G.R. No.

157906 November 2, 2006

JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI, Petitioner,
vs.
SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAA and ROSALITA CARDAA, Respondents.
Cardaa was walking along the perimeter fence of the San Roque Elementary School when a
branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell on her, causing her instantaneous
death. Thus, her parents, spouses Cardaa - filed a case for damages before the Regional Trial
Courtagainst petitioner.
The Cardaas alleged in their complaint that even as early as December 15, 1992, a resident of
the barangay, Lerios, reported on the possible danger the tree posed to passersby. Lerios even
pointed to the petitioner the tree that stood near the principals office. The Cardaas averred that
petitioners gross negligence and lack of foresight caused the death of their daughter.
Petitioner 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. the trial court dismissed the complaint
for failure of the respondents to establish negligence on the part of the petitioner.
the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner now comes before us submitting the
following issues for our resolution:
WON petitioner is negligent and liable for the death of Jasmin Cardaa.
A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actors position, in the same or
similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not
to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.
12

The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is clearly a
danger that is foreseeable. 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 a tree whose falling branch had caused the death of a child speaks ill
of her discharge of the responsibility of her position.
In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance
of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
13

The fact, however, that respondents daughter, Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree
within the schools premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing
by and calls for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant
an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendants negligence; (2) the accident
must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control
of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been
due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
14

The effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to warrant a presumption or inference that the mere
falling of the branch of the dead and rotting tree which caused the death of respondents daughter
was a result of petitioners negligence, being in charge of the school.
Hence, the burden shifts to petitioner to explain. Was petitioners explanation as to why she failed to
have the tree removed immediately sufficient to exculpate her?
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. Petitioner contends she was unaware of the
state of the dead and rotting tree because Lerios merely offered to buy the tree and did not inform
her of its condition. Neither did any of her teachers inform her that the tree was an imminent danger
to anyone. She argues that she could not see the immediate danger posed by the tree by its mere
sighting even as she and the other teachers conducted ground inspections. She further argues that,
even if she should have been aware of the danger, she exercised her duty by assigning the
disposition of the tree to another teacher.
We find petitioners explanation wanting. As school principal, petitioner is expected to oversee the
safety of the schools premises.1wphi 1 The fact that she failed to see the immediate danger posed by the
dead and rotting tree shows she failed to exercise the responsibility demanded by her position.
Moreover, even if petitioner had assigned disposal of the tree to another teacher, she exercises
supervision over her assignee.
17
The record shows that more than a month had lapsed from the time
petitioner gave instruction to her assistant Palaa to the time the incident occurred. Clearly, she
failed to check seasonably if the danger posed by the rotting tree had been removed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.