G.R. No.

L-12986 March 31, 1966

THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRIA a!" SOLE#A# . AFRIA, a!" $h%
HEIRS OF #OMINGA ONG, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
ALTE& 'PHIL.(, IN., MATEO BO)UIREN a!" THE OURT OF
APPEALS, respondents-appellees.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for the respondents.
Bernabe Africa, etc. for the petitioners.
MA*ALINTAL., J.:
This case is before us on a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed that of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing
petitioners' second amended complaint against respondents.
The action is for damages under Articles !"# and !"$ of the old Civil Code.
It appears that in the afternoon of March %, !&% a fire bro'e out at the Calte(
service station at the corner of Antipolo street and )i*al Avenue, Manila. It
started while gasoline was being hosed from a tan' truc' into the underground
storage, right at the opening of the receiving tan' where the no**le of the hose
was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses,
including the personal properties and effects inside them. Their owners,
among them petitioners here, sued respondents Calte( +,hil.-, Inc. and Mateo
.o/uiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the second as its agent
in charge of operation. 0egligence on the part of both of them was attributed
as the cause of the fire.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners failed to prove
negligence and that respondents had e(ercised due care in the premises and
with respect to the supervision of their emplo1ees.
The first /uestion before 2s refers to the admissibilit1 of certain reports on the
fire prepared b1 the Manila ,olice and Fire 3epartments and b1 a certain
Captain Tinio of the Armed Forces of the ,hilippines. ,ortions of the first two
reports are as follows4
. ,olice 3epartment report4 5
Investigation disclosed that at about &4"" ,.M. March %,
!&%, while 6eandro Flores was transferring gasoline from a
tan' truc', plate 0o. T-7#!# into the underground tan' of the
Calte( 8asoline 9tation located at the corner of )i*al
Avenue and Antipolo 9treet, this Cit1, an un'nown Filipino
lighted a cigarette and threw the burning match stic' near
the main valve of the said underground tan'. 3ue to the
gasoline fumes, fire suddenl1 bla*ed. :uic' action of
6eandro Flores in pulling off the gasoline hose connecting
the truc' with the underground tan' prevented a terrific
e(plosion. ;owever, the flames scattered due to the hose
from which the gasoline was spouting. It burned the truc'
and the following accessorias and residences.
#. The Fire 3epartment report4 5
In connection with their allegation that the premises was +sic-
subleased for the installation of a coca-cola and cigarette stand, the
complainants furnished this <ffice a cop1 of a photograph ta'en
during the fire and which is submitted herewith. it appears in this
picture that there are in the premises a coca-cola cooler and a rac'
which according to information gathered in the neighborhood
contained cigarettes and matches, installed between the gasoline
pumps and the underground tan's.
The report of Captain Tinio reproduced information given b1 a certain .enito
Morales regarding the histor1 of the gasoline station and what the chief of the
fire department had told him on the same sub=ect.
The foregoing reports were ruled out as >double hearsa1> b1 the Court of
Appeals and hence inadmissible. This ruling is now assigned as error. It is
contended4 first, that said reports were admitted b1 the trial court without
ob=ection on the part of respondents? secondl1, that with respect to the police
report +@(hibit A-Africa- which appears signed b1 a 3etective Bapanta
allegedl1 >for 9alvador Capacillo,> the latter was presented as witness but
respondents waived their right to cross-e(amine him although the1 had the
opportunit1 to do so? and thirdl1, that in an1 event the said reports are
admissible as an e(ception to the hearsa1 rule under section $7 of )ule #$,
now )ule $".
The first contention is not borne out b1 the record. The transcript of the
hearing of 9eptember C, !7$ +pp. DC-C"- shows that the reports in
/uestion, when offered as evidence, were ob=ected to b1 counsel for each of
respondents on the ground that the1 were hearsa1 and that the1 were
>irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent.> Indeed, in the court's resolution onl1
@(hibits E, F, F-7 and G-D were admitted without objection? the admission of
the others, including the disputed ones, carried no such e(planation.
<n the second point, although 3etective Capacillo did ta'e the witness stand,
he was not e(amined and he did not testif1 as to the facts mentioned in his
alleged report +signed b1 3etective Bapanta-. All he said was that he was one
of those who investigated >the location of the fire and, if possible, gather
witnesses as to the occurrence, and that he brought the report with him. There
was nothing, therefore, on which he need be cross-e(amined? and the
contents of the report, as to which he did not testif1, did not thereb1 become
competent evidence. And even if he had testified, his testimon1 would still
have been ob=ectionable as far as information gathered b1 him from third
persons was concerned.
