THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the ruling issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Rizal which found Robinsons Land Corporation negligent in operating a walkalator in one of its shopping malls that caused damage to a customer and trauma.
In an 11-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto Martin, the CA’s Twelfth Division, however, dismissed the appeal filed by Bernadette Reyes, a board examiner of the Philippine Regulatory Commission, seeking moral and exemplary damages against Robinson.
The CA held that the trial court correctly ruled that Reyes is only entitled to actual damages.
‘Considering that petitioner did not sustain any physical injuries as a result of respondent’s negligence, she is not entitled to moral damages. Hence, she is likewise not entitled to any exemplary damages,’ the CA said.
In the assailed July 4, 2024 decision and order dated October 18, 2024 of the Muntinlupa RTC, the trial court merely ordered Robinson to pay Reyes actual damages in the amount of P11,000 plus addition award of actual damages in the amount of P3,000 representing the value of Reyes’ footwear which was damaged during the incident.
This prompted Reyes to elevate the case before the CA seeking to recover additional compensatory damages including moral and exemplary damages, and attorney fees.
The CA ruled that Reyes sustained damages as a result of the incident since her shoes were destroyed and she underwent several counselling sessions to address her trauma.
It was also established based on record, according to the appellate court, that Robinson was negligent in operating the walkalator.
The CA noted that Robinson admitted that when a patron is using its walkalator with a filled pushcart, the pushcart may obstruct one’s vision such that it would be difficult to see the end of the walkalator’s metal conveyor flooring while simultaneously dislodging the pushcart and stepping off the machine.
‘Further, it is without question that since the Mall is open to the public, a variety of patrons, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and other persons with vision or mobility issues, use the walkalator,’ the CA said.
‘Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent to implement reasonable safeguards and precautions to ensure that patrons, especially those with limited vision or mobility, would be able to use the walkalator safely,’ it added.
While respondent claims that the advisory it posted in front of the walkalator adequately disproves petitioner’s claim of negligence, the CA said ‘such a meager precaution falls short of the care and caution expected from the former under the circumstances.’
The CA pointed out that Robinsons failed to prove that the advisory was already installed before the incident.
The appellate court added that the sign could easily be overlooked by an ordinary patron because it was not noticeable.
‘To reiterate, the incident would not have occurred if respondent had implemented the proper safeguards and precautions in operating the walkalator,’ the CA said.
In her complaint, Reyes claimed that the incident happened on April 5, 2018 at Robinsons Metro East Mall.
After shopping for groceries, Reyes said she took the walkalator from the basement level to the ground floor and that when she was nearing the top of the said walkalator, it suddenly jerked causing both her Crocs shoes to be sucked into the machine.
The petitioner added that her ordeal elevated her heartbeat and deeply embarrassed her especially when the other mall patrons stared at her.
Reyes said she tried to push the walkalator’s ‘stop’ button after standing up, but that the machine continued moving.
She also asserted that the incident traumatized her, thus, she underwent counseling sessions with a psychologist.