Q.C. GOVERNMENT v. DACARA | G.R. No. 150304| 15 June 2005| Panganiban, J. supervision over the same.
supervision over the same. Failure of the defendant to comply with the
Topic: Liability for Damages
SUMMARY: Dacara was driving his sedan along Matahimik St., QC when he hit a pile
of earth from an excavation in the street, which was not indicated by warning signs as
the QC government failed to do so. SC affirmed the lower courts’ finding of negligence
on the part of QC, holding them negligent and liable for actual/compensatory damages
under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, in addition to exemplary damages.
FACTS:
 Fulgencio Dacara, Jr. was driving his Toyota Sedan along Matahimik St in QC at
around 1:00 AM, 28 Feb 1988, when he rammed a pile of earth/street diggings
from an excavation in the street, which was being repaired. The vehicle thus
toppled, causing bodily injuries to Dacara and severely damaging the car.
Indemnification was sought with the city government, which was denied, so a
civil case for damages was filed with the RTC.
 As a defense, the city government said that the area of the diggings was lighted
with reflectorized traffic paint with sticks placed before the mound of dirt, which
would have made it visible during the time of the incident. This was their
testimony, but they presented no other evidence to prove the same, and it must
be noted that even the police report indicated that there were no warning signs in
the area.
 As an added defense, the city government stated that Dacara was driving well
above the speed limit (limit of 30kph but driving at around 60kph), making him
responsible for his own injury. Such defense, however, was only presented in the
MR.
 RTC ruled in favor of Dacara, holding QC government liable under Art. 2189 (CC)
for 10k moral and 5k exemplary damages, and 10k attorney's fees. CA affirmed
RTC decision.
 QC appealed with SC for finding of negligence and also award of damages as
according to them, Art 2189 does not apply to cases of damage to property.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. W/N the QC government's negligence is the proximate cause of Dacara's injury?
YES
 QC alleges that they provided the sufficient warning signs in the area of
excavation but they have not given further evidence to support such
claim as they have in the RTC and CA. SC cannot give them exception to
the general rule that the SC may not delve into issues relating to
questions of fact.
 Since both lower courts have ruled on the presence of negligence on the
part of QC, the SC should give due respect to such finding and hold QC
in the same light.
 Police report also shows that there were no warning signs in the
excavation area.
 [RTC Discussion] The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil Code
capsulizes the responsibility of the city government relative to the
maintenance of roads and bridges since it exercises the control and
statutory provision found in the subject-article is tantamount to
negligence per se which renders the City government liable. Harsh
application of the law ensues as a result thereof but the state assumed
the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roads and
bridges and neither exception nor exculpation from liability would deem
just and equitable.
 While government raised the defense that Dacara was concurrently
negligent for overspeeding, this argument cannot be given due course
by the Court as it has been not been raised during trial.
2. W/N moral damages may be recovered by Dacara? NO
 According to QC, moral damages may only be recovered under Art 2219
of the Civil Code as a quasi-delict, and not evidence of physical injuries
were presented. Proof required must be 1) an injury; 2) culpable act or
omission factually established; 3) such act or omission as proximate
cause of injury; and 4) award of damages predicated on Art 2219 (No
recovery of damages in quasi-delict cases unless there is injury).
 While it was alleged that Dacara sustained physical injuries, no evidence
to prove this was presented in court. There was also no explanation
given in the Decisions of the lower courts on how Dacara was damaged
morally in connection with the injury.
 No moral damages.
3. W/N exemplary damages may be recovered? YES
 Art 2231 indicates that exemplary damages may be granted in cases of
gross negligence
 While QC was not found to be in gross negligence by the lower courts in
the performance of their duty and responsibility, it was sufficiently
established that their negligence caused injury to Dacara, thus Dacara
had a right to actual or compensatory damages. SC finds though that QC
did act with gross negligence. However, may exemplary damages be
granted in addition to compensatory damages?
 Since exemplary damages are awarded to correct a wrong for the public
good, and since the responsibility of the QC government in under
questions involves a situation for public safety, it must be imposed with
such damages in order to deter similar instances of negligence in the
future.
s
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFCATION that the award of moral
damages is DELETED. No costs.
NOTES:
Art 2189: Provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of,
or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.