,etitioners maintain, however, that the reports in themselves, that is, without
further testimonial evidence on their contents, fall within the scope of section
$7, )ule #$, which provides that >entries in official records made in the
performance of his dut1 b1 a public officer of the ,hilippines, or b1 a person in
the performance of a dut1 speciall1 en=oined b1 law, are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated.>
There are three re/uisites for admissibilit1 under the rule =ust mentioned4 +a-
that the entr1 was made b1 a public officer, or b1 another person speciall1
en=oined b1 law to do so? +b- that it was made b1 the public officer in the
performance of his duties, or b1 such other person in the performance of a
dut1 speciall1 en=oined b1 law? and +c- that the public officer or other person
had sufficient 'nowledge of the facts b1 him stated, which must have been
ac/uired b1 him personall1 or through official information +Moran, Comments
on the )ules of Court, Aol. $ H!7CI p. $!%-.
<f the three re/uisites =ust stated, onl1 the last need be considered here.
<bviousl1 the material facts recited in the reports as to the cause and
circumstances of the fire were not within the personal 'nowledge of the
officers who conducted the investigation. Jas 'nowledge of such facts,
however, ac/uired b1 them through official information5 As to some facts the
sources thereof are not even identified. <thers are attributed to 6eopoldo
Medina, referred to as an emplo1ee at the gas station were the fire occurred?
to 6eandro Flores, driver of the tan' truc' from which gasoline was being
transferred at the time to the underground tan' of the station? and to
respondent Mateo .o/uiren, who could not, according to @(hibit A-Africa, give
an1 reason as to the origin of the fire. To /ualif1 their statements as >official
information> ac/uired b1 the officers who prepared the reports, the persons
who made the statements not onl1 must have personal 'nowledge of the facts
stated but must have the dut1 to give such statements for record.

The reports in /uestion do not constitute an e(ception to the hearsa1 rule? the
facts stated therein were not ac/uired b1 the reporting officers through official
information, not having been given b1 the informants pursuant to an1 dut1 to
do so.
The ne(t /uestion is whether or not, without proof as to the cause and origin of
the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should appl1 so as to presume
negligence on the part of appellees. .oth the trial court and the appellate court
refused to appl1 the doctrine in the instant case on the grounds that >as to +its-
applicabilit1 ... in the ,hilippines, there seems to he nothing definite,> and that
while the rules do not prohibit its adoption in appropriate cases, >in the case at
bar, however, we find no practical use for such doctrine.> The /uestion
deserves more than such summar1 dismissal. The doctrine has actuall1 been
applied in this =urisdiction, in the case of Espiritu vs. hilippine ower and
!evelopment Co. +CA-8.). 0o. $#&"-), 9eptember #", !&!-, wherein the
decision of the Court of Appeals was penned b1 Mr. Eustice E...6. )e1es now
a member of the 9upreme Court.
The facts of that case are stated in the decision as follows4
In the afternoon of Ma1 7, !&D, while the plaintiff-appellee and other
companions were loading grass between the municipalities of .a1
and Calauan, in the province of 6aguna, with clear weather and
without an1 wind blowing, an electric transmission wire, installed and
maintained b1 the defendant ,hilippine ,ower and 3evelopment Co.,
Inc. alongside the road, suddenl1 parted, and one of the bro'en ends
hit the head of the plaintiff as he was about to board the truc'. As a
result, plaintiff received the full shoc' of &,&"" volts carried b1 the
wire and was 'noc'ed unconscious to the ground. The electric
charge coursed through his bod1 and caused e(tensive and serious
multiple burns from s'ull to legs, leaving the bone e(posed in some
parts and causing intense pain and wounds that were not completel1
healed when the case was tried on Eune %, !&C, over one 1ear
after the mishap.
The defendant therein disclaimed liabilit1 on the ground that the plaintiff had
failed to show an1 specific act of negligence, but the appellate court overruled
the defense under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court said4
The first point is directed against the sufficienc1 of plaintiff's evidence
to place appellant on its defense. Jhile it is the rule, as contended b1
the appellant, that in case of noncontractual negligence, or culpa
aquiliana, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the
pro(imate cause of his in=ur1 was the negligence of the defendant, it
is also a recogni*ed principal that >where the thing which caused
in=ur1, without fault of the in=ured person, is under the e(clusive
control of the defendant and the in=ur1 is such as in the ordinar1
course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of the
e(planation, that the in=ur1 arose from defendant's want of care.>
And the burden of evidence is shifted to him to establish that he has
observed due care and diligence. +9an Euan 6ight K Transit Co. v.
)e/uena, #&&, 2.9. %!, 7D 6. ed. D%".- This rule is 'nown b1 the
name of res ipsa loquitur +the transaction spea's for itself-, and is
peculiarl1 applicable to the case at bar, where it is un/uestioned that
the plaintiff had ever1 right to be on the highwa1, and the electric wire
was under the sole control of defendant compan1. In the ordinar1
course of events, electric wires do not part suddenl1 in fair weather
and in=ure people, unless the1 are sub=ected to unusual strain and
stress or there are defects in their installation, maintenance and
supervision? =ust as barrels do not ordinaril1 roll out of the warehouse
windows to in=ure passersb1, unless some one was negligent. +.1rne
v. .oadle, # ; K Co. C##? 7! @ng. )eprint #!!, the leading case that
established that rule-. Conse/uentl1, in the absence of contributor1
negligence +which is admittedl1 not present-, the fact that the wire
snapped suffices to raise a reasonable presumption of negligence in
its installation, care and maintenance. Thereafter, as observed b1
Chief .aron ,olloc', >if there are an1 facts inconsistent with
negligence, it is for the defendant to prove.>
It is true of course that decisions of the Court of Appeals do not la1 down
doctrines binding on the 9upreme Court, but we do not consider this a reason
for not appl1ing the particular doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the case at bar.
8asoline is a highl1 combustible material, in the storage and sale of which
e(treme care must be ta'en. <n the other hand, fire is not considered a
fortuitous event, as it arises almost invariabl1 from some act of man. A case
stri'ingl1 similar to the one before 2s is Eones vs. 9hell ,etroleum
Corporation, et al., C 9o. &&C4
Arthur <. Eones is the owner of a building in the cit1 of ;ammon
which in the 1ear !$& was leased to the 9hell ,etroleum
Corporation for a gasoline filling station. <n <ctober %, !$&, during
the term of the lease, while gasoline was being transferred from the
tan' wagon, also operated b1 the 9hell ,etroleum Corporation, to the
underground tan' of the station, a fire started with resulting damages
to the building owned b1 Eones. Alleging that the damages to his
building amounted to L7D.!7, Eones sued the 9hell ,etroleum
Corporation for the recover1 of that amount. The =udge of the district
court, after hearing the testimon1, concluded that plaintiff was entitled
to a recover1 and rendered =udgment in his favor for L&#C.%#. The
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed this =udgment, on the
ground the testimon1 failed to show with reasonable certaint1 an1
negligence on the part of the 9hell ,etroleum Corporation or an1 of
its agents or emplo1ees. ,laintiff applied to this Court for a Jrit of
)eview which was granted, and the case is now before us for
decision." h ##$cite%
&n resolvin' the issue of ne'li'ence, the Supreme Court of (ouisiana held)
laintiff*s petition contains two distinct char'es of ne'li'ence + one
relatin' to the cause of the fire and the other relatin' to the spreadin'
of the 'asoline about the fillin' station.
,ther than an e-pert to assess the dama'es caused plaintiff*s
buildin' b. the fire, no witnesses were placed on the stand b. the
defendant.
/a0in' up plaintiff*s char'e of ne'li'ence relatin' to the cause of the
fire, we find it established b. the record that the fillin' station and the
tan0 truc0 were under the control of the defendant and operated b.
its a'ents or emplo.ees. 1e further find from the uncontradicted
testimon. of plaintiff*s witnesses that fire started in the under'round
tan0 attached to the fillin' station while it was bein' filled from the
tan0 truc0 and while both the tan0 and the truc0 were in char'e of
and bein' operated b. the a'ents or emplo.ees of the defendant,
e-tended to the hose and tan0 truc0, and was communicated from
the burnin' hose, tan0 truc0, and escapin' 'asoline to the buildin'
owned b. the plaintiff.
redicated on these circumstances and the further circumstance of
defendant*s failure to e-plain the cause of the fire or to show its lac0
of 0nowled'e of the cause, plaintiff has evo0ed the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur. /here are man. cases in which the doctrine ma. be
successfull. invo0ed and this, we thin0, is one of them.
1here the thin' which caused the injur. complained of is shown to
be under the mana'ement of defendant or his servants and the
accident is such as in the ordinar. course of thin's does not happen
if those who have its mana'ement or control use proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in absence of e-planation b.
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. 234 C.J. 5678,
p. ""9:;.
