GR L 71049; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-71049 May 29, 1987
BERNARDINO JIMENEZ, petitioner, vs. CITY OF MANILA and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bernardino Jimenez was injured at the Sta. Ana Public Market on August 15, 1974. While the market was flooded with ankle-deep rainwater, he stepped on an uncovered drainage opening, causing a rusty nail inside it to pierce his left leg. He required hospitalization for twenty days and the use of crutches thereafter, incurring medical expenses and losing the ability to personally supervise his school bus business. The public market was under the administration of the Asiatic Integrated Corporation by virtue of a Management and Operating Contract with respondent City of Manila. Jimenez sued both entities for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Intermediate Appellate Court, on appeal, held Asiatic Integrated Corporation solely liable for damages and attorney’s fees, absolving the City of Manila.
ISSUE
Whether the City of Manila should be held jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the damages suffered by the petitioner.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court modified the Appellate Court’s decision, ruling that the City of Manila is solidarily liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation. The legal logic proceeds from two grounds. First, under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, provinces, cities, and municipalities are liable for damages caused by defective conditions of public works under their control or supervision. The Sta. Ana Public Market is a public work, and the City of Manila retained control and supervision over it despite the management contract. The uncovered drainage hole constituted a defective condition for which the city is directly liable. Second, the City is also liable under Article 2176 on quasi-delict. The evidence established that the drainage opening had been uncovered long before and even five months after the incident, with no signs warning of the danger. The City failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in maintaining the market’s safety. Its negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Since both the City and the Corporation were negligent joint tortfeasors, they are solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2194 of the Civil Code. The City’s defense based on its charter ( Republic Act No. 409 ), which limits liability for failures to enforce laws, is a general rule that yields to the specific prescription of Article 2189.