DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May
9, 2019, and the Resolution dated August 17, 2020, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04889-MIN are AFFIRMED. The legal
interest shall be imposed on the monetary awards granted at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
First, there is no dispute that respondents suffered damage by
reason of the death of Victorino. Petitioner does not refute the fact that
Victorino died from a bad fall while riding his motorcycle on his way
home after having entangled himself with petitioner’s electrical wire
which was hanging low across the stretch of the Tagum-New Corella
Road. 33 Petitioner even admitted having given respondents financial
assistance amounting to P50,000.00 because of the incident as a
humanitarian gesture and in accordance with the policies of the NEA.34
Respondents’ pain and anxiety from the time of Victorino’s accident up
to the time of his death a few days thereafter cannot be gainsaid, especially
considering the fact that Victorino never regained consciousness after the
accident. 35
ON NEGLIGENCE
Jurisprudence defines negligence as “the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.”36 The existence of negligence
in a particular case may be determined by the following test: “Did the
defendant in the performance of the alleged negligent act use reasonable
care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.”37
…………………………………….
In cases where it is difficult to prove negligence, the doctrine of res
zpsa loquitur “permits an inference of negligence on the part of the
defendant or some other person who is charged with negligence where the
thing or transaction speaks for itself.” 40 This doctrine’s procedural effect
in quasi-delict cases is that “the defendant’s negligence is presumed, and
the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to prove that he did not act
with negligence.”41
ON PROXIMATE CAUSE
Petitioner argues that the proximate cause of Victorino’ s accident
was due to a fortuitous event; it avers that the electrical wire was cut by a
G.I. sheet from the roofing of the Sunrise Videoke House which was
detached due to the strong winds at the time.47 Petitioner further posits
that the fortuitous event, coupled with Victorino’s reckless overspeeding
and use of a tinted eye protector that blurred his sight, was the immediate
cause of the accident.48
Proximate cause is “that which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the
event would not have occurred.”49 For the negligence to be considered as
the proximate cause of the injury, it does not need to be the event closest
in time to the injury. A cause is still deemed proximate even if it is farther
in time in relation to the injury, “if the happening of it [sets] other
foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.”50
Verily, the strong winds and the flying G.I. sheet from Alma’s roof,
although they are intervening causes, were not sufficient enough to break
the chain of connection between petitioner’s negligence and the injurious
consequence suffered by Victorino. The vehicular accident could not have
occurred had petitioner exercised due diligence in the maintenance of its
power lines and in providing adequate measures to ensure the safety and
protection of the residents and other persons within the vicinity, including
those merely traversing the area. 51 Petitioner, therefore, cannot excuse
itself from liability for its failure to properly maintain the electrical wires
by attributing negligence to Victorino.
ON ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Actual or compensatory damages are “compensation for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position where it was before the
injury.” 53 They “pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually
sustained and susceptible of measurement.”54 However, a party may only
be awarded actual damages when the pecuniary loss he or she had suffered
was duly proven. As discoursed by the Comi in Mendoza v. Sps. Gomez:55
Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and
quasi -delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Article 2199 of the same Code, however, sets the limitation that, 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. As such, to warrant an award of actual or compensatory
damages, the claimant must prove that the damage sustained is the
natural and probable consequences of the negligent act and, moreover,
the claimant must adequately prove the amount of such damage. 56
(Italics supplied)
In sustaining the RTC’s award for actual and compensatory
damages in the total amount of P667,033.30, the CA found the award to
be supported by respondents’ presentation in evidence of the official
receipts and Statements of Account issued by the hospital, as well as the
testimony ofVictorino’s daughter, Victoria, who is also a doctor.57
ON INDEMNITY FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
Indemnity for loss of earning capacity is awarded to the heirs of the
victim where death results on the occasion of the defendant’s act or
omission arising from quasi-delict. 58 Compensation of this nature is
“awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn
money”;59 such indemnification “partakes of the nature of actual damages
which must be duly proven by competent proof and the best obtainable
evidence thereof. “60
The CA found Victorino’s income-earning capacity to have been
sufficiently established by his Income Tax Return that reflected his annual
gross taxable income at Pl02,746.04. Applying the formula outlined by
recent jurisprudence61 in computing the compensable amount for loss of
earning capacity, the Court likewise finds the CA’ s award to respondents
for Victorino’s loss of earning capacity in the amount of P684,802.35762
to be in order.63
ON MORAL DAMAGES
Moral damages are also appropriate in the case as predicated on
Article 2219(2)64 of the New Civil Code. The death of Victorino, being
the proximate result of petitioner’s negligence, wrought anguish and
mental suffering upon respondents; for this, the amount of P200,000.00
awarded by the CA is sufficient compensation.65 While there is no hardand-
fast rule in ascertaining the amount of moral damages recoverable,
determining what is fair and reasonable will be governed by the attendant
particulars of each case.66 In Salvador v. Hizon, Jr. ,67 the Court thus held:
x x x Moral damages are not meant to be punitive 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. Such damages are not a bonanza but are given to ease the
defendant’s grief and suffering; thus, reasonably approximate the
extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done. They are
awarded not to enrich the complainant but to enable the latter to obtain
means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable
action.68 (Citations omitted)
ON EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Exemplary Damages are imposed under Article 2229 of the Civil
Code by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
moral damages; under Article 2231, exemplary damages may also be
awarded in cases of gross negligence.
As the RTC pointed out, there is a need to c01Tect and discipline
petitioner for hiring and paying lawyers to deny its responsibility and even
paying its lone witness Pl00,000.00 to supp01i its claim of non-liability,
instead of taking responsibility for its negligence by supporting the
respondents’ medical needs and by settling the matter amicably and
expeditiously with the respondents. 69 Also, as testified to by Noel,
petitioner repaired its electrical wirings before the setting for the ocular
inspection without informing the RTC about such repair. Petitioner’s act
is clearly for the purpose of circumventing the facts that existed at the time
of the accident and to use such repaired electrical wirings as proof that the
accident was not caused by the sagging and broken electrical wires. 70
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 