FACTS: Jasmin Cardaña died instantaneously when a branch of a Caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her while walking along the perimeter fence of the San Roque Elementary School. Her parents, Dominador and Rosalita Cardaña, filed a case for damages against petitioner Capilibefore the RTCalleging Capili’s gross negligence and lack of foresight caused the death of their daughter.
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. To prove her point, she presented witnesses who attested that she had brought up the offer of Lerios to the other teachers during a meeting and assigned Remedios Palaña to negotiate the sale.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of the respondents to establish negligence on the part of Capili.
The CA reversed the RTC holding Capili liable for negligence resulting to the death of Jasmin D. Cardaña.
ISSUES: (1) Whether petitioner is negligent and liable for the death of Jasmin Cardaña; and (2) Whether the award of moral damages is proper.
RULING:
(1) Yes. While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while the mere happening of an accident or injury will not generally give rise to an inference or presumption that it was due to negligence on defendant’s part, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other person who is charged with negligence.
x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those who had its control or management used proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused by the defendant’s want of care.
As the school principal, petitioner was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises. That she was unaware of the rotten state of the tree calls for an explanation on her part as to why she failed to be vigilant.
(2) No. The award of moral damages is not proper.
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 of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
However, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.
Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-à-vis respondents’ daughter’s death.
