Jimenez vs. City of Manila

A city or municipality is liable for injuries caused by defective conditions of public works under its control or supervision, notwithstanding a management contract with a private corporation, because Article 2189 of the Civil Code is a special provision that prevails over the general immunity clause in a city charter. The liability attaches when the local government retains control or supervision over the public building or work, and it is not necessary that the defective public work belongs to the local government.

The City of Manila entered into a Management and Operating Contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation on December 28, 1972, whereby the corporation undertook the physical management, maintenance, rehabilitation, and development of the City's public markets and talipapas in consideration of a fixed service fee. The contract expressly provided that the corporation's operations were subject to the control and supervision of the City. The petitioner was a school bus operator who frequented the Sta. Ana Public Market as a customer.

On the morning of August 15, 1974, Bernardino Jimenez, together with his neighbors, went to the Sta. Ana Public Market to buy bagoong at a time when the market was flooded with ankle-deep rainwater. After purchasing the bagoong, he turned around to return home but stepped on an uncovered opening that could not be seen because of the dirty rainwater. A dirty and rusty four-inch nail stuck inside the uncovered opening pierced his left leg to a depth of about one and a half inches. After receiving first aid at a nearby drugstore, his companions helped him hobble home. He felt ill and developed fever, and had to be carried to Dr. Juanita Mascardo. Despite the medicine administered, his left leg swelled with great pain. He was rushed to the Veterans Memorial Hospital where he was confined for twenty days due to high fever and severe pain. Upon discharge, he walked with crutches for fifteen days. His injury prevented him from attending to the school buses he operated, so he engaged the services of Bienvenido Valdez to supervise his business for an aggregate compensation of nine hundred pesos.

Jimenez sued the City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation for damages. The Sta. Ana Public Market had been placed under the administration of Asiatic Integrated Corporation by virtue of a Management and Operating Contract with the City. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but on appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court held Asiatic Integrated Corporation liable for damages while absolving the City of Manila. The appellate court found that the City could not be held liable because the corporation assumed all responsibility for damages under the contract, and because Section 4 of Article 1 of Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) provided immunity for the City.

The evidence showed that the City of Manila employed a market master for the Sta. Ana Public Market whose primary duty was to take direct supervision and control of that particular market, specifically to check the safety of the place for the public. The Assistant Chief of the Market Division and Deputy Market Administrator of the City of Manila testified that the market master was a City employee with direct supervision and control over the market area assigned to him, and that the duty of verifying whether the place was safe for public safety was vested in the market master. The evidence also indicated that long before the petitioner fell into the opening, it was already uncovered, and five months after the incident, the opening was still uncovered. During floods, vendors would remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water, but such practice was never prohibited or penalized by the City, and no warning signs were placed near the opening.

• Joint and Solidary Liability: Petitioner argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the injuries he suffered, since the City retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market despite the Management and Operating Contract.

• Contractual Assumption of Liability: Respondent City of Manila maintained that it could not be held liable because under the Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic Integrated Corporation assumed all responsibility for damages which may be suffered by third persons for any cause attributable to it.
• Charter Immunity: Respondent argued that the City cannot be held liable under Article 1, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409, as amended (Revised Charter of Manila), which provides that the City shall not be liable for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any other City Officer to enforce the provisions of the chapter, or from negligence of said officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.
• Contributory Negligence: Respondent contended that the petitioner should not have ventured to go to the Sta. Ana Public Market during stormy weather.

• Liability of the City: Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the injuries petitioner suffered.

• Liability of the City: Yes. The City of Manila is liable under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which is a special provision governing liability for defective public works, and prevails over the general immunity clause in Republic Act No. 409. The City retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market, and as a joint tort-feasor with Asiatic Integrated Corporation, is solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

