DEE HUANG LIONG ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION vs. ROMEO REYES, ET. AL.GR# 72182 November 25, 2986

J. NARVASA

*

FACTS:

Romeo Reyes, the private respondent, discovered that the caused of the defective repairs done on television and stereo units complained by his clients was the low grade electronic filter capacitor he had bought from the petitioner, Dee Huang Liong Elecrtrical Equipment Corporation. The private respondent alleged that the actual label of 22 micro farad was superimposed by a fake label making it appear to be 2200 micro farad. It was also alleged that he had been paying for the said capacitor for P6.40 to P7.40, when in fact the actual price of a 22 micro farad capacitor is only P2.

The petitioner was declared in default, and so no evidence was presented in his behalf. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to pay the private respondents:

P50,000 – actual damagesP50,000 – moral damagesP50,000 – exemplary damagesP10,000 – attorney’s fees

On appeal, the IAC affirmed the decision of the lower court but reduced the award of moral and exemplary damages to P10,000 and P5,000, respectively.

ISSUE:

W/N the petitioners are liable to pay the said damages?

RULING:

The Supreme Court modified the liability rendered by the IAC, solely and exclusively to the payment of P5,000 as nominal damages.

The Court observed that the adjudgment of damages appears to be quite excessive. There is no proof that the said defective capacitors were used in the other numerous repair jobs done by the private respondent. Also, no evidence was presented to show that there is deliberate intent on the petitioner’s part to inflict fraud on the general public. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.

The award of moral damages is also not proper for the testimony of the witnesses made no mention of anything concerning the award of such, like wounded feelings, social humiliation, anxiety.

Since the private respondent is not entitled to moral or actual damages, he then cannot recover exemplary damages because it is not shown that the petitioner have acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless or oppressive manner.

JOSE CHING SUI YONG vs. IAC, ET. AL.GR# L-64398 November 6, 1990

J. PADILLA

*petition for review on certiorari

FACTS:

The petitioner, Jose Ching Sui Yong, bought 7 foreign cinematographic films from a certain Norberto Concepcion, who was alleged to be an authorized agent of Intercontinental Film Distributors. It was agreed upon, as shown in the receipts of payment, that the said films shall be delivered directly to the petitioner upon their arrival in the Philippines. However, the said films were not delivered to the petitioner despite repeated demands.

The petitioner then filed an action for replevin before the CFI. The court ordered the sheriff to take immediate possession of the 7 films. Meanwhile, the Intercontinental HK filed a 3 rd party claim, alleging ownership and asserting the right to possess the said 7 films.

The lower court, after trial, dismissed the complaint and set aside the writ of seizure it had issued earlier. It further ordered the petitioner to pay the private respondents the sum of P10,000 per day as damages from December 23, 1969 until the said 7 films are returned to the private respondents, or pay the sum of P250,000 representing the value of the said films.

The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:

W/N the award of damages of P10,000.00 a day commencing from December 23, 1969 until the aforesaid seven (7) cinematographic films are delivered or returned to defendants and defendant-intervenor or the sum of P250,000.00 is fully paid to defendants and defendant-intervenor and to pay further the amount of P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees, are supported by evidence and the law on the matter?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from with modification that the award of damages in the amount of P10,000 a day for alleged unrealized profits is eliminated.

The sole basis for the award of damages against the petitioner is the alleged unrealized profits of private respondents for the non-screening of the seven (7) films. We believe that respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in arriving at the amount of P10,000.00 a day as unrealized profits suffered by private respondents due to the filing of the present action by the petitioner. As correctly averred by petitioner, the films had yet to be passed by the Board of Censors and being "bold" or so called "bomba" films, there was the probability that some scenes therein would have been cut or censored or the films totally banned, as in the case of one of the films.

Besides, no document or proof was presented to prove that private respondents really lost such amount daily for non-exhibition of the films to the public by reason of the action instituted by petitioner. The amount of P10,000.00 a day as alleged unrealized profit was arrived at by mere speculation and conjecture by respondent court. Hence, the award of damages for the anticipated loss of profits is unwarranted.

Again, actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.

ANTONIO GELUZ vs. CA, ET. AL.G.R. No. L-16439             July 20, 1961

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

*petition for certiorari

FACTS:

Nita Villanueva, spouse of the private respondent, had her 3 pregnancies aborted by the petitioner, Antonio Geluz. On the 3rd abortion performed by the petitioner, the private respondent was in the province of Cagayan campaigning for his election to the provincial board and did not know nor consented to the said abortion.

The private respondent then filed action to recover damages against the petitioner.

The trial court rendered judgment ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondent P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.

On appeal, the CA sustained the award of damages.

