G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968
CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. GENARO N. TEOTICO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico was waiting for a jeepney at the corner of Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila. As he stepped from the curb to board a jeepney, he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. The fall caused his eyeglasses to break, with pieces piercing his left eyelid. He suffered a lacerated wound on his left upper eyelid, contusions on various parts of his body, and an abrasion. These injuries, and an allergic eruption from anti-tetanus injections, required medical treatment costing P1,400.00. Teotico, a practicing public accountant, businessman, and professor, lost an estimated daily income of P50.00 for twenty days, suffered humiliation and anxiety, and obligated himself to pay P2,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
The City of Manila presented evidence that its Storm Drain Section received and acted upon reports of the missing cover on January 24 and January 30, 1958, replacing it each time, and had no report of it being uncovered between January 25 and 29. It argued it had a policy of immediate replacement and that theft of iron covers was rampant due to the scrap iron business.
The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Teotico’s complaint for damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal except as to the City of Manila, which it ordered to pay Teotico P6,750.00 in damages. The City of Manila appealed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the liability of the City of Manila is governed by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (its Charter), which limits liability for damages arising from the failure or negligence of city officers to enforce laws, or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which holds provinces, cities, and municipalities liable for damages due to defective roads, streets, and other public works under their control or supervision.
A secondary issue is whether the City can be held liable given that the accident occurred on P. Burgos Avenue, which it claimed was a national highway, and whether the City was negligent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding the City of Manila liable under Article 2189 of the Civil Code.
The Court ruled that Article 2189 of the Civil Code is the applicable law. While Republic Act No. 409 is a special law territorially, its Section 4 establishes a general rule on liability for negligence of city officers. In contrast, Article 2189 is a particular provision governing liability specifically for defective streets, roads, and public works. Since Teotico’s action is based on a defective street, Article 2189 is decisive.
On the claim that P. Burgos Avenue is a national highway, the Court found this was not raised in the City’s answer, which instead effectively admitted control and supervision by alleging it kept the streets in good condition. The claim was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and thus constituted a question of fact not permissible at that late stage. Moreover, under Article 2189, actual ownership is not required; it is sufficient that the city has “control or supervision” over the street. The Court cited Section 18(x) of the City Charter, which grants the City legislative powers over streets, including their construction, improvement, and maintenance. Republic Act No. 917 and Executive Order No. 113, concerning highway funds and construction, did not withdraw this authority from the City.
The Court further held that the findings of the Court of Appeals—that P. Burgos Avenue was under the control or supervision of the City of Manila and that the City was negligent—are findings of fact which are final and not subject to review.
Therefore, the City of Manila was held liable for damages. The decision was affirmed with costs against the City.