Digested By: Christopher D.
Balubayan
Petitioner: CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC
(please include
details sa
petitioner)
Respondent: SPOUSES REYNALDO and MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO, and
(please include SPOUSES FRANK and TERESITA CUASO,
details sa
respondent)
Petition: Petition for Review
Who won? SPOUSES REYNALDO and MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO
Who is liable? CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC
Wherefore WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Clause: Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Original case Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, dated March 30, 1993.
filed in TC:
Doctrine: ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
The test to determine the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows:
o Did the defendant in committing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same
situation?
Facts:
Respondents-spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco (the Tanjangcos)
own Lots 68 and 69 covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 242245 4
and 282961 5 respectively, located at Corinthian Gardens Subdivision, Quezon
City, which is managed by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc.
(Corinthian).
On the other hand, respondents-spouses Frank and Teresita Cuaso (the
Cuasos) own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos’ lots.
Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was
necessary. As Geodetic Engineer Democrito De Dios (Engr. De Dios), operating
under the business name D.M. De Dios Realty and Surveying, conducted all the
previous surveys for the subdivision’s developer, Corinthian referred Engr. De
Dios to the Cuasos. Before, during and after the construction of the said house,
Corinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine
compliance with the approved plans pursuant to the Manual of Rules and
Regulations of Unfortunately, after the Cuasos constructed their house
employing the services of C.B. Paraz Construction Co., Inc. (C.B. Paraz)
Corinthian. as builder, their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos’ Lot
69 by 87 square meters.
No amicable settlement was reached between the parties.
Thus, the Tanjangcos demanded that the Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence
but the latter failed and refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file with the RTC a
suit against the Cuasos for Recovery of Possession with Damages.
Eventually, the Cuasos filed a Third-Party Complaint 8 against Corinthian, C.B.
Paraz and Engr. De Dios.
The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Paraz for its failure to ascertain the
proper specifications of their house, and to Engr. De Dios for his failure to
undertake an accurate relocation survey, thereby, exposing them to litigation.
The Tanjangcos filed a Motion for Reconsideration but which the RTC, however,
denied.
Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, the Tanjangcos, the Cuasos, and C.B. Paraz all
appealed to the CA.
The Cuasos’ appeal against the Tanjangcos, on the other hand, was dismissed
for lack of merit.
Only Corinthian filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision. CA denied
Corinthian’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Cuasos filed a Comment/Manifestation praying that they be allowed to adopt
Corinthian’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, Corinthian filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the
CA Decision and Resolution, and impleading the Cuasos as one of the
respondents being the third-party plaintiffs in the RTC.
Trial Court: RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the Tanjangcos
It ruled that the Cuasos’ perimeter wall encroached on the
land of the Tanjangos by 87 square meters. It, however,
ruled that the Cuasos were builders in good faith
The RTC also ordered the Cuasos to pay monthly rentals
Held that C.B. Paraz was grossly negligent in not taking into
account the correct boundaries of Cuasos’ lot when it
constructed the house and ordered him to pay moral and
exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees to the
Tanjangcos and the Cuasos.
The third-party complaint against Corinthian and Engr. De
Dios, on the other hand, was dismissed for lack of cause of
action.
CA: CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision.
Held that the Cuasos acted in bad faith in land-grabbing the
87 square meter-portion of Lot 69
Allowed the Tanjangcos to exercise the rights granted under
Articles 449, 450, 451 and 549 of the New Civil Code, which
include the right to demand the demolition of the offending
perimeter wall after reimbursing the Cuasos the necessary
expenses for the preservation of the encroached area.
The Cuasos were ordered to pay monthly rentals for the use,
enjoyment and occupancy of the lot from 1989 up to the time
they vacate the property considering the location and
category of the same, likewise, ordered to pay the
Tanjangcos moral damages, exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.
Imposed six percent (6%) interest per annum on all the
awards.
