Facts
The Latonios attended a birthday party at McDonald’s with their 8-month-old baby, Ed Christian. Wanting a picture with the mascot “Birdie,” Mary Ann (mom) placed Ed Christian on a chair in front of “Birdie,” who stood behind and then extended its “wings” as a pose. A few seconds later, Ed Christian fell headfirst to the floor. Immediately after, the employees helped the Latonios administer first aid treatment. Afterwards, Cebu Golden Food reimbursed the Latonios for the X-ray exam conducted and also offered to pay for the expenses of a CT scan to be conducted. When Cebu Golden Food’s staff tried following up on the CT-scan, they were threatened with legal action, which led the company to report the incident to McGeorge Food Industries, its licensor. A meeting between McGeorge and the Latonios led the licensor to consult with 2 doctors. When McGeorge relayed that the neurosurgeons wanted to see the X-ray result and CT-scan before making an assessment, the Latonios decided against lending the results and instead sent a demand letter for P15M as compensation, which went unheeded.
The Latonios then filed a complaint for damages against McGeorge, which was decided in the Latonios’ favor, finding Lumibao and Cebu Golden Food liable. However, the CA reversed the RTC decision. Thus, the Latonios appealed to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not a plaintiff may recover damages when the proximate cause of the injury is her own negligence
Ruling
For a recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Both must exist since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
The Supreme Court held that the proximate cause of Ed Christian’s fall and injury was Mary Ann’s negligence in leaving him in the “hands” of Lomibao, wearing a Birdi mascot suit, and not Lomibao’s act of holding the baby, which was purportedly prohibited under the rules and policy of the establishment.
- It is irresponsible for a mother to entrust the safety of an 8-month-old child to a mascot, especially one in a thick leather suit that has no arms to hold the child and has diminished ability to see/hear/feel/move.
- Furthermore, releasing her grasp without waiting for any indication that the mascot heard and understood her is just plain negligence. Merely tapping the mascot and stating she wanted a picture cannot be equated to telling, informing, and instructing the mascot that she was letting him hold the baby.
- Thus, since there was no negligence on the part of Cebu Golden Food and Lomibao, the Latonios cannot recover damages from them. They do not have a right of action even if they suffered an injury since the law affords no remedy resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. The consequences must be borne by the injured person alone.