Capili v. Cardana

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

44. Capili v. Cardaña, G.R. No.

157906, November 2, 2006


Facts:
On February 1, 1993, Jasmin Cardaña was walking along the perimeter fence of the San Roque Elementary
School when a branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous
death. Thus, her parents filed a case for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte against
petitioner.
The Cardañas alleged in their complaint that even as early as December 15, 1992, a resident of the barangay,
Eufronio Lerios, reported on the possible danger the tree posed to passersby. Lerios even pointed to the
petitioner the tree that stood near the principal’s office. The Cardañas averred that petitioner’s gross negligence
and lack of foresight caused the death of their daughter.
Petitioner, school principal, denied the accusation and said that at that time Lerios had only offered to buy the
tree. She also denied knowing that the tree was dead and rotting. To prove her point, she presented witnesses
who attested that she had brought up the offer of Lerios to the other teachers during a meeting on December
15, 1992 and assigned Remedios Palaña to negotiate the sale.
Issue:
WON the petitioner is negligent and therefore liable to pay damages under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes. The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a danger
that is foreseeable. As the school principal, petitioner was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school
grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises. That she was unaware of the rotten state
of a tree whose falling branch had caused the death of a child speaks ill of her discharge of the responsibility of
her position.
In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other
person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred.
The fact, however, that respondents’ daughter, Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the
school’s premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for
application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have
been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person
charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

You might also like