Ruks Consult and Construction v. Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp. G.R. No. 204866

  Ruks Consult and Construction v. Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp., 

G.R. No. 204866, 

January 21, 2015

DOCTRINE: Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for

the resulting 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.

FACTS:

Adworld alleged that it is the owner of a 75 ft. x 60 ft. billboard structure located at EDSA

Tulay, Guadalupe, Barangka Mandaluyong, which was misaligned and its foundation

impaired when, on August 11, 2003, the adjacent billboard structure owned by Transworld

and used by Comark collapsed and crashed against it.

Transworld, admitting the damage caused by its billboard structure on Adworld's

billboard, but nevertheless, refused and failed to pay the amounts demanded by Adworld.

As Adworld's final demand letter also went unheeded, it was constrained to file the instant

complaint, praying for damages.

Transworld averred that the collapse of its billboard structure was due to extraordinarily

strong winds that occurred instantly and unexpectedly, and maintained that the damage

caused to Adworld's billboard structure was hardly noticeable. Transworld likewise filed a

Third-Party Complaint against Ruks, the company which built the collapsed billboard

structure in the former's favor.

It was alleged therein that 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 Adworld's billboard structure.

Comark denied liability for the damages caused to Adworld's billboard structure,

maintaining that it does not have any interest on Transworld's collapsed billboard

structure as it only contracted the use of the same. In this relation, Comark prayed for

exemplary damages from Transworld for unreasonably including it as a party-defendant

in the complaint.

Ruks contended that when Transworld hired its services, there was already an existing

foundation for the billboard and that it merely finished the structure according to the terms

and conditions of its contract with the latter.

The RTC ruled in Adworld's favor, and accordingly, declared, inter alia, Transworld and

Ruks jointly and severally liable to Adworld.

The RTC found both Transworld and Ruks negligent in the construction of the collapsed

billboard as they knew that the foundation supporting the same was weak and would pose

danger to the safety of the motorists and the other adjacent properties, such as Adworld's

billboard, and yet, they did not do anything to remedy the situation.

In particular, the RTC explained that Transworld was made aware by Ruks that the initial

construction of the lower structure of its billboard did not have the proper foundation and

would require additional columns and pedestals to support the structure. Notwithstanding,

however, Ruks proceeded with the construction of the billboard's upper structure and

merely assumed that Transworld would reinforce its lower structure. The RTC then

concluded that these negligent acts were the direct and proximate cause of the damages

suffered by Adworld's billboard.

The CA denied Ruks's appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It adhered to the RTC's

finding of negligence on the part of Transworld and Ruks which brought about the damage

to Adworld's billboard. It found that Transworld failed to ensure that Ruks will comply with

the approved plans and specifications of the structure, and that Ruks continued to install

and finish the billboard structure despite the knowledge that there were no adequate

columns to support the same.

ISSUE: Whether Ruks is jointly and severally liable with Transworld for damages

sustained by Adworld.

HELD: YES.

Jurisprudence defines negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable

man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human

affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would

not do. 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 such other person suffers injury.

In this case, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's finding that Transworld's initial

construction of its billboard's lower structure without the proper foundation, and that of

Ruks's finishing its upper structure and just merely assuming that Transworld would

reinforce the weak foundation are the two (2) successive acts which were the direct and

proximate cause of the damages sustained by Adworld. Worse, both Transworld and

Ruks were fully aware that the foundation for the former's billboard was weak; yet,

neither of them took any positive step to reinforce the same. They merely relied on

each other's word that repairs would be done to such foundation, but none was

done at all.

Clearly, the foregoing circumstances show that both Transworld and Ruks are guilty of

negligence in the construction of the former's billboard, and perforce, should be held liable

for its collapse and the resulting damage to Adworld's billboard structure. As joint

tortfeasors, therefore, they are solidarily liable to Adworld. Verily, "joint 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 referred to as those who act together in committing wrong or whose acts,

if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.

Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting

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."

The Court's pronouncement in People v. Velasco is instructive on this matter, to wit:

Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is

an efficient cause without which the injury 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 one of them was more culpable, and that the duty

owed by them to the injured person was not same. No actor'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.

There is no contribution between joint [tortfeasors] whose liability is solidary

since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or

successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although

acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of

a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what

proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible

for the whole injury.

Therefore, Ruks is jointly and severally liable with Transworld for damages sustained by

Adworld.