JIMENEZ v CITY OF MANILA

FACTS: Jimenez bought bagoong at the Santa Ana public market at the time that it was flooded with ankle-deep water. As he turned around to go home, he stepped on an uncovered opening w/c could not be seen because of dirty rainwater. A dirty and rusty 4-inch nail, stuck inside the uncovered opening, pierced his left leg to a depth of1½ inches. His left leg swelled and he developed fever. He was confined for 20 days, walked w/ crutches for 15 days and could not operate his school buses. He sued City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corp under whose administration the Sta. Ana had been placed by virtue of Management and Operating Contract. TC found for respondent. CA reversed and held Asiatec liable and absolved City of Manila.

ISSUE: WON City of Manila should be jointly and solidarily liable with Asiatec

HELD: YES

RATIO: In the City of Manila v Teotico case, it was held that Art 1, Sec 4 of RA 409, which City of Manila is invoking in this case, establishes a general rule regulating the liability of City Of Manila while Art 2189 NCC governs the liability due to “defective streets, public buildings and other public works” in particular and is therefore decisive in this case. It was also held that for liability under 2189 to attach, control and supervision by the province, city or municipality over the defective public building in question is enough. It is not necessary that such belongs to such province, city or municipality.

In the case at bar, there is no question that Sta. Ana public market remained under the control of the City as evidenced by:

1.the contract bet Asiatec and City which explicitly states that “prior approval” of the City is still needed in the operations.

2.Mayor Bagatsing of Manila admitted such control and supervision in his letter to Finance Sec. Virata (“The City retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets…)

3.City employed a market master for the Sta. Ana public Market whose primary duty is to take direct supervision and control of that particular public market

4.Sec. 30 of Tax Code “The treasurer shall exercise direct and immediate supervision, administration and control over public markets…

It is thus the duty of the City to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. Ordinary precautions could have been taken during good weather to minimize danger to life and limb. The drainage hole could have been placed under the stalls rather than the passageways. The City should have seen to it that the openings were covered. It was evident that the certain opening was already uncovered, and 5 months after this incident it was still uncovered. There were also findings that during floods, vendors would remove the iron grills to hasten the flow of water. Such acts were not prohibited nor penalized by the City. No warning sign of impending danger was evident.

Petitioner had the right to assume there were no openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that they were adequately covered. Had it been covered, petitioner would not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of the City is the proximate cause of the injury suffered. Asiatec and City are joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable