20.philtranco v. ca

7/26/2019 20.Philtranco v. CA

1/12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 120553 June 17, 1997

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC. n! ROGACIONES

MANILHIG, petitioner,

vs.

COURT O" APPEALS n! HEIRS O" THE LATE RAMON ACUESTA, respondents.

#AVI#E, JR., J.:

The petitioners interposed this appeal b !a of a petition for revie! under Rule "# of

the Rules of $ourt fro% the &' (anuar '))# Decision of the $ourt of *ppeals in $*+

.R. $V No. "''"- 1affir%in the // (anuar '))& 2Decision of 0ranch &' of the

Reional Trial $ourt, $albao $it, in $ivil $ase No. &1&, !hich ordered the petitioners

to pa the private respondents da%aes as a result of a vehicular accident.

$ivil $ase No. &1& !as an action aainst herein petitioners for da%aes instituted bthe heirs of Ra%on *. *cuesta, na%el, reorio O. *cuesta2 (ulio O. *cuesta2 Ra%on

O. *cuesta, (r.2 0alta3ar O. *cuesta2 Rufino O. *cuesta2 Ma4i%o O. *cuesta2 Neri O.

*cuesta2 Ilu%inada O. *cuesta2 Rosario *cuesta+San32 and Pa%filo O. *cuesta. *tt.

(ulio O. *cuesta also appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs 5herein private

respondents6. 3The private respondents alleed that the petitioners !ere uilt of ross

nelience, rec7lessness, violation of traffic rules and reulations, abandon%ent of

victi%, and atte%pt to escape fro% a cri%e.

To support their alleations, the private respondents presented eiht !itnesses. On '-

8ebruar '))/, after the cross+e4a%ination of the last !itness, the private respondents9

counsel %ade a reservation to present a ninth !itness. The case !as then set for

continuation of the trial on &- and &' March '))/. 0ecause of the non+appearance of

the petitioners9 counsel, the &- March '))/ hearin !as cancelled. The ne4t da,

private respondents9 counsel %anifested that he !ould no loner present the ninth

!itness. He thereafter %ade an oral offer of evidence and rested the case. The trial

court su%%ari3ed private respondents9 evidence in this !ise:


2/12

;IV*+1/# driven b defendant Roasiones Manilhi Dolira

!as bein pushed b so%e persons in order to start its enine. The

Masasa 0lvd. runs perpendicular to o%e3 St. and the said Philtranco

bus "-/# !as headin in the eneral direction of the said o%e3 Street.

So%e of the persons !ho !ere pushin the bus !ere on its bac7, !hile

the others !ere on the sides. *s the bus !as pushed, its enine started

thereb the bus continued on its runnin %otion and it occurred at the ti%e

!hen Ra%on *. *cuesta !ho !as still ridin on his biccle !as directl in

front of the said bus. *s the enine of the Philtranco bus started abruptl

and suddenl, its runnin %otion !as also enhanced b the saidfunctionin enine, thereb the sub@ect bus bu%ped on the victi% Ra%on

*. *cuesta !ho, as a result thereof fell and, thereafter, !as run over b

the said bus. The bus did not stop althouh it had alread bu%ped and ran

;sic< over the victi%2 instead, it proceeded runnin to!ards the direction of

the Rosales 0ride !hich is located at one side of the Ni@aa Par7 and

to!ards one end of the o%e3 St., to !hich direction the victi% !as then

headin !hen he !as ridin on his biccle. PASt. Babao !ho !as then

@oin thru the o%e3 Street and !as headin and %eetin the victi%

Ra%on *. *cuesta as the latter !as ridin on his biccle, sa! !hen the

Philtranco bus !as bein pushed b so%e passeners, !hen its enineabruptl started and !hen the said bus bu%ped and ran over the victi%.

He approached the bus driver defendant Manilhi herein and sinalled to

hi% to stop, but the latter did not listen. So the police officer @u%ped into

the bus and introducin hi%self to the driver defendant as police%an,

ordered the latter to stop. The said defendant driver stopped the

Philtranco bus near the Ni@aa Par7 and St. Babao thereafter, told the

driver to proceed to the Police HeadCuarter !hich !as onl '-- %eters

a!a fro% Ni@aa Par7 because he !as apprehensive that the said driver

%iht be har%ed b the relatives of the victi% !ho %iht co%e to the

scene of the accident. Then St. Babao cordoned the scene !here the

vehicular accident occurred and had PA$pl. 0artolo%e 0aot, the Traffic

Investiator, conduct an investiation and %a7e a s7etch of the cri%e

scene. St. Ba%bao Babao !as onl about /- %eters a!a !hen he sa!

the bus of defendant Philtranco bu%ped ;sic< and ;sic< ran over the victi%.

8ro% the place !here the victi% !as actuall bu%ped b the bus, the said

vehicle still had run to a distance of about '# %eters a!a. $


3/12

8or their part, the petitioners filed an *ns!er 5!herein the alleed that petitioner

Philtranco e4ercised the dilience of a ood father of a fa%il in the selection and

supervision of its e%ploees, includin petitioner Manilhi !ho had e4cellent record as

a driver and had underone %onths of riid trainin before he !as hired. Petitioner

Manilhi had al!as been a prudent professional driver, reliiousl observin traffic

rules and reulations. In drivin Philtranco9s buses, he e4ercised the dilience of a ver

cautious person.

*s %iht be e4pected, the petitioners had a different version of the incident. The

alleed that in the %ornin of /" March '))-, Manilhi, in preparation for his trip bac7 to

Pasa $it, !ar%ed up the enine of the bus and %ade a fe! rounds !ithin the cit

proper of $albao. hile the bus !as slo!l and %oderatel cruisin alon o%e3

Street, the victi%, !ho !as bi7in to!ards the sa%e direction as the bus, suddenl

overtoo7 t!o triccles and s!erved left to the center of the road. The s!ervin !as

abrupt and so sudden that even as Manilhi applied the bra7es and ble! the bus horn,the victi% !as bu%ped fro% behind and run over b the bus. It !as neither !illful nor

deliberate on Manilhi9s part to proceed !ith the trip after his bus bu%ped the victi%, the

truth bein that !hen he loo7ed at his rear+vie! !indo!, he sa! people cro!din

around the victi%, !ith others runnin after his bus. 8earin that he %iht be %obbed,

he %oved a!a fro% the scene of the accident and intended to report the incident to the

police. *fter a %an boarded his bus and introduced hi%self as a police%an, Manilhi

ave hi%self up to the custod of the police and reported the accident in Cuestion.

The petitioners further clai%ed that it !as the nelience of the victi% in overta7in t!o

triccles, !ithout ta7in precautions such as seein first that the road !as clear, !hichcaused the death of the victi%. The latter did not even ive an sinal of his intention to

overta7e. The petitioners then counterclai%ed for P#-,--- as and for attorne9s fees2 P'

%illion as %oral da%aes2 and P#-,--- for litiation e4penses.

Ho!ever, the petitioners !ere not able to present their evidence, as the !ere dee%ed

to have !aived that riht b the failure of their counsel to appear at the scheduled

hearins on &- and &' March '))/. The trial court then issued an Order %declarin the

case sub%itted for decision. Motions for the reconsideration of the said Order !ere both

denied.

On // (anuar '))/, the trial court handed do!n a decision orderin the petitioners to

@ointl and severall pa the private respondents the follo!in a%ounts:

'6 P##, ='#.1/ as actual da%aes2


4/12

/6 P/--,--- as death inde%nit for the death of the victi% Ra%on *.

*cuesta2

&6 P' %illion as %oral da%aes2

"6 P#--,--- b !a of e4e%plar da%aes2

#6 P#-,--- as attorne9s fees2 and

=6 the costs of suit. 7

Ensatisfied !ith the @ud%ent, the petitioners appealed to the $ourt of *ppeals i%putin

upon the trial court the follo!in errors:

5'6 in preventin or barrin the% fro% presentin their evidence2

5/6 in findin that petitioner Manilhi !as at fault2

5&6 in not findin that Ra%on !as the one at fault and his o!n fault caused, or at least

contributed to, his unfortunate accident2

5"6 in a!ardin da%aes to the private respondents2 and

5#6 in findin that petitioner Philtranco !as solidaril liable !ith Manilhi for da%aes. &

In its decision of &' (anuar '))#, the $ourt of *ppeals affir%ed the decision of the trialcourt. It held that the petitioners !ere not denied due process, as the !ere iven an

opportunit to present their defense. The records sho! that the !ere notified of the

assin%ent of the case for &- and &' March '))/. Bet, their counsel did not appear on

the said dates. Neither did he file a %otion for postpone%ent of the hearins, nor did he

appeal fro% the denial of the %otions for reconsideration of the &' March '))/ Order of

the trial court. The petitioners have thereb !aived their riht to present evidence. Their

e4pectation that the !ould have to ob@ect et to a for%al offer of evidence b the

private respondents !as ?%isplaced,? for it !as !ithin the sound discretion of the court

to allo! oral offer of evidence.

*s to the second and third assined errors, the respondent court disposed as follo!s:

. . . e cannot help but accord !ith the lo!er court9s findin on appellant

Manilhi9s fault. 8irst, it is not disputed that the bus driven b appellant

Manilhi !as bein pushed at the ti%e of the unfortunate happenin. It is

of co%%on 7no!lede and e4perience that !hen a vehicle is pushed to a


5/12

@u%p+start, its initial %ove%ent is far fro% slo!. Rather, its %ove%ent is

abrupt and @er7 and it ta7es a !hile before the vehicle attains nor%al

speed. The lo!er court had thus enouh basis to conclude, as it did, that

the bu%pin of the victi% !as due to appellant Manilhi9s actionable

nelience and inattention. Prudence should have dictated aainst @u%p+

startin the bus in a bus section of the cit. Militatin further aainst

appellants9 posture !as the fact that the precarious pushin of sub@ect bus

to a @u%pstart !as done !here the bus had to ta7e a left turn, thereb

%a7in the %ove too ris7 to ta7e. The possibilit that pedestrians on

o%e3 Street, !here the bus turned left and the victi% !as bi7in, !ould

be una!are of a vehicle bein pushed to a @u%pstart, !as too obvious to

be overloo7ed. Veril, contrar to their bare aru%ents, there !as ross

nelience on the part of appellants.

The doctrine of last clear chance theori3ed upon b appellants, isinapplicable under the pre%ises because the victi%, !ho !as bu%ped

fro% behind, obviousl, did not of course anticipate a Philtranco bus bein

pushed fro% a perpendicular street.

The respondent court sustained the a!ards of %oral and e4e%plar da%aes and of

attorne9s fees, for the are !arranted under *rticles //-=, //&', and //-F5'6,

respectivel, of the $ivil $ode. *nent the solidar liabilit of petitioner Philtranco, the

sa%e finds support in *rticles /'F- and /')" of the said $ode. The defense that

Philtranco e4ercised the dilience of a ood father of a fa%il in the selection and

supervision of its e%ploees cru%bles in the face of the ross nelience of its driver,!hich caused the unti%el death of the victi%.

Their %otion for reconsideration havin been denied, the petitioners ca%e to us

clai%in that the $ourt of *ppeals ravel erred

I

. . . IN HOGDIN TH*T P>TITION>RS *IV>D TH>IR RIHT TO

PR>S>NT TH>IR >VID>N$>, *ND TH*T P>TITION>RS >R> NOT

D>NI>D DE> PRO$>SS.

II

. . . IN *PPGBIN *RT. /')", INST>*D O8 *RT. /'F-, O8 TH> $IVIG

$OD>, *ND IN HOGDIN TH*T P>TITION>R PHIGTR*N$O $*N NOT


6/12

INVO> TH> D>8>NS> O8 DIGI>N$> O8 * OOD 8*TH>R O8 *

8*MIGB.

III

. . . IN **RDIN D*M*>S TO R>SPOND>NTS *NDAOR IN NOT8INDIN TH> TRI*G $OERT9S **RD O8 D*M*>S >$>SSIV>.

e resolved to ive due course to the petition and reCuired the parties to sub%it their

respective %e%oranda after due consideration of the alleations, issues, and

aru%ents adduced in the petition, the co%%ent thereon b the private respondents,

and the repl to the co%%ent filed b the petitioners. The petitioners filed their

%e%orandu% in due ti%e2 !hile the private respondents filed theirs onl on & (anuar

'))1, after their counsel !as fined in the a%ount of P',--- for failure to sub%it the

reCuired %e%orandu%.

The first i%puted error is !ithout %erit. The petitioners and their counsel, *tt. (ose

0uban, !ere dul notified in open court of the order of the trial court of '- 8ebruar

'))/ settin the case for hearin on &- and &' March '))/. 9On both dates neither the

petitioners nor their counsel appeared. In his %otion for reconsideration, 10*tt. 0uban

ave the follo!in reasons for his failure to appear on the said hearins:

'. That !hen this case !as called on March /1, '))/, counsel !as ver

%uch indisposed due to the riors of a ver hectic ca%pain as he is a

candidate for $it $ouncilor of Tacloban2 he !anted to leave for $albao

$it, but he !as sei3ed !ith sliht fever on the %ornin of said date2 but

then, durin the last hearin, counsel !as %ade to understand that

plaintiffs !ould for%all offer their e4hibits in !ritin, for !hich reason,

counsel for defendants !aited for a cop of said for%al offer, but counsel

did not receive an cop as counsel for plaintiffs opted to for%all offer

their e4hibits orall in open court2

/. That counsel for defendants, in ood faith believed that he !ould be

iven reasonable ti%e !ithin !hich to co%%ent on the for%al offer in

!ritin, onl to 7no! that counsel for plaintiffs orall offered their e4hibitsin open court and that the sa%e !ere ad%itted b the Honorable $ourt2

and that !hen this case !as called on March &- and &', '))/, the

undersined counsel honestl believed that said schedule !ould be

cancelled, pendin on the sub%ission of the co%%ents %ade b the

defendants on the for%al offer2 but it !as not so, as the e4hibits !ere

ad%itted in open court. 11


7/12

In its order of /= Ma '))/, the trial court denied the %otion, findin it to be ?devoid of

%eritorious basis,? as *tt. 0uban could have filed a %otion for postpone%ent. 12*tt.

0uban then filed a %otion to reconsider 13the order of denial, !hich !as li7e!ise denied

b the trial court in its order of '/ *uust '))/. 1$Nothin %ore !as done b the

petitioners after receipt of the order of '/ *uust '))/. * perusal of the first and second

%otions for reconsideration discloses absence of an clai% that the petitioners have

%eritorious defenses. $learl, therefore, the trial court co%%itted no error in declarin

the case sub%itted for decision on the basis of private respondent9s evidence.

The second i%puted error is !ithout %erit either.

$ivil $ase No. &1& is an action for da%aes based onquasi-delict15under *rticle /'1=

and /'F- of the $ivil $ode aainst petitioner Manilhi and his e%ploer, petitioner

Philtranco, respectivel. These articles pertinentl provide:

*rt. /'1=. hoever b act or o%ission causes da%ae to another, there

bein fault or nelience, is oblied to pa for the da%ae done. Such

fault or nelience, if there is no pre+e4istin contractual relation bet!een

the parties, is called a Cuasi+delict and is overned b the provisions of

this $hapter.

*rt. /'F-. The obliation i%posed b *rticle /'1= is de%andable not onl

for one9s o!n acts or o%issions, but also for those of persons for !ho%

one is responsible.

444 444 444

The o!ners and %anaers of an establish%ent or enterprise are li7e!ise

responsible for da%aes caused b their e%ploees in the service of the

branches in !hich the latter are e%ploed or on the occasion of their

functions.

>%ploers shall be liable for the da%aes caused b their e%ploees and

household helpers actin !ithin the scope of their assined tas7s even

thouh the for%er are not enaed in an business or industr.

444 444 444

The responsibilit treated of in this article shall cease !hen the persons

herein %entioned prove that the observed all the dilience of a ood

father of a fa%il to prevent da%ae.


8/12

e have consistentl held that the liabilit of the reistered o!ner of a public service

vehicle, li7e petitioner Philtranco, 1%for da%aes arisin fro% the tortious acts of the

driver isprimary, direct, and @oint and several or solidary!ith the driver. 17*s to

solidarit, *rticle /')" e4pressl provides:

*rt. /')". The responsibilit of t!o or %ore persons !ho are liable for

aquasi-delict is solidar.

Since the e%ploer9s liabilit is pri%ar, direct and solidar, its onl recourse if the

@ud%ent for da%aes is satisfied b it is to recover !hat it has paid fro% its

e%ploee !ho co%%itted the fault or nelience !hich ave rise to the action

based on Cuasi+delict. *rticle /'F' of the $ivil $ode provides:

*rt. /'F'. hoever pas for the da%ae caused b his dependents or

e%ploees %a recover fro% the latter !hat he has paid or delivered in

satisfaction of the clai%.

There is, ho!ever, %erit in the third i%puted error.

The trial court erroneousl fi4ed the ?death inde%nit? at P/--,---. The private

respondents defended the a!ard in their Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration

b sain that ?;i


9/12

5/6 If the deceased !as oblied to ive support accordin to the provisions

of article /)', the recipient !ho is not an heir called to the decedent9s

inheritance b the la! of testate or intestate succession, %a de%and

support fro% the person causin the death, for a period of not e4ceedin

five ears, the e4act duration to be fi4ed b the court2

5&6 The spouse, leiti%ate and illeiti%ate descendants and ascendants of

the deceased %a de%and %oral da%aes for %ental anuish b reason

of the death of the deceased.

e concur !ith petitioners9 vie! that the trial court intended the a!ard of ?P/--,---.--

as death inde%nit? not as co%pensation for loss of earnin capacit. >ven if the trial

court intended the a!ard as inde%nit for loss of earnin capacit, the sa%e %ust be

struc7 out for lac7 of basis. There is no evidence on the victi%9s earnin capacit and

life e4pectanc.

Onl inde%nit for death under the openin pararaph of *rticle //-= is due, the

a%ount of !hich has been fi4ed b current @urisprudence at P#-,---. 1&

The a!ard of P' %illion for %oral da%aes to the heirs of Ra%on *cuesta has no

sufficient basis and is e4cessive and unreasonable. This !as based solel on the

testi%on of one of the heirs, *tt. (ulio *cuesta, contained in his ?Direct Testi%on . . .

*s Plaintiff, conducted b Hi%self,? 19to !it:

J. hat !as our feelin or reaction as a result of the death

of our father Ra%on *. *cuestaK

*. e, the fa%il %e%bers, have suffered %uch fro%

!ounded feelins, %oral shoc7, %ental anuish, sleepless

nihts, to !hich !e are entitled to %oral da%aes at the

reasonable a%ount of ON> MIGGION 5P',---,---.--6

P>SOS or at the sound discretion of this Hon. $ourt.

Since the other heirs of the deceased did not ta7e the !itness stand, the trial court had

no basis for its a!ard of %oral da%aes to those !ho did not testif thereon.

Moral da%aes are e%phaticall not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the e4pense of the

defendant. The are a!arded onl to allo! the for%er to obtain %eans, diversion, or

a%use%ents that !ill serve to alleviate the %oral sufferin he has underone due to the

defendant9s culpable action and %ust, perforce, be proportional to the sufferin


10/12

inflicted. 20In liht of the circu%stances in this case, an a!ard of P#-,--- for %oral

da%aes is in order.

The a!ard of P#--,--- for e4e%plar da%aes is also e4cessive. In Cuasi+delicts,

e4e%plar da%aes %a be a!arded if the part at fault acted !ith ross

nelience. 21The $ourt of *ppeals found that there !as ross nelience on the part

of petitioner Manilhi. 22Ender *rticle ///) of the $ivil $ode, e4e%plar da%aes are

i%posed b !a of e4a%ple or correction for the public ood, in addition to the %oral,

te%perate, liCuidated, or co%pensator da%aes. $onsiderin its purpose, it %ust be

fair and reasonable in ever case and should not be a!arded to un@ustl enrich a

prevailin part. In the instant case, an a!ard of P#-,--- for the purpose !ould be

adeCuate, fair, and reasonable.

