TITLE: Fontanilla vs.

Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486 CAPTION: Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla, Petitioners, vs. Hon Inocencio D. Maliaman and National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Respondent. G.R. No. L 55963 December 1, 1989 Cecilio V. Suarez, Jr. For Spouses Fontanilla Felicisimo C. Villaflor for National Irrigation Administration Ponente: Paras, J. FACTS: 1. Aug. 21, 1976 at about 6:30pm, a pick-up owned and operated by NIA, a government agency bearing a plate No. IN 651, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of the said agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of the herein petitioners, and Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City Emergency Hospital for Treatment. Fontanilla was later transferred to Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died. 2. April 17, 1978, the petitioners sued the respondent NIA demanding for damages before the then court of First Instance Nueva Ecija, Branch VIII at San Jose city, in connection with the accident. 3. March 20, 1980, the court directed respondent NIA to pay damages (death benefits) and actual expenses to the petitioner. 4. April 21, 1980, NIA filed a motion for consideration on the decision at the same court which was denied June 13, 1980 5. NIA filed an appeal to the court of Appeals where it filed its brief for the appellant in support of its position. 6. Instead on filing the required brief in the aforecited court of appeals case, petitioner filed an instant petition to the supreme court. ISSUE: Whether or not the award for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees is legally proper in a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict which resulted in the death of the son of the herein petitioners. Whether or not the liability will fall to the said agency or to the driver of the agency who actually incurred damages. RULING: The respondent National Irrigation Administration was directed to pay the petitioner for damages. RATIO DECIND: The question on whether or not it is legally proper for the petitioner to be awarded moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees can easily be answered by Art. 2176 and 2180 of the new civil code. Art. 2176 thus provides: Whoever by act omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing cotractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 21 80 read as follows: Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent.; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art. 2176 shall be applicable. The NIA is a government corporation with judicial personality and not merely agency of the government. Since it is a corporate body performing non government functions, it now becomes liable for the damages caused by the the accident resulting from the tortuous act of its driver-employee. In this case, The NIA assumes the responsibility of an ordinary employer and as such becomes liable for damages. According to the definition of the government of the Philippines, government owned and controlled corporation engaged in propriety functions cannot be considered part of the government for the purpose of exeption from application of the statute of limitation.