ISSUE:

W/N a parent’s action to recover damages for the death of an unborn foetus will prosper?

RULING:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CA and ordered the dismissal of the filed complaint.

The death of a person under Article 2206 of the Civil Code does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with personality. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. Article 40 of the Civil Code expressly limits the provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.

Although parents may still collect damages, but such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents can not expect either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus. But the Court did not find any basis for an award of moral damages, evidently because the appellee's indifference to the previous abortions of his wife, also caused by the appellant herein, clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affections.

The immorality or illegality of the act does not justify an award of damage that, under the circumstances on record, have no factual or legal basis.

JOSE P. MECENAS, ET. AL. vs. CA, ET. AL.G.R. No. 88052 December 14, 1989

FELICIANO, J.:

*

FACTS:

M/T "Tacloban City” - a barge-type oil tanker of Philippine registry, owned by Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and operated by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC Shipping), leaving Negros Occidental and bound to Bataan - and M/V "Don Juan” - inter-island vessel, owned and operated by Negros Navigation leaving Manila and headed towards Bacolod - collided at the Talbas Strait near Maestra de Ocampo Island in the vicinity of the island of Mindoro. As a result of such collision, the M/V "Don Juan" sank and hundreds of its passengers died, among those are the parents of the petitioners, the spouses Perfecto Mecenas and Sofia Mecenas.

The petitioners filed a complaint before the CFI against Negros Navigation and Capt. Roger Santisteban, the captain of the "Don Juan", alleging that they were the seven (7) surviving legitimate children of Perfecto Mecenas and Sofia Mecenas and that the latter spouses perished in the collision which had resulted from the negligence of Negros Navigation and Capt. Santisteban.

The trial court rendered its judgment in favor of the petitioners, ordering Negros Navigation and Capt. Roger Santisteban jointly and severally liable to pay plaintiffs the sum of P400,000.00 for the death of plaintiffs' parents, Perfecto A. Mecenas and Sofia P. Mecenas; to pay said plaintiff's the sum of P15.000,00 as and for attorney's fees; plus costs of the suit.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification decreasing the amount of actual and compensatory damages to P100,000.

ISSUE:

W/N the CA erred in reducing the amount of the damages awarded by the trial court to the petitioners from P400,000 to P100,000?

RULING:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, and restored and increased the award granted by the trial court, as follows:

(a) P 126,000.00 for actual damages;(b) P 60,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death;(c) P 307,000.00 as moral damages;(d) P 307,000.00 as exemplary damages making a total of P 800,000.00; and(e) P 15,000.00 as attorney's fees.

The Court broke down the computation for the damages awarded by the trial court, as follows:

1. actual or compensatory damages proved in the course of trial consisting of actual expenses incurred by petitioners in their search for their parents' bodies- -P126,000.00

2. actual or compensatory damages in case of wrongful death(P30,000.00 x 2) -P60,000.00

3. moral damages -P107,000.00

4. exemplary damages -P107,000.00

Total -P400,000.00

Considering that the petitioners lost their parents in the said incident, and taking into consideration the pain and anxiety they experienced, the Court believed that an additional amount of P200,000.00 for moral damages is quite reasonable.

The Court further awarded an additional P200,000 as exemplary damages. It was explained that the Court is prepared to use the instruments given to it by the law for securing the ends of law and public policy.

Although the petitioners merely prayed in the petition for the restoration of the P400,000 award of the trial court, the Supreme Court explained that it may consider and resolved all issues which must be decided in order to render substantial justice to the parties, including issues not explicity raised by the party affected.

EULOGIO OCCENA vs. HON. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, ET. AL.G.R. No. 82146 January 22, 1990

FERNAN, C.J.:

*petition for review on certiorari

FACTS:

Private respondent, Cristina Vegafria, was convicted of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. No damages were awarded to petitioner in view of the trial court's opinion that "the facts and circumstances of the

case as adduced by the evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral damages." (Municipal Circuit Trial Court)

The RTC denied the appeal of the petitioner regarding the civil aspect of the case.

ISSUE:

W/N the petitioner is entitled to an award of damages arising from the remarks uttered by private respondent and found by the trial court to be defamatory?

RULING:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and modified the decision of the RTC ordering the private respondent to pay the petitioner the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages and another P5,000.00 as exemplary damages.

As a general rule, a person who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or society in which he lives and the individual member of the society or private person who was injured or damaged by the punishable act or omission. The offense of which private respondent was found guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil liability results because either there is no offended party or no damage was caused to a private person. There is here an offended party, whose main contention precisely is that he suffered damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent, in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as exemplary damages.

It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. And malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions which are not present in the case at bar.

Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of. It is patently error for the trial court to overlook this vital piece of evidence and to conclude that the "facts and circumstances of the case as adduced by the evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral damages."

PEO vs. FERNANDO PEREZG.R. No. 84362 July 7, 1989

FELICIANO, J.:

*appeal

FACTS:

The appellant, Fernando Perez, was convicted of the crime of rape, and the trial court sentenced him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant P50,000 as moral and exemplary damages.

Perez alleged in the appeal filed before the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in convicting him for the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish his identity as the rapist of the complainant, Christine Dorado, and that in view thereof his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

W/N the penalty and award of damages by the trial court is proper?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The Court agreed with the lower court that the complainant was able to positively identify Perez twice as her assailant. Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so moved and the testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. The Court did not find any reason at all to doubt the findings of the trial court, and so the same shall be entitled to great respect.

Given that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court believed that the victim is entitled to the moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court, P50,000. The sexual violence inflicted upon the 8-year old child is a particularly appalling outrage. The trauma sustained by her is not merely physical and may be expected to remain with her for a long, long time, possibly for life.

EDGARDO CARRIAGA, ET. AL. vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET. AL.GR# L-11037 December 29, 1960

J. DIZON

*

FACTS:

Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., driven by Alfredo Moncada, bumped against the engine of a train then passing by with such terrific force that the first 6 wheels of the train were derailed. As a result of which, Edgardo Cariaga, a fourth-year medical student in UST, who was then one of the passengers of the said bus sustained injuries. He was unconscious during his 35 days in hospital and had to undergo several surgeries.

The bus company paid for all the hospital, medical and miscellaneous expenses incurred from June 18, 1952 until April 1953.

The petitioners then filed an action to recover damages for Edgardo Cariaga in the amount of P312,000 as actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and for his parents, the sum of P18,000 in the same concept.

The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the bus company to pay Edgardo Cariaga the sum of P10,490 as compensatory damages with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint.

The petitioners argued in their petition that the trial court erred in awarding only P10,490 to Edgardo Cariaga as compensatory damages, and in not awarding any to the parents.

ISSUE:

W/N the award given by the trial court to Edgardo Cariage is proper?

W/N the parents of the victim are entitled to be awarded with damages?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with modification, increasing the award of compensatory damages to Edgardo Cariaga to P25,000.

Dr. Romeo Gustilo, a neurosurgeon, testified that as a result of the injuries suffered by the victim, it was necessary to remove all of the right frontal lobe of his brain. And according to Dr. Jose Fernandez, a psychiatrist, his mentality has been so reduced that he can no longer finish his studies as a medical student and has become completely misfit for any kind of work for he can hardly walk around without someone helping him.

The Court then believes that the income which Edgardo could earn if he should finish the medical course and pass the corresponding board examinations must be considered in the award of actual and compensatory damages because such could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded the said bus. While his scholastic may not be first rate, it is, nevertheless, sufficient to justify the assumption that he could have passed the board test in due time. As regards the income that he could possibly earn as a medical practitioner, it appears that, according to Dr. Amado Doria, the amount of P300 could easily be expected as the minimum monthly income of Edgardo had he finished his studies.

Moral damages and attorney’s fees cannot be awarded to the victim because the case under consideration does not fall under those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

As to the claim of his parents, the present action is based upon a breach of contract of carriage to which they are not a party, and neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi-delict of the LTB for the simple reason that they were not themselves injured as a result of the collision between the LTB bus and train owned by the Manila Railroad Company.

RODOLFO ROSALES, ET. AL. vs. CA, ET. AL.GR# 126395 November 16, 1998

J. MENDOZA

*

FACTS:

MMTC Bus No. 27, driven by Pedro Musa hit Liza Rosalie, who was then crossing Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City. According to a witness, the girl was already near the center of the street when the bus hit her,

and she was dragged several meters away from the point of impact. She was rushed to the Philippine Heart Center but efforts to revive her were unsuccessful.

Musa was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The Spouses Rosales filed an independent civil action for damages against MMTC, Musa, MMTC Acting General Manager Conrado Tolentino, Feliciano Celebrado, and the GSIS.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners, ordering the private respondents to pay as follows:

P150,000 – actual damagesP500,000 – moral damagesP100,000 – exemplary damagesP50,000 – attorney’s feesCosts of the suit

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification deleting the award of actual damages in lieu thereof the amount of P30,000 as death indemnity.

On Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Spouses Rosales, the CA increased the amount of the death indemnity to P50,000.

ISSUE:

W/N the death indemnity set by the CA to P50,000 analogous to actual damages?

