Guilatco v.

City of Dagupan

FACTS:
Florentina Guilatco was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk located at Perez Blvd. (a
national road) when she accidentally fell into an open manhole. Her right leg was fractured,
resulting in her hospitalization and continuing difficulty in locomotion. Because of her accident,
Guilatco was unable to go to work, thereby losing her income. She also lost weight, and she is
now no longer her former jovial self since she is unable to perform her religious, social, and
other activities. She filed an action for damages against the City of Dagupan. The City of
Dagupan denied liability on the ground that the manhole was located on a national road, which
was not under the control or supervision of the City of Dagupan. The respondent submits that it
is actually the Ministry of Public Highways that has control and supervision. CFI: ordered the
City to pay Guilatco. CA: reversed on the ground that no evidence was presented by the
petitioner to prove that respondent had “control and supervision” over Perez Blvd.

ISSUE: Whether the City of Dagupan is liable to Guilatco.

HELD:
Yes, the City of Dagupan is liable.

The liability of public corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by
pedestrians from the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil Code: Article
2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or
municipality. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.

In this case, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is
exercised through the City Engineer, whose duties include the care and custody of the public
system of waterworks and sewers. The charter of Dagupan provides that the laying out,
construction, and improvement of streets, avenues, and alleys and sidewalks and the regulation
of the use thereof may be legislated by the Municipal Board. The charter only lays
down general rules regulating the liability of the city. On the other hand article 2189 applies in
particular to the liability arising from "defective streets, public buildings and other public works.
The Court ruled that there is no doubt that the City Engineer exercises control or
supervision over the public works in question. Hence, the liability of the city to the petitioner
under article 2198 of the Civil Code is clear.
 City of Manila vs Teotico

FACTS:
On January 27, 1958, Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue,
Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped down from
the curb to board the jeepney he hailed, and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and
unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, Teotico suffered
injuries. Teotico filed with the CFI Mla complaint against the City which dismissed the same. On
appeal, CA sentenced the City of Manila to pay damages.

ISSUE: Whether the City of Manila have control or supervision over P. Burgos Ave making it
responsible for the damages suffered by Teotico.

HELD:
Yes. In its answer to the complaint, the City alleged that "the streets aforementioned
were and have been constantly kept in good condition…and manholes thereof covered by the
Defendant City and the officers concerned…" Thus, the City had, in effect, admitted that P.
Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and supervision.

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
Under Article 2189 CC, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach
that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from which
responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality
have either "control or supervision" over said street or road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were,
therefore, a national highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from the City's
"control or supervision."

Hence, the City of Manila is liable to Teotico for damages even if the road was a national
road.