4/28/2017 G.R.No.

204866

TodayisFriday,April28,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.204866January21,2015

RUKSKONSULTANDCONSTRUCTION,Petitioner,
vs.
ADWORLDSIGNANDADVERTISINGCORPORATION* andTRANSWORLDMEDIAADS,INC.,Respondents.

DECISION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

Assailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1aretheDecision2datedNovember16,2011andtheResolution3
datedDecember10,2012oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.94693whichaffirmedtheDecision4
dated August 25, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 142 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 031452
holding, inter alia, petitioner Ruks Konsult and Construction (Ruks) and respondent Transworld Media Ads, Inc.
(Transworld) jointly and severally liable to respondent Adworld Sign and Advertising Corporation (Adworld) for
damages.

TheFacts

The instant case arose from a complaint for damages filed by Adworld against Transworld and Comark
InternationalCorporation(Comark)beforetheRTC.5Inthecomplaint,Adworldallegedthatitistheownerofa75
ft.x60ft.billboardstructurelocatedatEDSATulay,Guadalupe,BarangkaMandaluyong,whichwasmisaligned
anditsfoundationimpairedwhen,onAugust11,2003,theadjacentbillboardstructureownedbyTransworldand
usedbyComarkcollapsedandcrashedagainstit.Resultantly,onAugust19,2003,AdworldsentTransworldand
Comarkaletterdemandingpaymentfortherepairsofitsbillboardaswellaslossofrentalincome.OnAugust29,
2003,Transworldsentitsreply,admittingthedamagecausedbyitsbillboardstructureonAdworldsbillboard,but
nevertheless,refusedandfailedtopaytheamountsdemandedbyAdworld.AsAdworldsfinaldemandletteralso
wentunheeded,itwasconstrainedtofiletheinstantcomplaint,prayingfordamagesintheaggregateamountof
P474,204.00, comprised of P281,204.00 for materials, P72,000.00 for labor, and P121,000.00 for indemnity for
lossofincome.6

In its Answer with Counterclaim, Transworld averred that the collapse of its billboard structure was due to
extraordinarilystrongwindsthatoccurredinstantlyandunexpectedly,andmaintainedthatthedamagecausedto
Adworlds billboard structure was hardly noticeable. Transworld likewise filed a ThirdParty Complaint against
Ruks,thecompanywhichbuiltthecollapsedbillboardstructureintheformersfavor. Itwasallegedthereinthat
1 w p h i1

the structure constructed by Ruks had a weak and poor foundation not suited for billboards, thus, prone to
collapse, and as such, Ruks should ultimately be held liable for the damages caused to Adworlds billboard
structure.7

For its part, Comark denied liability for the damages caused to Adworlds billboard structure, maintaining that it
doesnothaveanyinterestonTransworldscollapsedbillboardstructureasitonlycontractedtheuseofthesame.
Inthisrelation,ComarkprayedforexemplarydamagesfromTransworldforunreasonablyincludingitasaparty
defendantinthecomplaint.8

Lastly, Ruks admitted that it entered into a contract with Transworld for the construction of the latters billboard
structure,butdeniedliabilityforthedamagescausedbyitscollapse.ItcontendedthatwhenTransworldhiredits
services, there was already an existing foundation for the billboard and that it merely finished the structure
accordingtothetermsandconditionsofitscontractwiththelatter.9

TheRTCRuling

In a Decision10 dated August 25, 2009, the RTC ultimately ruled in Adworlds favor, and accordingly, declared,
inter alia, Transworld and Ruks jointly and severally liable to Adworld in the amount of P474,204.00 as actual

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_204866_2015.html 1/4
4/28/2017 G.R.No.204866

damages,withlegalinterestfromthedateofthefilingofthecomplaintuntilfullpaymentthereof,plusattorneys
feesintheamountofP50,000.00.11TheRTCfoundbothTransworldandRuksnegligentintheconstructionofthe
collapsed billboard as they knew that the foundation supporting the same was weak and would pose danger to
thesafetyofthemotoristsandtheotheradjacentproperties,suchasAdworldsbillboard,andyet,theydidnotdo
anythingtoremedythesituation.12Inparticular,theRTCexplainedthatTransworldwasmadeawarebyRuksthat
theinitialconstructionofthelowerstructureofitsbillboarddidnothavetheproperfoundationandwouldrequire
additional columns and pedestals to support the structure. Notwithstanding, however, Ruks proceeded with the
construction of the billboards upper structure and merely assumed that Transworld would reinforce its lower
structure.13 The RTC then concluded that these negligent acts were the direct and proximate cause of the
damagessufferedbyAdworldsbillboard.14

Aggrieved, both Transworld and Ruks appealed to the CA. In a Resolution dated February 3, 2011, the CA
dismissed Transworlds appeal for its failure to file an appellants brief on time.15 Transworld elevated its case
before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 197601.16 However, in a Resolution17 dated November 23, 2011, the
CourtdeclaredthecaseclosedandterminatedforfailureofTransworldtofiletheintendedpetitionforreviewon
certiorariwithintheextendedreglementaryperiod.Subsequently,theCourtissuedanEntryofJudgment18 dated
February22,2012inG.R.No.197601declaringtheCourtsNovember23,2011Resolutionfinalandexecutory.

TheCARuling

In a Decision19 dated November 16, 2011, the CA denied Rukss appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It
adheredtotheRTCsfindingofnegligenceonthepartofTransworldandRukswhichbroughtaboutthedamage
toAdworldsbillboard.ItfoundthatTransworldfailedtoensurethatRukswillcomplywiththeapprovedplansand
specifications of the structure, and that Ruks continued to install and finish the billboard structure despite the
knowledgethattherewerenoadequatecolumnstosupportthesame.20

Dissatisfied,Ruksmovedforreconsideration,21whichwas,however,deniedinaResolution22datedDecember10,
2012,hence,thispetition.

Ontheotherhand,TransworldfiledanotherappealbeforetheCourt,docketedasG.R.No.205120.23However,
theCourtdeniedoutrightTransworldspetitioninaResolution24datedApril15,2013,holdingthatthesamewas
alreadyboundbythedismissalofitspetitionfiledinG.R.No.197601.

TheIssueBeforetheCourt

TheprimordialissuefortheCourtsresolutioniswhetherornottheCAcorrectlyaffirmedtherulingoftheRTC
declaringRuksjointlyandseverallyliablewithTransworldfordamagessustainedbyAdworld.

TheCourtsRuling

Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.

Attheoutset,itmustbestressedthatfactualfindingsoftheRTC,whenaffirmedbytheCA,areentitledtogreat
weight by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record.25 Absent
anyexceptionstothisrulesuchaswhenitisestablishedthatthetrialcourtignored,overlooked,misconstrued,
ormisinterpretedcogentfactsandcircumstancesthat,ifconsidered,wouldchangetheoutcomeofthecase26
suchfindingsmuststand.

Afterajudiciousperusaloftherecords,theCourtseesnocogentreasontodeviatefromthefindingsoftheRTC
andtheCAandtheiruniformconclusionthatbothTransworldandRukscommittedactsresultinginthecollapse
oftheformersbillboard,whichinturn,causeddamagetotheadjacentbillboardofAdworld.

Jurisprudence defines negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerationswhichordinarilyregulatetheconductofhumanaffairs,woulddo,orthedoingofsomethingwhich
a prudent and reasonable man would not do.27 It is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of
another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
suchotherpersonsuffersinjury.28

Inthiscase,theCAcorrectlyaffirmedtheRTCsfindingthatTransworldsinitialconstructionofitsbillboardslower
structurewithouttheproperfoundation,andthatofRukssfinishingitsupperstructureandjustmerelyassuming
that Transworld would reinforce the weak foundation are the two (2) successive acts which were the direct and
proximatecauseofthedamagessustainedbyAdworld.Worse,bothTransworldandRukswerefullyawarethat
the foundation for the formers billboard was weak yet, neither of them took any positive step to reinforce the
same. They merely relied on each others word that repairs would be done to such foundation, but none was
doneatall.Clearly,theforegoingcircumstancesshowthatbothTransworldandRuksareguiltyofnegligencein
the construction of the formers billboard, and perforce, should be held liable for its collapse and the resulting
damagetoAdworldsbillboardstructure.Asjointtortfeasors,therefore,theyaresolidarilyliabletoAdworld.Verily,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_204866_2015.html 2/4
4/28/2017 G.R.No.204866

