Scribd
Upload
77 views2 pages

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692 (1991)

This case involves a collision between a passenger jeep, gravel and sand truck, and a dump truck owned by the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. Several passengers of the jeep, including Laureano Banina, Sr., died due to the impact. The heirs of Banina instituted a complaint for damages against the owners and drivers of the vehicles. The municipality argued it was not liable as its driver was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident by transporting sand and gravel for street repairs. The court held that municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees performing governmental functions. As the driver was carrying out duties related to his office, the municipality was not liable for damages resulting from the accident.

Uploaded by

mark87vince24
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views2 pages

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692 (1991)

This case involves a collision between a passenger jeep, gravel and sand truck, and a dump truck owned by the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. Several passengers of the jeep, including Laureano Banina, Sr., died due to the impact. The heirs of Banina instituted a complaint for damages against the owners and drivers of the vehicles. The municipality argued it was not liable as its driver was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident by transporting sand and gravel for street repairs. The court held that municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees performing governmental functions. As the driver was carrying out duties related to his office, the municipality was not liable for damages resulting from the accident.

Uploaded by

mark87vince24
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Subject: Consti 1

Case No. 44

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme,


195 SCRA 692 (1991)

FACTS:

Petitioner Municipality of San Fernando, La Union, is a municipality corporation. Respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme is
impleaded in his official capacity as the presiding judge, while private respondents are heirs of the deceased
Laureano Banina, Sr.

On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeep, a gravel and sand truck, and a dump truck of
the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union which was driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact, several passengers
of the jeep including Banina, Sr. died.

The heir of Banina, Sr. instituted a complaint for damages against the owner and driver of the passenger jeep.
However, the previously mentioned defendant filed a third party complaint against the petitioner and the driver of
the dump truck of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the private respondents amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular employee Alfredo
Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants.

Petitioner filed its answer and raised affirmative defenses such as lack of cause of action, non-suability of the state,
prescription of cause of action, and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger jeep as the proximate
cause of the collision.

On October 10, 1979, the trial court rendered a decision for the plaintiffs, and defendants Municipality of san
Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs. The complaint against the
driver and the owner of the passenger jeep was dismissed.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for a new trial. However, respondent judge issued another order
denying the motion for reconsideration of the order for having been filed out of time. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the municipality is liable for the tort committed by its employee?

HELD:

NO. The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality
is performing governmental or proprietary functions.

It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the
competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the
discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a
proprietary capacity.
In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not
acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions
recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.

In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that he was on his way to Naguilan River to
get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of the San Fernando municipal street.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed. Hence,
the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office.

After careful examination of existing laws and jurisprudence, we arrive at the conclusion that the municipality cannot
be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of
governmental functions. Hence, the death of the passenger, tragic and deplorable though, it may be imposed on the
municipality no duty to pay the monetary compensation.

You might also like