Syquia v CA G.R. No. 98695 January 27, 1993 JUAN J. SYQUIA, CORAZON C. SYQUIA, CARLOTA C. SYQUIA, CARLOS C.
SYQUIA and ANTHONY C. SYQUIA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and THE MANILA MEMORIAL
PARK CEMETERY, INC., respondents.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were the parents and siblings, respectively, of the deceased Vicente Juan Syquia. On March 5, 1979, they filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance against herein private respondent, Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. for recovery of damages arising from breach of contract and/or quasi-delict.
2. According to the complaint, the petitioners and respondent to inter the remains of deceased in the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery in the morning of July 25, 1978. They also alleged that the concrete vault encasing the coffin of the deceased had a hole approximately three (3) inches in diameter. Upon opening the vault, it became apparent that there was evidence of total flooding, the coffin was entirely damaged and the exposed parts of the deceased’s remains were damaged.
3. The complaint prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-appellee to pay plaintiffs-appellants P30,000.00 for actual damages, P500,000.00 for moral damages, etc.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. the contract between the parties did not guarantee that the cement vault would be waterproof; that there could be no quasi-delict because the defendant was not guilty of any fault or negligence, and because there was a pre- existing contractual relation.
Contention of the defense: "The hole had to be bored through the concrete vault because if it has no hole the vault will (sic) float and the grave would be filled with water and the digging would caved (sic) in the earth, the earth would caved (sic) in the (sic) fill up the grave."
2. Court of Appeals: affirmed dismissal.
ISSUE: whether the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., breached its contract with petitioners; or, alternatively, whether private respondent was guilty of a tort.
RULING:
NO, there was no negligent act on the part of the cemetery.
Although a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties does not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana, We find no reason to disregard the respondent's Court finding that there was no negligence.
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
Syquias and the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., entered into a contract entitled "Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care" on August 27, 1969. That agreement governed the relations of the parties and defined their respective rights and obligations. Hence, had there been actual negligence on the part of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., it would be held liable not for a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, but for culpa contractual as provided by Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
There was no stipulation in the Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care and in the Rules and Regulations of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. that the vault would be waterproof.
The law defines negligence as the "omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place." In the absence of stipulation or legal provision providing the contrary, the diligence to be observed in the performance of the obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family.
Private respondent has exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the accumulation of water inside the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were the parents and siblings, respectively, of the deceased Vicente Juan Syquia. On March 5, 1979, they filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance against herein private respondent, Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. for recovery of damages arising from breach of contract and/or quasi-delict.
2. According to the complaint, the petitioners and respondent to inter the remains of deceased in the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery in the morning of July 25, 1978. They also alleged that the concrete vault encasing the coffin of the deceased had a hole approximately three (3) inches in diameter. Upon opening the vault, it became apparent that there was evidence of total flooding, the coffin was entirely damaged and the exposed parts of the deceased’s remains were damaged.
3. The complaint prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-appellee to pay plaintiffs-appellants P30,000.00 for actual damages, P500,000.00 for moral damages, etc.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. the contract between the parties did not guarantee that the cement vault would be waterproof; that there could be no quasi-delict because the defendant was not guilty of any fault or negligence, and because there was a pre- existing contractual relation.
Contention of the defense: "The hole had to be bored through the concrete vault because if it has no hole the vault will (sic) float and the grave would be filled with water and the digging would caved (sic) in the earth, the earth would caved (sic) in the (sic) fill up the grave."
2. Court of Appeals: affirmed dismissal.
ISSUE: whether the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., breached its contract with petitioners; or, alternatively, whether private respondent was guilty of a tort.
RULING:
NO, there was no negligent act on the part of the cemetery.
Although a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties does not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana, We find no reason to disregard the respondent's Court finding that there was no negligence.
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
Syquias and the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., entered into a contract entitled "Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care" on August 27, 1969. That agreement governed the relations of the parties and defined their respective rights and obligations. Hence, had there been actual negligence on the part of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., it would be held liable not for a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, but for culpa contractual as provided by Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit:
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
There was no stipulation in the Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care and in the Rules and Regulations of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. that the vault would be waterproof.
The law defines negligence as the "omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place." In the absence of stipulation or legal provision providing the contrary, the diligence to be observed in the performance of the obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family.
Private respondent has exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the accumulation of water inside the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment