Case Digest: Torio vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993, October 23, 1978

Torts and Damages | Vicarious Liability

Recit Ver:

• The Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed Resolution No. 159 to manage the 1959 town fiesta.

• Resolution No. 182 created the "1959 Malasiqui Town Fiesta Executive Committee," which formed a sub-committee on entertainment and stage with Jose Macaraeg as chairman.

• The stage construction was funded with a P100.00 appropriation by the council.

• Stage for "zarzuela" measured 5.5m x 8m, supported by 24 bamboo posts and braces.

• The construction was supervised by Jose Macaraeg.

• The "zarzuela" Midas Extravaganza was donated by Manila Railroad Company employees. 

• During the performance, the stage collapsed, causing the death of Vicente Fontanilla, a performer.

• Fontanilla's heirs filed an action against the Municipality of Malasiqui, its council, and individual councilors for damages.

• Defenses:

• Municipality: Claimed immunity under the principle that organizing a fiesta was a governmental function.

• Councilors: Asserted they acted as agents of the municipality and exercised due care in implementing the ordinance.

• CFI:

• Dismissed the complaint.

• Found that the Executive Committee had exercised due diligence in stage construction.

• The stage collapse was due to unforeseeable forces, absolving all defendants of liability.

• CA:

• Reversed the trial court's decision.

• Ordered all defendants to pay jointly and severally.

• Nature and Powers of Municipalities—

• Municipalities are corporate political bodies endowed with governmental and proprietary powers:

• Governmental Powers: Exercised for public welfare, including legislative, judicial, and administrative functions (e.g., public schools, prisons).

• Proprietary Powers: Performed for the special benefit of the local community (e.g., parks, markets).

• Liability for Acts of Agents—

• Municipal liability depends on the function performed:

• Governmental Functions: Generally immune from liability unless a statute explicitly allows it.

• Proprietary Functions: Municipalities can be held liable for negligence or breach of contract.

• Palafox v. Ilocos Norte: No liability for injuries caused during road construction (governmental function).

• Liability applies under the doctrine of respondeat superior when negligence occurs in proprietary functions.

• A town fiesta is a proprietary function under the Revised Administrative Code—

• The town fiesta was held as a voluntary, special event for the community's benefit, not a government-mandated public service.

• Section 2282 of the Revised Administrative Code allows municipalities to hold fiestas, but does not require them to do so, and it is seen as a private or proprietary function rather than a governmental one.

• The municipality was negligent in failure to maintain a safe stage for the event—

• The stage collapse occurred because of improper construction and lack of oversight in preventing spectators from climbing the stage.

• The municipality, through its officers and agents, was deemed liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

• The municipality cannot evade responsibility by claiming that Jose Macaraeg, who constructed the stage, was solely to blame, as Macaraeg was an agent acting on behalf of the municipality.

• The municipality is liable for the negligence of its agents in such matters.

• Municipal councilors are not liable under Article 27 of the Civil Code—

• Article 27 applies to nonfeasance (failure to perform duties) and not misfeasance (negligence in performing duties). 

• The councilors were absolved of liability, as they did not personally participate in the negligence or defective stage construction.

MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:

These Petitions for review present the issue of whether or not the celebration of a town fiesta authorized by a municipal council under Sec. 2282 of the Municipal Law as embodied in the Revised Administrative Code is a governmental or a corporate or proprietary function of the municipality.

A resolution of that issue will lead to another, viz the civil liability for damages of the Municipality of Malasiqui, and the members of the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, province of Pangasinan, for a death which occurred during the celebration of the town fiesta on January 22, 1959, and which was attributed to the negligence of the municipality and its council members.

The following facts are not in dispute:

On October 21, 1958, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed Resolution No. 159 whereby "it resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration on January 21, 22, and 23, 1959." 

Resolution No. 182 was also passed creating the "1959 Malasiqui 'Town Fiesta Executive Committee" which in turn organized a sub-committee on entertainment and stage, with Jose Macaraeg as Chairman. 

The council appropriated the amount of P100.00 for the construction of 2 stages, one for the "zarzuela" and another for the cancionan Jose Macaraeg supervised the construction of the stage and as constructed the stage for the "zarzuela" was "5-½ meters by 8 meters in size, had a wooden floor high at the rear and was supported by 24 bamboo posts — 4 in a row in front, 4 in the rear and 5 on each side — with bamboo braces." 

The "zarzuela" entitled "Midas Extravaganza" was donated by an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan, Rizal. The troupe arrived in the evening of January 22 for the performance and one of the members of the group was Vicente Fontanilla. 

The program started at about 10:15 o'clock that evening with some speeches, and many persons went up the stage. The "zarzuela" then began but before the dramatic part of the play was reached, the stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the stage was pinned underneath. Fontanilia was taken to the San Carlos General Hospital where he died in the afternoon of the following day.

The heirs of Vicente Fontanilia filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 11, 1959 to recover damages. Named party-defendants were the Municipality of Malasiqui, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui and all the individual members of the Municipal Council in 1959.

Answering the complaint defendant municipality invoked inter alia the principal defense that as a legally and duly organized public corporation it performs sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental functions from which no liability can arise to answer for the negligence of any of its agents.

The defendant councilors in turn maintained that they merely acted as agents of the municipality in carrying out the municipal ordinance providing for the management of the town fiesta celebration and as such they are likewise not liable for damages as the undertaking was not one for profit; furthermore, they had exercised due care and diligence in implementing the municipal ordinance. 