"[j]oint tortfeasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in,
aid or abet the commission of a tort, or approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are also
referredtoasthosewhoacttogetherincommittingwrongorwhoseacts,ifindependentofeachother,unitein
causingasingleinjury.UnderArticle219429oftheCivilCode,jointtortfeasorsaresolidarilyliablefortheresulting
damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same
manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves."30 The Courts pronouncement in People v.
Velasco31isinstructiveonthismatter,towit:32

Whereseveralcausesproducinganinjuryareconcurrentandeachisanefficientcausewithoutwhichtheinjury
would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had
against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that
oneofthemwasmoreculpable,andthatthedutyowedbythemtotheinjuredpersonwasnotsame.Noactor's
negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the
injury.

Thereisnocontributionbetweenjoint[tortfeasors]whoseliabilityissolidarysincebothofthemareliableforthe
totaldamage. Wheretheconcurrentorsuccessivenegligentactsoromissionsoftwoormorepersons,although
1 w p h i1

actingindependently,areincombinationthedirectandproximatecauseofasingleinjurytoathirdperson,itis
impossibletodetermineinwhatproportioneachcontributedtotheinjuryandeitherofthemisresponsibleforthe
wholeinjury.xxx.(Emphasesandunderscoringsupplied)

In conclusion, the CA correctly affirmed the ruling of the RTC declaring Ruks jointly and severally liable with
TransworldfordamagessustainedbyAdworld.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2011 and the Resolution dated
December10,2012oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.94693areherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*
"AdworldSignsandAdvertisingCorporation"insomepartsoftherecords.
1
Rollo(G.R.No.204866),pp.1155.
2
Id. at 7387. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Apolinario D.
Bruselas,Jr.andManuelM.Barrios,concurring.
3
Id.at5961.PennedbyAssociateJusticeApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.withAssociateJusticesNoelG.Tijam
andRicardoR.Rosario,concurring.
4
Id.at97109.PennedbyPresidingJudgeDinaPestanoTeves.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_204866_2015.html 3/4
4/28/2017 G.R.No.204866
5
Id.at97.
6
Seeid.at7476.
7
Id.at7677.
8
Id.at77.
9
Id.
10
Id.at97109.
11
Id.at109.
12
Id.at105106.
13
Id.at104.
14
Id.at106.
15
Id.at78.
16
Entitled"TransworldMediaAds,Inc.v.AdworldSignandAdvertisingCorporation,etal."
17
Rollo(G.R.No.197601),p.7.
18
Id.at11.
19
Rollo(G.R.No.204866),pp.7387.
20
Id.at85.
21
SeeMotionforReconsiderationdatedDecember8,2011id.at6371.
22
Id.at5961.
23
Entitled"TransworldMediaAds,Inc.v.AdworldSignsandAdvertisingCorp."
24
Rollo(G.R.No.205120),p.164.
25
See Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014, citing Maxwell Heavy Equipment
Corporationv.Yu,G.R.No.179395,December15,2010,638SCRA653,658.
26
Peoplev.Anod,613Phil.565,572(2009).
27
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Lifetime Marketing Corporation, 578 Phil. 354, 362 (2008), citing
PhilippineBankofCommercev.CA,336Phil.667,676(1997).
28
Garcia,Jr.v.Salvador,547Phil.463,470(2007),citingChildLearningCenter,Inc.v.Tagorio,512Phil.
618,623624(2005).
29
Article2194oftheCivilCodereads:

Art.2194.Theresponsibilityoftwoormorepersonswhoareliableforaquasidelictissolidary.
30
SeePeoplev.Velasco,G.R.No.195668,June25,2014,citationsomitted.
31
Id.
32
Seeid.,citingFarEasternShippingCompanyv.CA,357Phil.703,751(1998).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_204866_2015.html 4/4