On the third-party complaints, Corinthian, C.B. Paraz and
Engr. De Dios were all found negligent in performing their
respective duties and so they were ordered to contribute five
percent (5%) each, or a total of fifteen percent (15%) to all
judgment sums and amounts that the Cuasos shall
eventually pay under the decision, also with interest of six
percent (6%) per annum.
Contention of Petitioner - Appellee:
They countered that the only pending matter with this Court is the appeal by
Corinthian; hence, the implementation of the January 31, 2003 Decision of the
CA against the Cuasos will not preempt the outcome of the said pending
incidents.
Also, any action taken by this Court on Corinthian’s petition would not benefit the
Cuasos for they did not appeal the adverse decision against them.
Accordingly, they cannot obtain affirmative relief from this Court by reason or on
account of the appeal taken by Corinthian. The appeal, they added, is personal
to Corinthian.
Finally, they argued that the Cuasos are now estopped from questioning the
enforcement of the CA Decision since they issued a manager’s check to pay the
money judgment.25
Contention of Respondent - Appellant:
Corinthian claims that the approval of the building plan of the Cuasos was
not tainted with negligence as it did not approve the survey relocation plan
but merely the architectural, structural and sanitary plans for Cuasos'
house;
o that the purpose of the said approval is not to ensure that the house to be
erected on a particular lot is constructed within its boundaries but only to
ensure compliance with the Manual of Rules and Regulations;
o that while Corinthian conducts actual site inspections, the inspection and
approval of the building plans are limited to "table inspection" only;
o that the survey relocation plan was never submitted for Corinthian's
approval;
o that the acceptance of the builder's bond did not make Corinthian
automatically liable for the encroachment and for damages; and
o that Corinthian approved the building plan with the good faith and due
diligence required under the circumstances
Issue (related to Whether Corinthian was negligent under the circumstances
topic): and, if so, whether such negligence contributed to the injury
suffered by the Tanjangcos.
Answer The Court said Yes, Corinthian is negligent. Its approval of
(Yes/No): the plan is tainted with negligence.
Ruling (please copy and paste everything from fulltext na related sa torts and
damages):
Petitioner is found negligent under the TEST. The MRRC provides that no new
constructions can be started without the approval of the petitioner association.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Corinthian, through its representative, in
the approval of building plans, and in the conduct of periodic inspections of
ongoing construction projects within the subdivision, is responsible in insuring
compliance with the approved plans, inclusive of the construction of perimeter
walls.
Corinthian’s failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos’ perimeter wall
into Tanjangcos’ property – despite the inspection conducted – constitutes
negligence and, at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the
Tanjangcos.
It bears stressing that the Cuasos failed to appeal the ruling of the CA. This
failure to contest the CA decision before this Court was fatal to their cause. It had
the effect of an admission that they indeed acted in bad faith, as they accepted
the CA ruling. The decision of the CA, therefore, became binding and final as to
them. As a matter of fact, the CA already issued a partial entry of judgment
against the Cuasos.
The instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code, which provides:
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to prove by a
preponderance of evidence:
o (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff;
o (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for
whose act he must respond; and
o (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred.
Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos encroached on Lot 69 owned by
the Tanjangcos by 87 square meters as duly found by both the RTC and the CA
in accordance with the evidence on record. As a result, the Tanjangcos suffered
damage in having been deprived of the use of that portion of their lot encroached
upon. Thus, the primordial issue to be resolved in this case is whether Corinthian
was negligent under the circumstances and, if so, whether such negligence
contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.
A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a
lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a
third person, an animal, or a force of nature.
A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's
position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an
appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a
more careful manner.
The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may
be stated as follows:
o Did the defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in
the same situation?
o If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the
standard supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in
Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined
by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent
in a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, and determines liability
according to that standard.
By this test, found Corinthian negligence
While the issue of Corinthian's alleged negligence is factual in character, a
review by this Court is proper because the CA's factual findings differ from those
of the RTC's. Thus, after a meticulous review of the evidence on record, we hold
that the CA committed no reversible error when it deviated from the findings of
fact of the RTC. The CA's findings and conclusions are substantiated by the
evidence on record and are more in accord with law and reason. Indeed, it is
clear that Corinthian failed to exercise the requisite diligence in insuring
that the Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and Regulations, thereby
resulting in the encroachment on the Tanjangcos’ property.