/his statement of the rule of res ipsa loquitur has been widel.
approved and adopted b. the courts of last resort. Some of the cases
in this jurisdiction in which the doctrine has been applied are the
followin', vi<.) =aus v. Broderic0, 4" (a. Ann. ""4:, >4 So. 966?
@ebert v. (a0e Charles &ce, etc., Co., """ (a. 4>>, :4 So. 6:", 73
(.R.A. "A", "AA Am. St. Rep. 4A4? 1illis v. Bic0sbur', etc., R. Co.,
""4 (a. 7:, :8 So. 89>? Bents v. a'e, ""4 (a. 47A, :9 So. 499.
/he principle enunciated in the aforequoted case applies with equal force
here. /he 'asoline station, with all its appliances, equipment and emplo.ees,
was under the control of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and
burned the nei'hborin' houses. /he persons who 0new or could have 0nown
how the fire started were appellees and their emplo.ees, but the. 'ave no
e-planation thereof whatsoever. &t is a fair and reasonable inference that the
incident happened because of want of care.
&n the report submitted b. Captain (eoncio =ariano of the =anila olice
!epartment 2E-h. CD" Africa; the followin' appears)
&nvesti'ation of the basic complaint disclosed that the Calte-
Easoline Station complained of occupies a lot appro-imatel. "A m -
"A m at the southwest corner of Ri<al Avenue and Antipolo. /he
location is within a ver. bus. business district near the ,brero
=ar0et, a railroad crossin' and ver. thic0l. populated nei'hborhood
where a 'reat number of people mill around t
until
'asoline
tever be the1actjvities of these peopleor li'htin' a ci'arette cannot
be e-cluded and this constitute a secondar. ha<ard to its operation
which in turn endan'ers the entire nei'hborhood to confla'ration.
Furthermore, aside from precautions alread. ta0en b. its operator
the concrete walls south and west adjoinin' the nei'hborhood are
onl. >D"$> meters hi'h at most and cannot avoid the flames from
leapin' over it in case of fire.
Records show that there have been two cases of fire which caused
not onl. material dama'es but desperation and also panic in the
nei'hborhood.
Althou'h the soft drin0s stand had been eliminated, this 'asoline
service station is also used b. its operator as a 'ara'e and repair
shop for his fleet of ta-icabs numberin' ten or more, addin' another
ris0 to the possible outbrea0 of fire at this alread. small but crowded
'asoline station.
/he fore'oin' report, havin' been submitted b. a police officer in the
performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the
facts reported, ma. properl. be considered as an e-ception to the hearsa.
rule. /hese facts, descriptive of the location and objective circumstances
surroundin' the operation of the 'asoline station in question, stren'then the
presumption of ne'li'ence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, since on
their face the. called for more strin'ent measures of caution than those which
would satisf. the standard of due dili'ence under ordinar. circumstances.
/here is no more eloquent demonstration of this than the statement of
(eandro Flores before the police investi'ator. Flores was the driver of the
'asoline tan0 wa'on who, alone and without assistance, was transferrin' the
contents thereof into the under'round stora'e when the fire bro0e out. @e
said) GBefore loadin' the under'round tan0 there were no people, but while
the loadin' was 'oin' on, there were people who went to drin0 cocaDcola 2at
the cocaDcola stand; which is about a meter from the hole leadin' to the
under'round tan0.G @e added that when the tan0 was almost filled he went to
the tan0 truc0 to close the valve, and while he had his bac0 turned to the
GmanholeG he, heard someone shout Gfire.G
Even then the fire possibl. would not have spread to the nei'hborin' houses
were it not for another ne'li'ent omission on the part of defendants, namel.,
their failure to provide a concrete wall hi'h enou'h to prevent the flames from
leapin' over it. As it was the concrete wall was onl. >D"$> meters hi'h, and
be.ond that hei'ht it consisted merel. of 'alvani<ed iron sheets, which would
predictabl. crumple and melt when subjected to intense heat. !efendants*
ne'li'ence, therefore, was not onl. with respect to the cause of the fire but
also with respect to the spread thereof to the nei'hborin' houses.