8inall, the a!ard of P#-,--- for attorne9s fees %ust be reduced. The eneral rule is

that attorne9s fees cannot be recovered as part of da%aes because of the polic that

no pre%iu% should be placed on the riht to

litiate. 23Stated other!ise, the rant of attorne9s fees as part of da%aes is the

e4ception rather than the rule, as counsel9s fees are not a!arded ever ti%e a part

prevails in a suit. 2$Such attorne9s fees can be a!arded in the cases enu%erated in

*rticle //-F of the $ivil $ode, and in all cases it %ust be reasonable. In the instant

case, the counsel for the plaintiffs is hi%self a co+plaintiff2 it is then unli7el that he

de%anded fro% his brothers and sisters P'--,--- as attorne9s fees as alleed in the

co%plaint and testified to b

hi%. 25He did not present an !ritten contract for his fees. He is, ho!ever, entitled to a

reasonable a%ount for attorne9s fees, considerin that e4e%plar da%aes area!arded. *%on the instances %entioned in *rticle //-F of the $ivil $ode !hen

attorne9s fees %a be recovered is ?5'6 !hen e4e%plar da%aes are a!arded.?

Ender the circu%stances in this case, an a!ard of P/#,--- for attorne9s fees is

reasonable.

The petitioners did not contest the a!ard for actual da%aes fi4ed b the trial court.

Hence, such a!ard shall stand.

IN VI> O8 TH> 8OR>OIN, the petition is hereb partl ranted and the

challened decision of $*+.R. $V No. "''"- is *88IRM>D, sub@ect to %odificationsas to the da%aes a!arded, !hich are reduced as follo!s:

5a6 Death inde%nit, fro% P/--,--- to P#-,---2

5b6 Moral da%aes, fro% P' %illion to P#-,---2


11/12

5c6 >4e%plar da%aes, fro% P#--,--- to P#-,---2 and

5d6 *ttorne9s fees, fro% P#-,--- to P/#,---.

No pronounce%ents as to costs in this instance.

SO ORD>R>D.

DI>ST

Philtranco Service >nterprises, Inc. and Roaciones Manilhi v. $* and Heirs of lateRa%on *cuesta.R. No. '/-##& (une '1, '))1Davide, (r., (.

8*$TS:

*cuesta !as ridin in his eas rider biccle alon the o%e3 Street of $albao $it2Philtranco bus driven b Manilhi !as bein pushed b so%e persons in order to startits enine2 the Masasa 0lvd. runs perpendicular to o%e3 St. and the saidPhiltranco bus !as headin in the eneral direction of the said o%e3 St.2 as the bus!as pushed, its enine started thereb the bus continued on its runnin %otion and itoccurred at the ti%e !hen *cuesta !ho !as still ridin on his biccle !as directl infront of the said bus2 the bus bu%ped on *cuesta !ho, as a result thereof fell and,thereafter, !as run over b the said bus2 *cuesta died.

ISSE>S:'. ON *rt. /'F-, instead of *rt. /')", is applicable2/. . ON a!ard of da%aes b the trial court to the heirs of *cuesta is e4cessive

H>GD:'. This is action for da%aes based on Cuasi+delict under *rticle /'1= and /'F- of the$ivil $ode aainst Manilhi and his e%ploer, Philtranco, respectivel. 5see codal6

the liabilit of the reistered o!ner of a public service vehicle, li7e Philtranco, forda%aes arisin fro% the tortious acts of the driver is pri%ar, direct, and @oint andseveral or solidar !ith the driver 5Geal basis: *rt. /')" !hich provides:

LThe responsibilit of t!o or %ore persons !ho are liable for a Cuasi+delict is solidar.

Philtrancos onl recourse if the @ud%ent for da%aes is satisfied b it is to recover!hat it has paid fro% its e%ploee !ho co%%itted the fault or nelience !hich averise to theaction based on Cuasi+delict 5Geal basis: *rt. /'F': Lhoever pas for the da%aecaused b his dependentsor e%ploees %a recover fro% the latter !hat he has paid or delivered in satisfactionof the clai%.


12/12

/. Bes. The trial court erroneousl fi4ed the Ldeath inde%nit at /--,---.*rt. //-=provides the basis for the co%putation of death inde%nit !hich is fi4ed b current @urisprudence at #-,---

20.philtranco v. ca

Documents