Guilatco v.

City of Dagupan

FACTS:
 Florentina Guilatco, a court interpreter, was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk located at
Perez Blvd. (a national road) when she accidentally fell into a manhole located on sidewalk; right
leg was fractured,
 resulting in her hospitalization and operation
 incurred hospitalization expenses to the tune of P8,053.65
 Because of her accident, Guilatco was unable to go to work, thereby losing her income. She also
lost weight, and she is now no longer her former jovial self since she is unable to perform her
religious, social, and other activities.
 She filed an action for damages against the City of Dagupan.
 The City of Dagupan denied liability on the ground that the manhole was located on a national
road, which was not under the control or supervision of the City of Dagupan.

ISSUE: Whether the City of Dagupan is liable to Guilatco.

HELD: YES. The City of Dagupan is liable.

 The liability of public corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians
from the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil Code as follows:
o Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death
of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision.
 It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or
municipality. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.
 In this case, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised
through the City Engineer, whose duties include the care and custody of the public system of
waterworks and sewers.
 The charter of Dagupan provides that the laying out, construction, and improvement of streets,
avenues, and alleys and sidewalks and the regulation of the use thereof may be legislated by the
Municipal Board. Thus, the charter clearly indicates that the city indeed has supervision and
control over the sidewalk where the open drainage hole is located.
 The express provision in the charter holding the city not liable for damages or injuries sustained
by persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to enforce the provisions of the
charter, cannot be used to exempt the city, as in the case at bar.
 The charter only lays down general rules regulating the liability of the city. On the other hand
article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from “defective streets, public buildings
and other public works.”

LAGANAPAN vs. ASEDILLO

FACTS:
In 1960, Solano Laganapan was appointed chief of by the respondent Mayor Asedillo. Later that, his
salary was increased and he was extended an appointment which was approved as provisional. In 1962,
the petitioner was given another increase in salary and a corresponding appointment was made to continu
e until replaced by an eligible but not beyond thirty (30) days from receipt of certification of eligibles.
Then, in 1963,1964, and 1965, he was again given salary increases, and new appointments were extended
to him. However, on 1967, the petitioner was summarily dismissed from his position by respondent
Mayor Elpidio Asedillo, on the ground that his appointment was provisional and that he has no civil
service eligibility. Respondent Epifanio Ragotero was appointed acting chief of police of Kalayaan,
Laguna on the same day, in place of the petitioner. Days, following his dismissal, the Municipal
Council abolished the appropriation for the salary of the chief of police. Hence, Laganapan filed a petition
before the Court of First Instance, seeking his reinstatement to the position of chief of police with back
salaries and damages.

ISSUE: Whether the municipal mayor of Kalayaan, Laguna, acted in excess of his power in dismissing
Laganapan without due process?

RULING:
 In the instant case, there is no doubt that, in terminating the services of the appellee, the appellant
Mayor Elpidio Asedillo acted summarily without any semblance of compliance or even an
attempt to comply with the elementary rules of due process.
 No charges were filed; nor was a hearing conducted in order to give the appellee an opportunity
to defend himself, despite the provisions of Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 4864,otherwise known as
the Police Act of 1966, which took effect on 8 September 1966, that "Members of the local police
agency shall not be suspended or removed except upon written complaint filed under oath with
the Board of Investigators herein provided for misconduct or incompetence, dishonesty,
disloyalty to the Government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and
violation of law."
 Following the rule, there was no need for exhaustion of administrative remedies before appellee
could come to court for the protection of his rights.
 We find no merit in the appellants' contention that, since the appointments extended to the
appellee as chief of police of Kalayaan, Laguna were all provisional in nature, and not permanent,
his services could be terminated with or without cause, at the pleasure of the appointing officer.
 While it may be true that the appellee was holding a provisional appointment at the time of his
dismissal, he was not a temporary official who could be dismissed at any time. His provisional
appointment could only be terminated thirty (30) days after receipt by the appointing officer of a
list of eligibles from the Civil Service Commission.
 Here, no such certification was received by Mayor Elpidio Asedillo thirty (30) days prior to his
dismissal of the appellee.