/here is an admission on the part of Boquiren in his amended answer to the
second amended complaint that Gthe fire was caused throu'h the acts of a
stran'er who, without authorit., or permission of answerin' defendant, passed
throu'h the 'asoline station and ne'li'entl. threw a li'hted match in the
premises.G Ho evidence on this point was adduced, but assumin' the
alle'ation to be true + certainl. an. unfavorable inference from the admission
ma. be ta0en a'ainst Boquiren + it does not e-tenuate his ne'li'ence. A
decision of the Supreme Court of /e-as, upon facts analo'ous to those of the
present case, states the rule which we find acceptable here. G&t is the rule that
those who distribute a dan'erous article or a'ent, owe a de'ree of protection
to the public proportionate to and commensurate with a dan'er involved ... we
thin0 it is the 'enerall. accepted rule as applied to torts that *if the effects of
the actor*s ne'li'ent conduct activel. and continuousl. operate to brin' about
harm to another, the fact that the active and substantiall. simultaneous
operation of the effects of a third person*s innocent, tortious or criminal act is
also a substantial factor in brin'in' about the harm, does not protect the actor
from liabilit..* 2Restatement of the (aw of /orts, vol. >, p. ""83, 53:9;. Stated
in another wa., G/he intention of an unforeseen and une-pected cause, is not
sufficient to relieve a wron'doer from consequences of ne'li'ence, if such
ne'li'ence directl. and pro-imatel. cooperates with the independent cause in
the resultin' injur..G 2=acAfee, et al. vs. /raver*s Eas Corporation, "4: S.1.
>nd 33>.;
/he ne-t issue is whether Calte- should be held liable for the dama'es
caused to appellants. /his issue depends on whether Boquiren was an
independent contractor, as held b. the Court of Appeals, or an a'ent of
Calte-. /his question, in the li'ht of the facts not controverted, is one of law
and hence ma. be passed upon b. this Court. /hese facts are) 2"; Boquiren
made an admission that he was an a'ent of Calte-? 2>; at the time of the fire
Calte- owned the 'asoline station and all the equipment therein? 2:; Calte-
e-ercised control over Boquiren in the mana'ement of the state? 23; the
deliver. truc0 used in deliverin' 'asoline to the station had the name of
CA(/EC painted on it? and 24; the license to store 'asoline at the station was
in the name of Calte-, which paid the license fees. 2E-hibit /DAfrica? E-hibit ID
Africa? E-hibit CD4 Africa? E-hibit CD7 Africa? E-hibit JDAfrica;.
&n Boquiren*s amended answer to the second amended complaint, he denied
that he directed one of his drivers to remove 'asoline from the truc0 into the
tan0 and alle'ed that the Galle'ed driver, if one there was, was not in his
emplo., the driver bein' an emplo.ee of the Calte- 2hil.; &nc. and$or the
owners of the 'asoline station.G &t is true that Boquiren later on amended his
answer, and that amon' the chan'es was one to the effect that he was not
actin' as a'ent of Calte-. But then a'ain, in his motion to dismiss appellants*
second amended complaint the 'round alle'ed was that it stated no cause of
action since under the alle'ations thereof he was merel. actin' as a'ent of
Calte-, such that he could not have incurred personal liabilit.. A motion to
dismiss on this 'round is deemed to be an admission of the facts alle'ed in
the complaint.
Calte- admits that it owned the 'asoline station as well as the equipment
therein, but claims that the business conducted at the service station in
question was owned and operated b. Boquiren. But Calte- did not present
an. contract with Boquiren that would reveal the nature of their relationship at
the time of the fire. /here must have been one in e-istence at that time.
&nstead, what was presented was a license a'reement manifestl. tailored for
purposes of this case, since it was entered into shortl. before the e-piration of
the oneD.ear period it was intended to operate. /his soDcalled license
a'reement 2E-hibit 4DCalte-; was e-ecuted on Hovember >9, "938, but made
effective as of Januar. ", "938 so as to cover the date of the fire, namel.,
=arch "8, "938. /his retroactivit. provision is quite si'nificant, and 'ives rise
to the conclusion that it was desi'ned precisel. to free Calte- from an.
responsibilit. with respect to the fire, as shown b. the clause that Calte- Gshall
not be liable for an. injur. to person or propert. while in the propert. herein
licensed, it bein' understood and a'reed that (&CEHSEE 2Boquiren; is not an
emplo.ee, representative or a'ent of (&CEHS,R 2Calte-;.G
But even if the license a'reement were to 'overn, Boquiren can hardl. be
considered an independent contractor. Inder that a'reement Boquiren would
pa. Calte- the purel. nominal sum of ".AA for the use of the premises and all
the equipment therein. @e could sell onl. Calte- roducts. =aintenance of the
station and its equipment was subject to the approval, in other words control,
of Calte-. Boquiren could not assi'n or transfer his ri'hts as licensee without
the consent of Calte-. /he license a'reement was supposed to be from
Januar. ", "938 to !ecember :", "938, and thereafter until terminated b.
