Tort distinguished from breach of contract JUAN J. SYQUIA, CORAZON C. SYQUIA, CARLOTA C. SYQUIA, CARLOS C. SYQUIA and ANTHONY C. SYQUIA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and THE MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC. G.R. No. 98695, January 27, 1993, J. Campos, Jr. FACTS:
Juan Syquia, father of the deceased Vicente Syquia, entered in a contract of Deed of Sale and Interment Order with Manila Memorial Park Cemetery Inc (MMPCI). In the contract, there contained a provision which stated that the coffin would be placed in a sealed concrete vault to protect the remains of the deceased from the elements. During the preparation for the transfer of Vicente’s remains in the newly bought lot in Manila Memorial, it was discovered that there was a hole in the concrete vault which caused total flooding inside, damaged the coffin as well as the body of the deceased and covered the same with filth. Syquia filed a complaint for recovery of damages arising from breach of contract and/or quasi-delict against the MMPCI for failure to deliver a defect-free concrete vault to protect the remains of the deceased. In its defense, MMPCI claimed that the boring of the hole was necessary in order to prevent the vault from floating when water fills the grave. The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that there was no quasi-delict because the defendant is not guilty of any fault or negligence and because there was a pre-existing contract between the parties. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent is guilty of tort HELD:
Denied. Decision of the CA affirmed. We are more inclined to answer the foregoing questions in the negative. There is not enough ground, both in fact and in law, to justify a reversal of the decision of the respondent Court and to uphold the pleas of the petitioners. Although a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties does not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana, We find no reason to disregard the respondent’s respondent’s Court finding that there was no negligence.
“Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict x x x.” In this case, it has been established that the Syquias and the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., entered into a contract entitled “Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care” on August 27, 1969. That agreement governed the relations of the parties and defined their respective rights and obligations. Hence, had there been actual negligence on the part of the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., it would be held liable not for a quasidelict or culpa aquiliana, but for culpa contractual as provided by Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit: “Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.”
