Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION Vs - CA

    Uploaded by

    Butch Sui Generis
    80 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondents in a case involving the death of their six-year old daughter Zhieneth. Zhieneth had been pinned by a falling gift-wrapping counter/structure at a department store and later died from her injuries. The Court of Appeals found that Zhieneth, being under seven years old at the time, was incapable of contributory negligence under the law. It also did not find the mother, Criselda, negligent for momentarily letting go of Zhieneth's hand to sign a credit card slip. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, applying the legal presumption that children under nine cannot be contributorily negligent. It also found that the accident could not have been

    Original Description:

    Civil case

    Original Title

    JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION vs.CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondents in a case involving the death of their six-year old daughter Zhieneth. Zhieneth had been pinned by a falling gift-wrapping counter/structure at a department store and later died from her injuries. The Court of Appeals found that Zhieneth, being under seven years old at the time, was incapable of contributory negligence under the law. It also did not find the mother, Criselda, negligent for momentarily letting go of Zhieneth's hand to sign a credit card slip. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, applying the legal presumption that children under nine cannot be contributorily negligent. It also found that the accident could not have been

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION Vs - CA

    Uploaded by

    Butch Sui Generis
    The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondents in a case involving the death of their six-year old daughter Zhieneth. Zhieneth had been pinned by a falling gift-wrapping counter/structure at a department store and later died from her injuries. The Court of Appeals found that Zhieneth, being under seven years old at the time, was incapable of contributory negligence under the law. It also did not find the mother, Criselda, negligent for momentarily letting go of Zhieneth's hand to sign a credit card slip. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, applying the legal presumption that children under nine cannot be contributorily negligent. It also found that the accident could not have been

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. No. 129792.

    December 21, 1999]

    JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION, LEONARDO KONG, JOSE TIOPE and ELISA


    PANELO, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CONRADO C. AGUILAR
    and CRISELDA R. AGUILAR, Respondents.

    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.

    You might also like