Capili vs. Spouses Cadaa G.R. No.

157906 November 2, 2006 The Parties

The petitioner, Joaquinita P. Capili is the principal of San Roque Elementary School and the Spouses Dominador and Rosalita Cadaa are the parents of the grade 6 pupil, Jasmin Cardaa, who died due to the negligence of the petitioner in removing the dead caimito within the school premises that hit the child causing her instantaneous death.

Prior Proceedings
The parents filed a case for damages against Capili before the Regional Trial Court in Palo, Leyte where the court dismissed the complaint for failure of the respondents to establish negligence on the part of the petitioner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trials courts decision and established negligence on the part of the petitioner. It also ruled that the dead caimito tree was a nuisance that should have been removed soon after the petitioner had chanced upon it. The CA ordered to indemnify the Spouses Cardaa, the following amounts: P50,000.00 for the life of Jasmin; P15,010.00 for burial expenses; P50,000.00 for moral damages; and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees and litigation.

Theories of the Parties

Capili asserts that she was not negligent about the disposal of the tree since she had assigned her next-in-rank, Palaa, to see its disposal. She also did not observe any indication that the tree was already rotten not did any of the 15 teachers inform her that the tree was already rotten. Respondents insists that the petitioner knew that the tree was dead and rotting, yet she did not exercise reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have done in the same situation.

Objectives of the Parties

Petitioner wants that moral damages should not be granted against her since there was no fraud nor bad faith on her part in causing the death of the child. Respondents posit that the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals should be affirmed and respected, thus remained undisturbed.

Key Facts
On February 1, 1993, Jasmin Cardaa 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. The Cardaas alleged in their complaint that even as early as December 15, 1992, a resident of the barangay, Lerios, reported on the possible danger the tree posed to passersby it stood near the principals office. Capili 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. She also assigned Palaa, a teacher to dispose of the caimito tree.

Issue
Whether or not the School Principal is liable for damages?

Holdings of the Court

As the school principal, the petitioner is expected to oversee the safety of the schools premises. The fact that she failed to see the immediate danger posed by the dead and rotting tree shows she failed to exercise the responsibility demanded by her position. Even if petitioner had assigned the disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises supervision over her assignee. The record shows that more than a month had lapsed from the time petitioner gave instruction to her assistant on December 15, 1992, to the time the incident occurred on February 1, 1993. Clearly, she failed to check the seasonability if the danger posed by the rotting tree had been removed.

Ratio Decidende
The respondents daughter, Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the schools premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for the application for the application of res ipsa loquitur. The effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to warrant a presumption or interference that the mere falling of the branch of the dead and rotting tree wich caused the death of respondents daughter was a result of petitioners negligence, being in charge of the school. Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court conceded that the petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-a-vis repondents daughters death.

Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals rulings; sustained the indemnification of P50,000.00 for the death of Jasmin and P15,010 as reimbursement of the burial expenses. However, it modified and deleted as to the award of moral damages.