B.F.
METAL (CORPORATION), G.R. No. 170813
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
SPS.
ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN
and
LINAFLOR LOMOTAN and
RICO UMUYON, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
Before
the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the award of damages against petitioner in
the Decision[1] and
Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58655. The Court of Appeals affirmed
with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Antipolo, Rizal in Civil Case No.
1567-A, which found petitioner corporation and its driver, Onofre
V. Rivera, solidarily liable to respondents for damages.
The
following factual antecedents are not disputed.
In
the morning of P150.00 to P100.00.
On
In the Answer, petitioner and Rivera
denied the allegations in the complaint and averred that respondents were not
the proper parties-in-interest to prosecute the action, not being the
registered owner of the jeep; that the sole and proximate cause of the accident
was the fault and negligence of Umuyon; and that
petitioner exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees.
During the trial, respondents offered
the testimonies of Umuyon, SPO1 Rico Canaria, SPO4 Theodore Cadaweg
and Nicanor Fajardo, the
auto-repair shop owner who gave a cost estimate for the repair of the wrecked
jeep. Among the documentary evidence presented were the 1989 cost estimate of Pagawaan
Motors, Inc.,[3] which
pegged the repair cost of the jeep at P96,000.00, and the cost estimate of
Fajardo Motor Works[4] done
in 1993, which reflected an increased repair cost at P130,655.00. They also presented in evidence a copy of the
Decision of the RTC, Assisting Branch 74, Cainta, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 4742, entitled People of the
Philippines v. Onofre V. Rivera, finding Rivera
guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical
injuries.
For its part, petitioner presented at
the hearing Rivera himself and Habner Revarez, petitioner’s production control superintendent. Included in its documentary evidence were
written guidelines in preventive maintenance of vehicles and safety driving
rules for drivers.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally to herein plaintiffs
the following sums:
(a) Actual Damages --- i. P96,700.00
for cost of the
owner-type
jeep
ii. P15,000.00 medical expenses
iii.
P50,000.00 for loss of earnings
(b) Moral Damages --- P100,000.00
(c) Exemplary Damages --- P100,000.00
(d)
Attorney’s Fees --- P25,000.00 plus P1,000.00 for
every
Court appearance
Costs of Suit.
SO
ORDERED.[5]
The trial court declared Rivera
negligent when he failed to determine with certainty that the opposite lane was
clear before overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck he was driving. It
also found petitioner negligent in the selection and supervision of its
employees when it failed to prove the proper dissemination of safety driving
instructions to its drivers.
Petitioner and Rivera appealed the decision
to the Court of Appeals.
On
under Article 2180[6] of
the Civil Code for its negligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees. However, the appellate court modified the amount of damages awarded
to respondents. The dispositive portion of
the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION to read as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally to herein plaintiffs
the following sums:
(a) Actual Damages --- i. P130,655.00,
for cost of repairing the owner-type jeep.
ii. P10,167.99 in medical expenses.
iii. P2,850.00 for lost earnings during medical
treatment.
(b)
Moral Damages --- P100,000.00
(c)
Exemplary Damages --- P100,000.00
(d)
Attorney’s Fees --- P25,000.00
Costs
of suit.”
SO ORDERED.[7]
On
The instant petition raises the
following issues: (1) whether the amount of actual damages based only on a job
estimate should be lowered; (2) whether Spouses Lomotan
are also entitled to moral damages; and (3) whether the award of exemplary
damages and attorneys is warranted. For their part, respondents contend that the
aforementioned issues are factual in nature and therefore beyond the province
of a petitioner for review under Rule 45.
This is not the first instance where
the Court has given due course to a Rule 45 petition seeking solely the review
of the award of damages.[8] A party’s
entitlement to damages is ultimately a question of law because not only must it
be proved factually but also its legal justification must be shown. In any
case, the trial court and the appellate court have different findings as to the
amount of damages to which respondents are entitled. When the factual findings
of the trial and appellate courts are conflicting, the Court is constrained to look into
the evidence presented before the trial court so as to resolve the herein
appeal.[9]
The trial court split the award of actual
damages into three items, namely, the cost of the wrecked jeep, the medical
expenses incurred by respondent Umuyon and the monetary
value of his earning capacity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the
amount of medical expenses and loss of earning capacity to which respondent Umuyon is entitled but increased from P96,700.00 to P130,655.00
the award in favor of Spouses Lomotan for the cost of
repairing the wrecked jeep.
The instant petition assails only the
modified valuation of the wrecked jeep. Petitioner points out that the alleged
cost of repairing the jeep pegged at P130,655.00 has not been incurred
but is only a job estimate or a sum total of the expenses yet to be incurred
for its repair. It argues that the best evidence obtainable to prove with a
reasonable degree of certainty the value of the jeep is the acquisition cost or
the purchase price of the jeep minus depreciation for one year of use
equivalent to 10% of the purchase price.
Petitioner’s argument is partly
meritorious.
Except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.[10] Actual
damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the
injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that
are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of
actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of
loss. Credence can be given only to
claims which are duly supported by receipts.[11]
In People v. Gopio,[12]
the Court allowed the reimbursement of only the laboratory fee that was duly
receipted as “the rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to
prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor’s
prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses.”[13] In Viron
Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[14]
the Court particularly disallowed the award of actual damages, considering that
the actual damages suffered by private respondents therein were based only on a
job estimate and a photo showing the damage to the truck and no competent proof
on the specific amounts of actual damages suffered was presented.