Calte- upon two da.s prior written notice. Calte- could at an. time cancel and
terminate the a'reement in case Boquiren ceased to sell Calte- products, or
did not conduct the business with due dili'ence, in the jud'ment of Calte-.
/ermination of the contract was therefore a ri'ht 'ranted onl. to Calte- but not
to Boquiren. /hese provisions of the contract show the e-tent of the control of
Calte- over Boquiren. /he control was such that the latter was virtuall. an
emplo.ee of the former.
/a0in' into consideration the fact that the operator owed his position
to the compan. and the latter could remove him or terminate his
services at will? that the service station belon'ed to the compan. and
bore its tradename and the operator sold onl. the products of the
compan.? that the equipment used b. the operator belon'ed to the
compan. and were just loaned to the operator and the compan. too0
char'e of their repair and maintenance? that an emplo.ee of the
compan. supervised the operator and conducted periodic inspection
of the compan.*s 'asoline and service station? that the price of the
products sold b. the operator was fi-ed b. the compan. and not b.
the operator? and that the receipts si'ned b. the operator indicated
that he was a mere a'ent, the findin' of the Court of Appeals that the
operator was an a'ent of the compan. and not an independent
contractor should not be disturbed.
/o determine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not
bound to rel. upon the name or title 'iven it b. the contractin'
parties, should thereb. a controvers. as to what the. reall. had
intended to enter into, but the wa. the contractin' parties do or
perform their respective obli'ations stipulated or a'reed upon ma.
be shown and inquired into, and should such performance conflict
with the name or title 'iven the contract b. the parties, the former
must prevail over the latter. 2Shell Compan. of the hilippines, (td.
vs. Firemens* &nsurance Compan. of Hewar0, Hew Jerse., "AA hil.
646;.
/he written contract was apparentl. drawn for the purpose of
creatin' the apparent relationship of emplo.er and independent
contractor, and of avoidin' liabilit. for the ne'li'ence of the
emplo.ees about the station? but the compan. was not satisfied to
allow such relationship to e-ist. /he evidence shows that it
immediatel. assumed control, and proceeded to direct the method b.
which the wor0 contracted for should be performed. B. reservin' the
ri'ht to terminate the contract at will, it retained the means of
compellin' submission to its orders. @avin' elected to assume
control and to direct the means and methods b. which the wor0 has
to be performed, it must be held liable for the ne'li'ence of those
performin' service under its direction. 1e thin0 the evidence was
sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jur.. 2Eulf Refinin' Compan. v.
Ro'ers, 46 S.1. >d, "8:;.
Calte- further ar'ues that the 'asoline stored in the station belon'ed to
Boquiren. But no cash invoices were presented to show that Boquiren had
bou'ht said 'asoline from Calte-. Heither was there a sales contract to prove
the same.
As found b. the trial court the Africas sustained a loss of 9,AA4.8A, after
deductin' the amount of >,AAA.AA collected b. them on the insurance of the
house. /he deduction is now challen'ed as erroneous on the 'round that
Article >>A6 of the Hew Civil Code, which provides for the subro'ation of the
insurer to the ri'hts of the insured, was not .et in effect when the loss too0
place. @owever, re'ardless of the silence of the law on this point at that time,
the amount that should be recovered be measured b. the dama'es actuall.
suffered, otherwise the principle prohibitin' unjust enrichment would be
violated. 1ith respect to the claim of the heirs of ,n' 6,4AA.AA was
adjud'ed b. the lower court on the basis of the assessed value of the propert.
destro.ed, namel., ",4AA.AA, disre'ardin' the testimon. of one of the ,n'
children that said propert. was worth 3,AAA.AA. 1e a'ree that the court
erred, since it is of common 0nowled'e that the assessment for ta-ation
purposes is not an accurate 'au'e of fair mar0et value, and in this case
should not prevail over positive evidence of such value. /he heirs of ,n' are
therefore entitled to "A,AAA.AA.
1herefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and respondentsD
appellees are held liable solidaril. to appellants, and ordered to pa. them the
aforesaid sum of 9,AA4.8A and "A,AAA.AA, respectivel., with interest from
the filin' of the complaint, and costs.
Ben'<on, C.J., Bautista An'elo, Concepcion, Re.es, J.B.(., Barrera, Re'ala,
Ben'<on, J.., Kaldivar and Sanche<, JJ., concur.
!i<on, J., too0 no part.