• Liability of the City: The Court applied the doctrine established in City of Manila vs. Teotico (22 SCRA 269-272 [1968]), which squarely ruled that Republic Act No. 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for damages or injury arising from the failure of city officers to enforce the provisions of said Act, or from negligence of the City Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers. However, Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription making provinces, cities, and municipalities liable for damages for death or injuries suffered by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. The Court reasoned that Article 1, Section 4 of R.A. No. 409 refers to liability arising from negligence in general, while Article 2189 governs liability due to defective streets, public buildings, and other public works in particular, and is therefore decisive on this specific case. Under Article 2189, it is not necessary that the defective public works belong to the province, city, or municipality; what is required is that the local government has either control or supervision over the public building in question. In this case, there was no question that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management and Operating Contract, remained under the control of the City. The contract itself was explicit in this regard, requiring the corporation to submit programs of improvement subject to prior approval of the City, retaining all present City personnel of the public markets, and requiring the corporation to report on activities and operations. The fact of supervision and control was admitted by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing in his letter to Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata, which stated that the City retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets and talipapas under the terms of the contract. The City employed a market master for the Sta. Ana Public Market whose primary duty was to take direct supervision and control of that particular market, specifically to check the safety of the place for the public. Section 30(g) of the Local Tax Code also provides that the treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision, administration, and control over public markets and the personnel thereof. The Court rejected the City's contention that the petitioner should not have gone to the market during stormy weather, adopting the appellate court's observation that a customer in a store has the right to assume that the owner will comply with his duty to keep the premises safe for customers, and no negligence can be imputed to the customer who ventures to the store on the basis of such assumption. The Court noted that the City had the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe, and ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize dangers, such as placing the drainage hole under the stalls instead of on the passageways, or ensuring that the openings were covered. The evidence showed that the opening was uncovered long before the incident and remained uncovered five months after, and the practice of vendors removing iron grills during floods was never prohibited or penalized, nor were warning signs placed. The negligence of the City was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. The City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation, being joint tort-feasors, are solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

• Special law prevails over general law — Where a general law (Article 1, Section 4 of R.A. No. 409, providing immunity for the City of Manila) and a special law (Article 2189 of the Civil Code, imposing liability for defective public works) both apply, the special provision governs. The Court applied this principle to hold the City liable despite its charter immunity, because Article 2189 specifically addresses liability for defective streets, public buildings, and other public works.
• Liability for defective public works under Article 2189 — Provinces, cities, and municipalities are liable for damages for death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. It is not necessary that the defective public works belong to the local government; what is required is that the local government has either control or supervision over the public building in question.
• Joint tort-feasor liability under Article 2194 — When two or more persons are liable for a quasi-delict, they are solidarily liable. The City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation, both being negligent in connection with the uncovered drainage opening, were joint tort-feasors and thus solidarily liable for the damages.
• Duty of a business owner to keep premises safe — A customer in a store has the right to assume that the owner will comply with his duty to keep the premises safe for customers. If the customer ventures to the store on the basis of such assumption and is injured because the owner did not comply with his duty, no negligence can be imputed to the customer.

• "Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that: Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision. constitutes a particular prescription making 'provinces, cities and municipalities ... liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by any person by reason' — specifically — 'of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.' In other words, Art. 1, sec. 4, R.A. No. 409 refers to liability arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the object, thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil Code governs liability due to 'defective streets, public buildings and other public works' in particular and is therefore decisive on this specific case." — This passage establishes the controlling principle that the special provision on defective public works prevails over the general charter immunity, forming the core of the Court's reasoning.
• "A customer in a store has the right to assume that the owner will comply with his duty to keep the premises safe for customers. If he ventures to the store on the basis of such assumption and is injured because the owner did not comply with his duty, no negligence can be imputed to the customer." — This quotation, adopted from the appellate court, rejects the defense of contributory negligence and articulates the standard of care owed to patrons of public establishments.
• "To recapitulate, it appears evident that the City of Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts." — This passage summarizes the Court's conclusion that the City's retained control and supervision over the market made it liable both under the specific provision of Article 2189 and as a tort-feasor under the general quasi-delict provision.

• City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22 SCRA 269-272 (1968) — Controlling precedent that squarely ruled that Republic Act No. 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for damages arising from the failure of city officers to enforce the provisions of said Act, while Article 2189 of the Civil Code governs liability due to defective public works in particular. The Court relied on this case to resolve the conflict between the general charter immunity and the specific liability provision.

• Article 2189, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. The Court applied this provision to hold the City of Manila liable for the uncovered drainage opening in the Sta. Ana Public Market.
• Article 2176, Civil Code of the Philippines — The general provision on quasi-delicts, providing that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The Court cited this provision in holding the City liable as a tort-feasor.
• Article 2194, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that when two or more persons are liable for a quasi-delict, they are solidarily liable. The Court applied this provision to hold the City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation jointly and solidarily liable as joint tort-feasors.
• Article 1173, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that as a defense against liability on the basis of a quasi-delict, one must have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. The Court referenced this provision in the context of the City's duty to exercise reasonable care.
• Article 1, Section 4, Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) — The general immunity provision providing that the City shall not be liable for damages arising from the failure of city officers to enforce the provisions of the charter or from their negligence. The Court held this provision inapplicable because Article 2189 is the special provision governing the specific case of defective public works.
• Section 30(g), Local Tax Code — Provides that the treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision, administration, and control over public markets and the personnel thereof. The Court cited this provision as further evidence of the City's control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.