G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992
Sofia Fernando, in her behalf and as the legal guardian of her minor children, namely: Alberto & Roberto, all surnamed Fernando, Anita Garcia, Nicolas Liagoso, Rosalia Bertulano, in her behalf and as the legal guardian of her minor children, namely: Eduardo, Rolando, Daniel, and Jocelyn, all surnamed Bertulano, Primitiva Fajardo in her behalf and as legal guardian of her minor children, namely: Gilbert, Glen, Jocelyn and Joselito, all surnamed Fajardo, and Emeteria Liagoso, in her behalf and as guardian ad litem, of her minor grandchildren, namely: Noel, William, Genevieve and Gerry, all surnamed Liagoso, petitioners,

vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals and City of Davao, respondents.

FACTS

On November 22, 1975, Aurelio Bertulano, Joselito Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando, and Jose Fajardo, Jr. were found dead inside the septic tank of the Agdao Public Market in Davao City. The victims were presumed to have been re-emptying the tank. An autopsy report stated the cause of death as “asphyxia” due to intake of toxic sulfide gas from the waste matter. Prior to the accident, the market master had filed a requisition for the septic tank’s re-emptying. An invitation to bid was issued, and Feliciano Bascon won the bid, signing the purchase order on November 26, 1975. The victims, however, entered and worked on the septic tank on November 22, 1975, without clearance from the City Engineer’s office, the market master’s knowledge or consent, and before any award was given. The septic tank was almost empty, and the area was hidden by a garbage storage about ten meters away. The petitioners, relatives of the victims, filed a case for damages against the City of Davao. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court and awarded damages but, upon reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision reinstating the dismissal. Petitioners sought review, arguing the City was negligent for failing to clean the septic tank for 19 years, failing to post warning signs, and failing to supervise the area.

ISSUE

1. Is the respondent Davao City guilty of negligence in the case at bar?
2. If so, is such negligence the immediate and proximate cause of the deaths of the victims hereof?

RULING

1. The respondent Davao City was not guilty of negligence under the circumstances. The test for negligence is whether the defendant used the reasonable care and caution an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. The City had initiated the process for cleaning the septic tank through a public bidding. The duty of the market master or security guards to supervise the work had not yet commenced because the winning bidder had not yet been formally awarded the contract, and work was not authorized to start. The victims entered the septic tank surreptitiously, without clearance, knowledge, or consent from any city authority, and their own relatives were unaware of their plan.
2. No, the City’s alleged negligence was not the immediate and proximate cause of the deaths. Proximate cause is that which, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury. The stubborn fact was that from 1956 to 1975, the septic tank had caused no injury or death. The only reasonable conclusion was that the victims’ deaths were caused by their own negligence in opening and entering the septic tank without authorization. Their own act was an efficient intervening cause. The Court also found Article 24 of the Civil Code on protecting the disadvantaged inapplicable, as there was a total absence of contractual relations between the victims and the City Government. The amended decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the case was AFFIRMED.