The SC agree with the CA when it aptly held:
Corinthian cannot and should not be allowed to justify or excuse its negligence
by claiming that its approval of the Cuasos’ building plans was only limited to a
so-called "table inspection;" and not actual site measurement. To accept some
such postulate is to put a premium on negligence. Corinthian was not organized
solely for the defendants Cuasos. It is also the subdivision of the plaintiffs-
spouses Tanjangcos - and of all others who have their dwelling units or abodes
therein. Pertinently, its Manual of Rules and Regulations stipulates in Section 3
thereof (under the heading Construction), thus:
A. Rules and Regulations
No new construction can be started unless the building plans are approved by
the Association and the appropriate Builder’s cash bond and pre-construction
fees are paid. The Association will not allow the entry of construction materials
and process identification cards for workers if the above conditions are not
complied with. Likewise, all renovations, repairs, additions and improvements to
a finished house except electrical wiring, will have to be approved by the
Association. Water service connection of a homeowner who undertakes
construction work without prior approval of the Association will be cut-off in
addition to the sanctions previously mentioned.
It goes without saying that this Manual of Rules and Regulations applies to all -
or it does not apply at all. To borrow a popular expression, what is sauce for the
gander is sauce for the goose - or ought to be. To put it matter-of-factly and
bluntly, thus, its so-called "table inspection" approval of the Cuasos’ building
plans is no less of an approval, as approvals come and go. And since it is an
approval tainted with negligence, the necessary and inevitable consequences
which law and justice attach to such negligence must, as a matter of law and
justice, also necessarily attach to Corinthian.
And then again third party defendant-appellee Corinthian Garden required the
posting of a builder’s cash bond (Exh. 5-Corinthian) from the defendants-
appellants Cuasos and the third-party defendant C.B. Paraz Construction to
secure the performance of their undertaking. Surely, Corinthian does not imply
that while it may take the benefits from the Builder’s cash bond, it may, Pilate-
like, wash its hands of any responsibility or liability that would or might arise from
the construction or building of the structure for which the cash bond was in the
first place posted. That is not only unjust and immoral, but downright unchristian
and iniquitous.
Under the same parity of reasoning, the payment by the appellants-Cuasos to
the appellee Corinthian of pre-construction and membership fees in the
Association must necessarily entail the creation of certain obligations on the part
of Corinthian. For duties and responsibilities always go hand in hand with rights
and privileges. That is the law of life - and that is the law of every civilized
society. It is an axiom of equity that he who receives the benefits must share the
burdens.
By its Manual of Rules and Regulations, it is reasonable to assume that
Corinthian, through its representative, in the approval of building plans, and in the
conduct of periodic inspections of on-going construction projects within the
subdivision, is responsible in insuring compliance with the approved plans,
inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls, which in this case is the subject
of dispute between the Tanjangcos and the Cuasos. It is not just or equitable to
relieve Corinthian of any liability when, by its very own rules, it imposes its
authority over all its members to the end that "no new construction can be started
unless the plans are approved by the Association and the appropriate cash bond
and pre-construction fees are paid." Moreover, Corinthian can impose sanctions
for violating these rules. Thus, the proposition that the inspection is merely a
"table inspection" and, therefore, should exempt Corinthian from liability, is
unacceptable. After all, if the supposed inspection is merely a "table inspection"
and the approval granted to every member is a mere formality, then the purpose
of the rules would be defeated. Compliance therewith would not be mandatory,
and sanctions imposed for violations could be disregarded. Corinthian's
imprimatur on the construction of the Cuasos' perimeter wall over the property of
the Tanjangcos assured the Cuasos that everything was in order.
In sum, Corinthian’s failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos’
perimeter wall into Tanjangcos’ property – despite the inspection conducted –
constitutes negligence and, at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by
the Tanjangcos.
