Gotesco v Chatto (Torts)

GOTESCO v CHATTO [G.R. No. 87584. June 16, 1992.] GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. GLORIA E. CHATTO and LINA DELZA CHATTO, respondents.

FACTS:
In the afternoon of June 4, 1982 plaintiff Gloria E. Chatto, and her 15-year old daughter, plaintiff Lina Delza E. Chatto went to see the movie 'Mother Dear' at Superama I theater, owned by defendant Gotesco Investment Corporation. They bought balcony tickets but even then were unable to find seats considering the number of people patronizing the movie. Hardly ten (10) minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of its balcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into darkness and pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, plaintiffs managed to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to get out to the street they walked to the nearby FEU Hospital where they were confined and treated for one (1) day.
The next day, they transferred to the UST hospital. Plaintiff Gloria Chatto was treated in said hospital from June 5 to June 19 and plaintiff Lina Delza Chatto from June 5 to 11. Due to continuing pain in the neck, headache and dizziness, plaintiff went to Illinois, USA in July 1982 for further treatment (Exh. "E") She was treated at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. She stayed in the U.S. for about three (3) months during which time she had to return to the Cook County Hospital five (5) or six (6) times.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Trial Court: ordered the defendant, herein petitioner, to pay the plaintiff Lina Delza E. Chatto

ISSUE:
Whether Gotesco is liable

RULING:
Yes

Petitioner's claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not even founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted that "he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed."
Clearly, there was no authoritative investigation conducted by impartial civil and structural engineers on the cause of the collapse of the theater's ceiling. Jesus Lim Ong is not an engineer, he is a graduate of architecture from the St. Louie (sic) University in Baguio City. It does not appear he has passed the government examination for architects. (TSN, June 14, 1985, p. 4) In fine, the ignorance of Mr. Ong about the cause of the collapse of the ceiling of their theater cannot be equated as an act of God. To sustain that proposition is to introduce sacrilege in our jurisprudence."

Having interposed it as a defense, it had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. It could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation does not imply force majeure. 

Verily, the post-incident investigation cannot be considered as material to the present proceedings. What is significant is the finding of the trial court, affirmed by the respondent Court, that the collapse was due to construction defects. There was no evidence offered to overturn this finding. The building was constructed barely four (4) years prior to the accident in question. It was no shown that any of the causes denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at the time of the collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could have been easily discovered if only petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. But as disclosed by the testimony of Mr. Ong, there was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident. His answers to the leading questions on inspection disclosed neither the exact dates of said inspection nor the nature and extent of the same. That the structural designs and plans of the building were duly approved by the City Engineer and the building permits and certificate of occupancy were issued do not at all prove that there were no defects in the construction, especially as regards the ceiling, considering that no testimony was offered to prove that it was ever inspected at all. It is settled that: "The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that the premises, appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means." This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that: "Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised, its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant." That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.

As gleaned from Bouvier's definition of and Cockburn's elucidation on force majeure, for one to be exempt from any liability because of it, he must have exercised care, i.e., he should not have been guilty of negligence.