8/14/2019 085 - City of Manila v Teotico (Teotico v City of Manila in syllabus).doc

1/4

LOCGOV 085

City of Manila v Teotico (1968)

(Teotico v City of Manila in syllabus)

Although the rule is that special laws such as the Manila City Charter prevail over general

laws like the Civil Code, damages arising from tort form an exception !n a situation where a

person falls into a city manhole and gets in"ured, the Civil Code must prevail over the Manila

City Charter

Facts:

1. Genaro Teotico was a practicing public accountant, a businessman, and a professor

at the University of the East. He held responsible positions in several business firms

and was a member of several civic organizations.

. !n "anuary #, 1$%&, Teotico was waiting for a 'eep at loading and unloading zone at

the corner of !ld (uneta and ). *urgos +venue, anila.

-. He managed to hail a 'eepney. +s he was waling towards the 'eepney to board it, he

fell into an uncovered and unlighted manhole /aa catch basin0.

. His head hit the rim of the manhole, causing his eyeglasses to brea. The broenpieces of his glasses pierced his left eyelid.

%. *ystanders brought him to the )hilippine General Hospital, after which, he was

brought home.

2. +side from his wounded eyelid, his other in'uries were

a. 3ontusions on his left thigh, left upper arm, right leg and upper lip

b. +brasion on his right infra4patella region

c. +llergic reaction to the anti4tetanus in'ections given to him at the hospital.

#. Teotico filed a complaint for damages against the 3ity of anila, its mayor, city

engineer, city health officer, city treasurer, and chief of police.

&. 356 anila ruled in favor of Teotico. 3+ affirmed and additionally sentenced the 3ity

to pay damages worth )2#%7.77

$. The 3ity of anila moved to reconsider, raising the issue of which law governed the

case, 8ection of the anila 3ity 3harter /9+ 7$0, or +rticle 1&$ of the 3ivil 3ode.

17. 8ection of the anila 3ity 3harter provides that:

The city shall not be liable or held for damages or in'uries to persons or property

arising from the failure of the ayor, the unicipal *oard, or any other city officer, to

enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from

negligence of said ayor, unicipal *oard, or other officers while enforcing or

attempting to enforce said provisions;

11. +rticle 1&$ of the 3ivil 3ode provides that:

)rovinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or

in'uries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions of road, streets,

bridges, public buildings, and other public wors under their control or supervision.

!etitione"#s (Teotico) a"$%&ents:

1. He was prevented from engaging in his customary occupation for 7 days. +s a

result, he has lost income of )1777.77 /)%7.77 daily0.

. He was sub'ected to humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends.

-.

8/14/2019 085 - City of Manila v Teotico (Teotico v City of Manila in syllabus).doc

2/4

. He had to pay a private practitioner )177.77 to treat him for his allergic reaction to

the anti4tetanus shots from )GH.

%. *ecause of the filing of this case, he is obligated to pay his counsel )777.77.

'esonent#s (City of Manila) a"$%&ents:

*t t+e level of t+e CF, an C*

1. 6t has always been the policy of the 8torm >rain 8ection /under the !ffice of the 3ity

Engineer of anila0 that whenever any reports are received of the loss of manhole

covers, the manholes are immediately attended to either by replacing the cover or by

covering the manhole with steel matting.

. !ral and documentary evidence that the 8torm >rain 8ection, !ffice of the 3ity

Engineer of anila, received a report of the uncovered condition of the manhole

Teotico fell into on "anuary , 1$%&, but that it was covered on the same day.

-. +nother report that the iron cover of the same manhole was missing on "anuary -7,

1$%&, but that the cover was replaced the ne=t day.

. The 8torm >rain 8ection never received a report that the manhole was uncovered

from "anuary % to "anuary $ /recall that Teotico fell into the manhole on "anuary#0.

%. 8tealing of iron manhole covers was rampant because of the scrap iron business,

which was lucrative at the time.

2. The !ffice of the 3ity Engineer had already filed complaints in court regarding the

rampant theft of the covers

#. 6n order to prevent the theft, the 3ity has changed the position and layout of

anila?s manholes by constructing them under the sidewals, covered by concrete

cement covers, with openings on the side of the gutter.

a. These changes were being undertaen by the city whenever funds were

available.

*t t+e level of t+e -%"e&e Co%"t

&. 8ection of the anila 3ity 3harter should prevail over the 3ivil 3ode because the

former is a special law intended e=clusively for anila, while the 3ivil 3ode is a

general law applicable to the entire )hilippines.

$. The 3ity cannot be held liable to Teotico for damages because

a. The accident occurred in a national highway

b. 6t was not negligent

,ss%e.s:

/+ic+ la alies to t+e case -ection 2 of t+e Manila City C+a"te" o" *"ticle

3189 of t+e Civil Coe4 *"ticle 3189

el.'atio:

*licale La

1. Territorially speaing, the anila 3ity 3harter is indeed a special law and the 3ivil

3ode is merely general legislation.

. However:

8/14/2019 085 - City of Manila v Teotico (Teotico v City of Manila in syllabus).doc

3/4

a. 8ection of the 3harter establishes a general rule which regulates the 3ity?s

liability for damages or in'ury to persons or property arising from the

negligence or failure of city officers to enforce or attempt to enforce the

provisions of the 3harter or any other law or ordinance.

b. +rticle 1&$ of the 3ivil 3ode is a particular prescription maing provinces,

cities and municipalities liable for damages for the death or in'ury of persons

due to the defective condition of public wors under their control or

supervision.

-. Thus, in this case, 8ection of the 3harter is a general rule despite being technically

classed as a special law, while +rticle 1&$ of the 3ivil 3ode is the e=ception despite

being technically classed as a general law. 8ince the cause of action of this case is

based on the defective condition of a road, the e=ception espoused by +rticle 1&$

must apply.

'e: national +i$+ay an lac7 of ne$li$ence

1. That the accident occurred on a national highway or that the 3ity was not negligent

are both @uestions of facts not made in the +nswer of the 3ity. 6t was made for the

first time in its motion to reconsider the 3+?s decision. Auestions of fact cannot beset up for the first time on appeal, much less on motion for reconsideration.

. Teotico alleged in his complaint /both original and amended0 that his in'uries were

due to the defective condition of a street under the supervision and control of the

3ity.

a. 6n its +nswer, the 3ity alleged that Bthe streets aforementioned were and have

been constantly ept in good condition and regularly inspected and the storm

drains and manholes thereof covered by the defendant 3ity and the officers

concernedB who Bhave been ever vigilant and zealous in the performance of

their respective functions and duties as imposed upon them by law,;

i&liely a&ittin$ t+at it inee +a ! %"$os aven%e %ne" its

cont"ol an s%e"vision

-. Under +rticle 1&$, it is not necessary that the defective roads or streets belong to

the province, city or municipality for liability to attach.

8/14/2019 085 - City of Manila v Teotico (Teotico v City of Manila in syllabus).doc

4/4