Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    Manila vs. Teotico

    Uploaded by

    Ma Nikka Flores Oquias
    1) Genaro Teotico was injured when he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catch basin while boarding a jeepney in Manila. He sued the City of Manila for damages. 2) The issue is whether Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila, which exempts the city from liability for damages arising from negligence, or Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which makes cities liable for damages from defective public works, should govern. 3) The court ruled that while the Charter is a special law applying to Manila, Article 2189 constitutes a specific rule regarding liability for defective streets. As Teotico's injury arose from a defective street, Article 2189 governs and the city

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manila vs. Teotico

    Uploaded by

    Ma Nikka Flores Oquias
    173 views2 pages
    1) Genaro Teotico was injured when he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catch basin while boarding a jeepney in Manila. He sued the City of Manila for damages. 2) The issue is whether Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila, which exempts the city from liability for damages arising from negligence, or Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which makes cities liable for damages from defective public works, should govern. 3) The court ruled that while the Charter is a special law applying to Manila, Article 2189 constitutes a specific rule regarding liability for defective streets. As Teotico's injury arose from a defective street, Article 2189 governs and the city

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Genaro Teotico was injured when he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catch basin while boarding a jeepney in Manila. He sued the City of Manila for damages. 2) The issue is whether Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila, which exempts the city from liability for damages arising from negligence, or Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which makes cities liable for damages from defective public works, should govern. 3) The court ruled that while the Charter is a special law applying to Manila, Article 2189 constitutes a specific rule regarding liability for defective streets. As Teotico's injury arose from a defective street, Article 2189 governs and the city

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    173 views2 pages

    Manila vs. Teotico

    Uploaded by

    Ma Nikka Flores Oquias
    1) Genaro Teotico was injured when he fell into an uncovered and unlighted catch basin while boarding a jeepney in Manila. He sued the City of Manila for damages. 2) The issue is whether Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Manila, which exempts the city from liability for damages arising from negligence, or Article 2189 of the Civil Code, which makes cities liable for damages from defective public works, should govern. 3) The court ruled that while the Charter is a special law applying to Manila, Article 2189 constitutes a specific rule regarding liability for defective streets. As Teotico's injury arose from a defective street, Article 2189 governs and the city

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    StatCon TOPIC: Where an earlier special law establishes a general rule and later general

    law creates specific rule, the latter is FOLLOWED.


    CASE: 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 at the corner of the
    Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone,
    waiting for a jeepney to take him down town.
    As he stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney, he fell inside an uncovered
    and unlighted catch basin or manhole.
    Due to the fall, he suffered several injuries. His head hit the rim of the manhole
    breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As
    blood flowed therefrom, impairing his vision, several persons came to his assistance
    and pulled him out of the manhole.
    As a consequence, Teotico filed in the CFI of Manila a complaint for damages against
    the City of Mania, its mayor, engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and chief of
    police.
    However, the City Engineer contend that iron cover of the same catch basin was
    reported missing only on January 30, 1958, but the said cover was replaced the next
    day that the Office of the City Engineer never received any report to the effect that
    the catchbasin in question was not covered between January 25 and 29, 1968;
    Moreover, it has always been a policy of the said office, which is charged with the
    duty of installation, repair and care of storm drains in the City of Manila, that
    whenever a report is received from whatever source of the loss of a catchbasin cover,
    the matter is immediately attended to, either by immediately replacing the missing
    cover or covering the catchbasin with steel matting that because of the lucrative
    scrap iron business then prevailing, stealing of iron catchbasin covers was rampant;
    Additionally, the Office of the City Engineer has filed complaints in court resulting
    from theft of said iron covers; that in order to prevent such thefts, the city
    government has changed the position and layout of catchbasins in the City by
    constructing them under the sidewalks with concrete cement covers and openings on
    the side of the gutter; and that these changes had been undertaken by the city from
    time to time whenever funds were available.
    CFI dismissed the case
    On appeal, the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals however the city was
    made to pay or damages in the aggregate sum of P6,750.00
    The City of Manila then filed an appeal. Arguing that the City should not be held liable
    in line with the provision in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409.
    ISSUE/S
    Which rule should govern?
    Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) which provides that
    The city shall not be liable or held 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 this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from
    negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or
    attempting to enforce said provisions.

    Or that later general law, Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which
    provides:
    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 road, streets,
    bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

    RULING:
    1. Insofar as its territorial application is concerned, Republic Act No. 409 is a special law
    and the Civil Code a general legislation; but, as regards the subject-matter of the
    provisions above quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a general rule
    regulating the liability of the City of Manila for: "damages or injury to persons or
    property arising from the failure of" city officers "to enforce the provisions of" said Act
    "or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence" of the city "Mayor, Municipal
    Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."
    Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code 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, said section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in general,
    regardless of the object thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability due to
    "defective streets," in particular. Since the present action is based upon the alleged
    defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon.

    You might also like