Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION Vs - CA
JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION Vs - CA
DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
FACTS:
In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH were at the 2nd floor of Syvel’s
Department Store, Makati City. CRISELDA was signing her credit card slip at the payment and
verification counter when she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind
her. She then beheld her daughter ZHIENETH on the floor, her young body pinned by the bulk of the
store’s gift-wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying and screaming for help. Although
shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask the assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and
retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor.
ZHIENETH was quickly rushed to the Makati Medical Center where she was operated on. She died
fourteen (14) days after the accident or on 22 May 1983, on the hospital bed. She was six years old.
After the burial of their daughter, private respondents demanded upon petitioners the
reimbursement of the hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had
incurred. Petitioners refused to pay. In their answer with counterclaim, petitioners denied any
liability.
The trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim after finding that the preponderance of the
evidence favored petitioners and that Criselda’s negligence contributed to Zhieneth’s accident.
Private respondents appealed the trial court’s decision and asserted that ZHIENETH should be
entitled to the conclusive presumption that a child below nine (9) years is incapable of
contributory negligence. The Court of Appeals decided in favor of the private respondents and
declared that ZHIENETH, who was below seven (7) years old at the time of the incident, was
absolutely incapable of negligence or other tort. It reasoned that since a child under nine (9)
years could not be held liable even for an intentional wrong, then the six-year old ZHIENETH
could not be made to account for a mere mischief or reckless act. It also absolved CRISELDA of
any negligence, finding nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in momentarily allowing ZHIENETH to
walk while she signed the document at the nearby counter. Actual damages were awarded
representing the hospitalization expenses incurred as evidenced by the hospital’s statement of
account. CA, however, denied the award of funeral expense for lack of proof to substantiate the same.
Instead, a compensatory damage of P50,000 was awarded for the death. Petitioners were held jointly
and severally liable.
On appeal, petitioners seek the reversal of the CA decision. They averred that since the action was
based on tort, any finding of negligence on the part of private respondents would negate the claim for
damages, where said negligence was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.
ISSUE: WON ZHIENETH, A SIX YEAR OLD CHILD IS LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
HELD: NO.
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident
occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any
person and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.
Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors
children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. Even if we
attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the counter, no
injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners’ theory that the counter was stable and sturdy.
For if that was the truth, a frail six-year old could not have caused the counter to collapse. In fact,
ZHIENETH even admitted to the doctor who treated her that she did not do anything. The counter
just fell on her.
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence. CRISELDA momentarily
released the child’s hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip, which was reasonable
and usual at that precise moment.
Hence, the SC denied the appeal of petitioners and affirmed the decision of the CA.