Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto

NEGLIGENCE OF SOME BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS - Theater CA: On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's finding that the
l court's finding that the collapse of

the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to construction defects and not
GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. GLORIA E. CHATTO and to force majeure.
LINA DELZA CHATTO
G.R. No. L-87584 | June 16, 1992 It was the burden Gotesco to prove that its theater did not suffer from any
Ratio: Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is structural defect when it was built and that it has been well maintained when
injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the incident occurred. This is its Special and Affirmative Defense and it is
the control and management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in incumbent on Gotesco to prove it. Considering the collapse of the ceiling of
the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had
its theater's balcony barely four (4) years after its construction, it behooved
been exercised, its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an
Gotesco to conduct an exhaustive study of the reason for the tragic incident.
inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Facts: In the afternoon of June 4, 1982, herein respondent Gloria E. Chatto On this score, the effort of Gotesco borders criminal nonchalance. Its witness
(Gloria), and her 15-year old daughter, Lina Delza E. Chatto (Lina) went to Jesus Lim Ong testified that he could not give any reason why the ceiling
see the movie "Mother Dear" at Superama I theater, owned by petitioner collapsed.
Gotesco Investment Corporation (Gotesco). They bought balcony tickets but
even then were unable to find seats considering the number of people Clearly, there was no authoritative investigation conducted by impartial civil
patronizing the movie. Hardly 10 minutes after entering the theater, the and structural engineers on the cause of the collapse of the theater's ceiling,
ceiling of its balcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into darkness and Jesus Lim Ong is not an engineer. In fine, the ignorance of Mr. Ong about
pandemonium ensued. Shocked and hurt, respondents managed to crawl the cause of the collapse of the ceiling of their theater cannot be equated, as
under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to get out to the street an act, of God. To sustain that proposition is to introduce sacrilege in our
they walked the nearby FEU Hospital where they were confined and treated jurisprudence.
for 1 day. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Gotesco Investment Corporation is liable.
Held: YES. Petitioner's claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater's
The next day, they transferred to the UST hospital. Gloria was treated in said balcony was due to force majeure is not even founded on facts because its
hospital from June 5 to June 19 and Lina from June 5 to 11. Per Medico Legal own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted that "he could not give any reason
Certificate, both of them suffered physical injuries. Due to continuing pain in why the ceiling collapsed." Having interposed it as a defense, it had the
the neck, headache and dizziness, Gloria went to Illinois, USA in July 1982 burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. It
for further treatment. She was treated at the Cook County Hospital in could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong could not offer any
Chicago, Illinois. She stayed in the U.S. for about 3 months during which time explanation does not imply force majeure.
she had to return to the Cook County Hospital 5 or 6 times.
Petitioner could have easily discovered the cause of the collapse if indeed it
Gotesco tried to avoid liability by alleging that the collapse of the ceiling of its were due to force majeure. To Our mind, the real reason why Mr. Ong could
theater was done due to force majeure. It maintained that its theater did not not explain the cause or reason is that either he did not actually conduct the
suffer from any structural or construction defect. investigation or that he is, as the respondent Court impliedly held,
incompetent. He is not an engineer, but an architect who had not even
RTC: The trial court ruled in favor of respondents. It held that respondents passed the government's examination. Verily, post-incident investigation
are entitled to moral damages, which are the direct and proximate result of cannot be considered as material to the present proceedings. What is
petitioner Gotesco’s gross negligence and omission. Such moral damages significant is the finding of the trial court, affirmed by the respondent Court
include the respondents' physical suffering, mental anguish, fright and that the collapse was due to construction defects. There was no evidence
serious anxiety. On the part of Mrs. Chatto, who obviously suffered much offered to overturn this finding. The building was constructed barely four (4)
more pain, anguish, fright and anxiety than her daughter Lina Delza, such years prior to the accident in question. It was not shown that any of the
damages are compounded by the presence of permanent deformities on her causes denominates as force majeure obtained immediately before or at the
body consisting of a 6-inch scar on the head and a 2-inch scar on one arm. time of the collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could have been easily
discovered if only petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping and
maintaining the premises. But as disclosed by the testimony of Mr. Ong, there
was no adequate inspection of the premises before the date of the accident.
His answers to the leading questions on inspection disclosed neither the
exact dates of said. inspection nor the nature and extent of the same. That
the structural designs and plans of the building were duly approved by the
City Engineer and the building permits and certificate of occupancy were
issued do not at all prove that there were no defects in the construction,
especially as regards the ceiling, considering that no testimony was offered
to prove that it was ever inspected at all.
It is settled that:
The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly

warrants that the premises, appliances and amusement devices are
safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine being
subject to no other exception or qualification than that he does not
contract against unknown defects not discoverable by ordinary or
reasonable means.
This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that:
Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is

injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively
under the control and management of the defendant, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have
happened if proper care had been exercised, its occurrence raises
a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part
of the defendant.
That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.
Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that, as petitioner

vigorously insists, the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure,
petitioner would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence, which the
trial court denominated as gross. As gleaned from Bouvier's definition of and
Cockburn's elucidation on force majeure for one to be exempt from any
liability because of it, he must have exercised care, i.e., he should not have
been guilty of negligence.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
DENYING the instant petition with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
Case Digest: Garcia, A.R.G.

Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEGLIGENCE OF SOME BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS - Theater CA: On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's finding that the

l court's finding that the collapse of

The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly

This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that:

Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is

That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.

Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that, as petitioner

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.