After trial, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin narrowed the issue to whether or not the defendants exercised due diligence 'm the construction of the stage. From his findings he arrived at the conclusion that the Executive Committee appointed by the municipal council had exercised due diligence and care like a good father of the family in selecting a competent man to construct a stage strong enough for the occasion and that if it collapsed that was due to forces beyond the control of the committee on entertainment, consequently, the defendants were not liable for damages for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. The complaint was accordingly dismissed in a decision dated July 10, 1962.  

The Fontanillas appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision Promulgated on October 31, 1968, the Court of Appeals through its Fourth Division composed at the time of Justices Salvador V. Esguerra, Nicasio A. Yatco and Eulogio S. Serrano reversed the trial court's decision and ordered all the defendants-appellees to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Vicente Fontanilla the sums of P12,000.00 by way of moral and actual damages: P1200.00 its attorney's fees; and the costs.  

The case is now before Us on various assignments of errors all of which center on the proposition stated at the sentence of this Opinion and which We repeat:

Is the celebration of a town fiesta an undertaking in the excercise of a municipality's governmental or public function or is it or a private or proprietary character?

1. Under Philippine laws municipalities are political bodies corporate and as such as endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and through their respective municipal governments in conformity with law, and in their proper corporate name, they may inter alia sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted with.  

The powers of a municipality are twofold in character public, governmental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private, or proprietary on the other. 

Governmental powers are those exercised by the corporation in administering the powers of the state and promoting the public welfare and they include the legislative, judicial public, and political 

Municipal powers on the other hand are exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the community and include those which are ministerial private and corporate.  

As to when a certain activity is governmental and when proprietary or private, that is generally a difficult matter to determine. The evolution of the municipal law in American Jurisprudence, for instance, has shown that; none of the tests which have evolved and are stated in textbooks have set down a conclusive principle or rule, so that each case will have to be determined on the basis of attending circumstances.

In McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, the rule is stated thus: 

"A municipal corporation proper has ... a public character as regards the state at large insofar as it is its agent in government, and private (so-called) insofar as it is to promote local necessities and conveniences for its own community.  

Another statement of the test is given in City of Kokomo v. Loy, decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1916, thus:

Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are two fold. In one they exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political and governmental Their officers and agents in such capacity, though elected or appointed by the are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service, and as such they are officers, agents, and servants of the state. 

In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private. proprietary or corporate right, arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. Their officers and agents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or in. individual capacity, and not for the state or sovereign power. (112 N. E 994-995)

In the early Philippine case of Mendoza v. de Leon 1916, the Supreme Court, through Justice Grant T. Trent, relying mainly on American Jurisprudence classified certain activities of the municipality as governmental, e.g.: regulations against fire, disease, preservation of public peace, maintenance of municipal prisons, establishment of schools, post-offices, etc. while the following are corporate or proprietary in character, viz: municipal waterwork, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments, wharves, ferries, and fisheries. 

Maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and airports among others, are also recognized as municipal or city activities of a proprietary character. 

2. This distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of determining the liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons.

If the injury is caused in the course of the performance of a governmental function or duty no recovery, as a rule, can be had from the municipality unless there is an existing statute on the matter, nor from its officers, so long as they performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and maliciously.

In Palafox, et al., v. Province of Ilocos Norte, et al., 1958, a truck driver employed by the provincial government of Ilocos Norte ran over Proceto Palafox in the course of his work at the construction of a road. The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for damages held that the province could not be made liable because its employee was in the performance of a governmental function — the construction and maintenance of roads — and however tragic and deplorable it may be, the death of Palafox imposed on the province no duty to pay monetary consideration.  

With respect to proprietary functions, the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons ex contract or ex delicto. 

Municipal corporations are subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort. ...

xxx xxx xxx

The rule of law is a general one, that the superior or employer must answer civilly for the negligence or want of skill of its agent or servant in the course or fine of his employment, by which another, who is free from contributory fault, is injured. Municipal corporations under the conditions herein stated, fall within the operation of this rule of law, and are liable, accordingly, to civil actions for damages when the requisite elements of liability co-exist. ... (Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed. Sec. 1610,1647, cited in Mendoza v. de Leon, supra. 514)

3. Coming to the cam before Us, and applying the general tests given above, .

6. One last point We have to resolve is on the award of attorney's fees by respondent court. Petitioner-municipality assails the award.

Under paragraph 11, Art. 2208 of the Civil Code attorney's fees and expenses of litigation may be granted when the court deems it just and equitable. In this case of Vicente Fontanilla, although respondent appellate court failed to state the grounds for awarding attorney's fees, the records show however that attempts were made by plaintiffs, now private respondents, to secure an extrajudicial compensation from the municipality: that the latter gave prorases and assurances of assistance but failed to comply; and it was only eight month after the incident that the bereaved family of Vicente Fontanilla was compelled to seek relief from the courts to ventilate what was believed to be a just cause.  

We hold, therefore, that there is no error committed in the grant of attorney's fees which after all is a matter of judicial discretion. The amount of P1,200.00 is fair and reasonable.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, We AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as the Municipality of Malasiqui is concerned (L-30183), and We absolve the municipal councilors from liability and SET ASIDE the judgment against them (L-9993).

Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED,