petitioner’s school building, which landed on and destroyed portions of the roofing of private respondents’ house. An ocular inspection and report by a team of engineers headed by the city building official indicated that factors contributing to the damage included the building’s U-shaped formation acting as a funnel for westerly winds and, most likely, the improper anchorage of the roofing structural trusses to the roof beams, with some trusses not anchored at all. The report recommended declaring the fourth floor a “structural hazard.” Private respondents filed a complaint for damages based on culpa aquiliana, alleging their house was rendered uninhabitable. They sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. Petitioner defended by claiming the building had withstood past typhoons, was maintained in good condition, and that the typhoon was an “act of God.” The trial court found the roofing structure defective and held petitioner liable, awarding actual damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the moral damages. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue, determinative of the others, is whether the damage to private respondents’ house was due to a fortuitous event (typhoon “Saling”) exempting petitioner from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, or whether petitioner’s concurrent negligence removed the event from being a purely fortuitous one.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Southeastern College Inc. It held that the damage was due to a fortuitous event, and private respondents failed to prove by competent evidence that petitioner was negligent. Typhoon “Saling” was a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence that may be foreseen but is unavoidable. For a fortuitous event to exempt from liability, the person must be free from any previous negligence. The burden of proving negligence causative of the injury lies with the claimant. Here, private respondents relied solely on the post-typhoon ocular inspection report. The Court found this insufficient, as an ocular inspection reveals only what is visual, not necessarily the definitive cause. The report’s findings on improper anchorage were not conclusive proof of negligence, especially absent evidence that such condition existed prior to the typhoon or that it constituted a lack of due care. The building had withstood previous typhoons. The Court concluded that the private respondents did not affirmatively establish by competent evidence that petitioner was guilty of negligence which concurred with the typhoon in causing the damage. Therefore, petitioner is not liable. The trial court decision was reversed and set aside, and the complaint was ordered dismissed. The writ of execution was set aside, and private respondents were ordered to return any amounts received.