RULING:

The Supreme Court ordered the decision of the CA to be set aside and rendered the MMTC and Pedro Musa jointly and severally liable for the death of Liza Rosalie and ordered them to pay the damages of:

P50,000 – death indemnityP60,226.65 – actual damagesP1M – moral damagesP500,000 – exemplary damagesP321,870.12 – compensation for loss of earning capacityCosts of suit

Aside from the payment of indemnity for death in the sum of P50,000, as provided in Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the petitioners are also entitled to receive actual damages in the amount shown in the receipts for funeral, wake and interment of Liza Rosalie as they had presented in court.

Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession.

The Spouses Rosales did not simply establish Liza Rosalie’s enrollment in UP-IS, they even presented evidence to show that Liza Rosalie was a good student, promising artist, and obedient child. Witnesses were

presented who testified her having a balanced personality and attested her potential of eventually becoming an artist.

Considering her good academic record, extra-curricular activities, and varied interests, it is reasonable to assume that Liza Rosalie would have enjoyed a successful professional career had it not been for her untimely death. Hence, it is proper that compensation for loss of earning capacity should be awarded to her heirs in accordance with the formula established in decided cases for computing net earning capacity:

Gross Necessary

Net Earning Life x Annual – Living

Capacity = Expectancy Income Expenses

Life expectancy is equivalent to 2/3 multiplied by the difference of 80 and the age of the deceased. Since Liza Rosalie was 16 at the time of her death, her life expectancy was 44 more years. Her projected gross annual income, computed based on the minimum wage for workers in the non-agricultural sector in effect at the time of her death then fixed at P37 is P14, 630.46. Allowing for necessary living expenses of 50% of her projected gross annual income, her total net earning capacity amounts to P321,870.12.

VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. vs. CA, ET. AL.GR# L-25499 February 18, 1970

C.J. CONCEPCION

*review by certiorari

FACTS:

An Izuzu First Class passenger bus, driven by Laureano Casim, owned and operated by the petitioner, Villa Rey Transit, Inc., while on its way to Manila from Lingayen, Pangasinan, hit the rear side of a bullcart filled with hay. As a result of which, one of its paying passenger, Policronio Quintos, Jr., was hit on his left eye of the protruding end of the bamboo pole which penetrated through the glass windshield of the bus. Quintos died due to traumatic shock caused by cerebral injuries.

The private respondents, Trinidad, Prima and Julita Quintos, sisters and only surviving heirs of the deceased filed an action to recover damages against Villa Rey Transit, Inc. for breach of contract of carriage.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents and ordered the petitioner to pay the amount of P63,750 as damages.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:

W/N the amount for damages awarded is proper?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA with modification reducing the indemnity to be paid, and ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondents the sum of P49,561.28, as follows:

P33,333.33 – indemnity of loss of earning capacityP12,000 – pursuant to Articles 104 and 107 of the RPC in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil CodeP1,727.95 – actual expenses for medical and burial of the deceasedP2,500 – attorney’s fees.

Life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an important element in fixing the amount recoverable by private respondents herein. Although it is not the sole element determinative of said amount, no cogent reason has been given to warrant its disregard and the adoption.

With respect to the rate at which the damages shall be computed, petitioner impugns the decision appealed from upon the ground that the damages awarded therein will have to be paid now, whereas most of those sought to be indemnified will be suffered years later. The Court explained that although payment of the award in the case at bar will have to take place upon the finality of the decision therein, the liability of petitioner herein had been fixed at the rate only of P2,184.00 a year, which is the annual salary of Policronio Quintos, Jr. at the time of his death, as a young "training assistant" in the Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. In other words, unlike the Alcantara case, on which petitioner relies, the lower courts did not consider, in the present case, Policronio's potentiality and capacity to increase his future income. Indeed, upon the conclusion of his training period, he was supposed to have a better job and be promoted from time to time, and, hence, to earn more, if not — considering the growing importance of trade, commerce and industry and the concomitant rise in the income level of officers and employees therein — much more.

The Court is mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or damages sustained by the private respondents, as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased, and that said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support, they received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount of that support, the Court must reckon with the "necessary expenses of his own living", which should be deducted from his earnings. Thus, it has been consistently held that earning capacity, as an element of damages to one's estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or his capacity to acquire money, "less the necessary expense for his own living. Stated otherwise, the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received. In other words, only net earnings, not gross earning, are to be considered that is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses.

It is then fair and reasonable to fix the deductible living and other expenses of the deceased at the sum of P1,184.00 a year, or about P100.00 a month, and that, consequently, the loss sustained by his sisters may be roughly estimated at P1,000.00 a year or P33,333.33 for the 33-1/3 years of his life expectancy.