In the instant case, no evidence was
submitted to show the amount actually spent for the repair or replacement of
the wrecked jeep. Spouses Lomotan presented two different
cost estimates to prove the alleged actual damage of the wrecked jeep. Exhibit
“B,” is a job estimate by Pagawaan Motors, Inc., which pegged the repair cost
of the jeep at P96,000.00, while Exhibit “M,” estimated the cost of repair
at P130,655.00. Following Viron,
neither estimate is competent to prove actual damages. Courts cannot simply
rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount
of damages.[15]
As correctly pointed out by
petitioner, the best evidence to prove the value of the wrecked jeep is
reflected in Exhibit “I,” the Deed of Sale showing the jeep’s acquisition cost at
P72,000.00. However, the depreciation value of equivalent to 10% of the
acquisition cost cannot be deducted from it in the absence of proof in support
thereof.
Petitioner also questions the award
of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Spouses Lomotan.
It argues that the award of moral damages was premised on the resulting
physical injuries arising from the quasi-delict; since only respondent Umuyon
suffered physical injuries, the award should pertain solely to him. Correspondingly,
the award of exemplary damages should pertain only to respondent Umuyon since only the latter is entitled to moral damages,
petitioner adds.
In the case of moral damages,
recovery is more an exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not punitive in nature but
are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a
person. In order that an award of moral
damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily
prove that he has suffered such damages
and that the injury causing it has sprung
from any of the cases listed in
Articles 2219[16] and
2220[17]
of the Civil Code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate
result of a wrongful act or omission.
The claimant must establish the factual basis of the damages and its
causal tie with the acts of the defendant.
In fine, an award of moral damages would require, firstly, evidence of
besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained
by the claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established;
thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the damages sustained by the
claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated on any of the instances
expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.[18]
In culpa aquiliana,
or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission
causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also applies, as aforestated, to breaches of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith. In culpa
criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found
guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage,
illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation.[19]
Undoubtedly, petitioner is liable for
the moral damages suffered by respondent Umuyon. Its liability
is based on a quasi-delict or on its
negligence in the supervision and selection of its driver, causing the
vehicular accident and physical injuries to respondent Umuyon.
Rivera is also liable for moral damages to respondent Umuyon
based on either culpa criminal or quasi-delict.
Since the decision in the criminal case, which found Rivera guilty of criminal
negligence, did not award moral damages, the same may be awarded in the instant
civil action for damages.
Jurisprudence show that in criminal
offenses resulting to the death of the victim, an award within the range of P50,000.00
to P100,000.00 as moral damages has become the trend.[20] Under
the circumstances, because respondent Umuyon did not
die but had become permanently incapacitated to drive as a result of the
accident, the award of P30,000.00 for moral damages in his favor is
justified.[21]
However, there is no legal basis in awarding
moral damages to Spouses Lomotan whether arising from
the criminal negligence committed by Rivera or based on the negligence of petitioner
under Article 2180.[22]
Article 2219[23] speaks
of recovery of moral damages in case of a criminal offense resulting in
physical injuries or quasi-delicts causing
physical injuries, the two instances where Rivera and petitioner are liable for
moral damages to respondent Umuyon. Article 2220[24]
does speak of awarding moral damages where there is injury to property, but the
injury must be willful and the circumstances show that such damages are justly
due. There being no proof that the accident was willful, Article 2220 does not
apply.
Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.[25] Exemplary
damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.[26]
In quasi-delicts,
exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.[27]
While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff
must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages
should be awarded.[28]
As correctly pointed out by the Court
of Appeals, Spouses Lomotan have shown that they are
entitled to compensatory damages while respondent Umuyon
can recover both compensatory and moral damages. To serve as an example for the
public good, the Court affirms the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00
to respondents. Because exemplary damages are awarded, attorney’s fees may also
be awarded in consonance with Article 2208 (1).[29]
The Court affirms the appellate court’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount
of P25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 58655 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of actual damages
for the cost of repairing the owner-type jeep is hereby REDUCED to P72,000.00 while the
moral damages of
P30,000.00 is awarded solely to respondent Umuyon. All other awards of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED. Following jurisprudence,[30] petitioner
is ordered to PAY legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of promulgation
of the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Dated
[6]Civil Code, Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible. xxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. xxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned proved that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
[8]See Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138980, 20 September 2005, 470 SCRA 260; Almeda v. Cariño, G.R. No. 152143, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA 144.
[16]Civil Code, Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
[17]Civil Code, Article 2220. Willful
injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due.
The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently and in bad faith.
[18]Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139268, 3 September 2002, 388 SCRA 270, 276.
[19]Expert Travel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, 25 June 1999, 309 SCRA 141, 146.
[20]See Victory Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Malecdan, G.R. No.154278, 27 December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 520; People v. Ortiz, G.R. No. 133814, 17 July 2001, 361 SCRA 274; People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 131924, 26 December 2000, 348 SCRA 663; People v. Tambis, G.R. No. 124452, 28 July 1999, 311 SCRA 430.
[29]Civil Code, Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded. xxx