Presumed negligent

This is another case where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) is once more applied.

This is the case of a fire that destroyed portions of the building owned by a realty company (BDI). The origin of the fire was the stock room located at the third floor of the building occupied by a pre need company (CAPP) which was leasing several units in the second and third floors of the building.

For purposes of filing their insurance claim, CAPP requested for investigation of the cause and circumstances surrounding the fire. So an arson investigator was assigned by the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) who then submitted a field investigation report that the fire was due to an overheated coffee percolator found and retrieved from the stock room where the fire originated. The metal base of the heating device of said percolator contained the inscription “caution do not operate when empty” which is a warning against the use of such electrical device when empty and an indication that it is a water heating appliance.

Based on this field investigation report of the arson investigator the BFP City Fire Marshal issued to CAPP a certification reiterating the findings of the arson investigator as to the origin and cause of the fire which was used by CAPP as supporting document for its insurance claim.

Citing the same certification, BDI sent a notice to vacate the burned leased premises to make way for repairs and to pay reparation estimated at P1.5 million. In response CAPP vacated not only the said premises but also the units on the second floor. But it did not act on the demand for reparation. Then BDI wrote another letter increasing the claim to P2 million and pointing out that CAPP had no reason to vacate the second floor not affected by fire, hence BDI said that the lease of said units are still subsisting along with its obligation to pay the rent. But the demand of BDI went unheeded since CAPP insisted that the fire was a fortuitous event.

So BDI already filed a complaint for damages with the RTC. After trial the RTC ruled in favor of BDI relying mainly on the BFP field investigation report and the BFP certification which were presented during the testimony of a fireman who prepared it but who had no participation in the investigation of the fire incident or personal knowledge of said incident.

CAPP questioned this decision. It claimed that the report, the certification and the testimony of the fireman are hearsay and incompetent evidence to prove that the cause of the fire was the coffee percolator and insisted that the fire was a fortuitous event. Were they correct?

No. Article 1667 of the civil code creates the presumption that the lessee (CAPP) is liable for the loss or deterioration of the thing leased. To overcome such legal presumption, it must prove that the loss or deterioration was due to fortuitous event and not to its fault or negligence. If the negligence or fault of lessee coincided with the occurrence of the fortuitous event, the fortuitous event cannot shield the lessee from liability for his negligence or fault.

In this case the negligence of CAPP was the proximate cause of the fire that destroyed portions of the leased units. Even without the testimony of the fireman and the documents he prepared, such fault or negligence has been shown by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur under which expert testimony may be dispensed with. To sustain the allegation of negligence under this doctrine, the following requisites must obtain: (a) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (b) the cause of the damage or injury is under the exclusive control of the person in charge and (c) the damage or injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person damaged or injured.

In this case, the fire that damaged BDI’s building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but the outcome of a human act or omission. It originated in the stock room under the control and possession of CAPP. BDI had no hand in the incident. Hence the convergence of these facts and circumstance speaks for itself; CAPP alone having knowledge of the cause of the fire or the best opportunity to ascertain it, and BDI having no means to find out for itself, is sufficient for BDI to merely allege that the cause of the fire was the negligence of CAPP and to rely on the occurrence of the fire as proof of such negligence. It was all up to CAPP to dispel such inference of negligence, but their bare denials only left the matter unanswered. Absent an explanation from CAPP on the cause of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.

When some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot from the nature of the case be proved with certainty, temperate or moderate damages which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages may be awarded at the discretion of the court. In this case in view of the inability of BDI to prove the exact amount of pecuniary loss, P500,000 temperate damages is reasonable. CAPP must also pay for the unpaid rentals of the floor they occupied until the end of their contract (College Assurance Plan etc. vs. Belfranlt Development Inc. G.R. 155604, November 22, 2007). 

E-mail: [email protected]