G.R. No. L-31611 November 29, 1976
BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ and DOMINGO N. BALISALISA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ELISEO G. BALOYO and SOLEDAD RAMOS DE BALOYO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents-spouses Eliseo and Soledad Baloyo filed a suit for damages arising from the death of their nine-year-old daughter, Edna. The tragedy occurred on March 21, 1964, inside the grounds of the A. Mabini Elementary School in Manila. Petitioners Benigno C. Gutierrez, a contractor, and Domingo N. Balisalisa, his project engineer, were undertaking a drainage construction project on the adjacent Severino Street. Their workers, using a crane, excavated earth and mud and dumped it against the school’s adobe stone fence. To compact the pile, the crane’s steel scooper was used to press down on the material, placing heavy stress on the fence.
This operation caused a portion of the fence to collapse during school hours. Edna Baloyo, who was playing inside the school grounds, was hit, pinned, and buried under the falling debris and caved-in earth. She was rushed to the hospital but died shortly thereafter. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding them a total of P61,000.00 in actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award, albeit with a modified itemization of the damages.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are liable for damages due to the negligence that caused the death of Edna Baloyo, particularly in light of their defense regarding the employment status of the crane operators.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding petitioners solidarily liable. The Court rejected petitioners’ defense questioning the employer-employee relationship with the crane operators. This defense was raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore barred. Moreover, the Court found that the defense was substantively without merit. The construction contract expressly stipulated that Gutierrez was to furnish his own labor and equipment. The crane operator was indisputably managing equipment at the construction site for the defendants’ project, establishing the employment relationship.
Procedurally, the Court emphasized that petitioners’ “specific denial for want of sufficient knowledge or information” in their answer regarding the employment of the crane operators was evasive and ineffective. Matters within the peculiar knowledge of a pleader cannot be denied in this manner. Such an ineffective denial results in a judicial admission of the averred facts. On the merits, the evidence conclusively established gross negligence on the part of petitioners and their workers. The method of piling and compacting earth against the school fence created an unreasonable risk, directly causing its collapse and the child’s death. The award of exemplary damages was justified to serve as a deterrent, emphasizing the public welfare imperative of holding contractors accountable for negligence in public works. The totality of the damages awarded was deemed proper under the circumstances.