CONCEPT OF LOSS OF THING

People of the Philippines vs. Rosauro Sia

G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001
370 SCRA 123

FACTS:

This is an automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court

finding the accused Johnny Balalio y Deza and Jimmy Ponce y Tol guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals by conspiracy for violation of RA
6539 (Anti- Carnapping law) as amended, and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of death.

Accused are likewise adjudged jointly and severally liable to pay

Agripina Bermudez, the mother of the deceased Christian Bermudez the
sums of: (a) P50, 000.00 as compensatory damages for the death of
Christian Bermudez; (b) P200, 000.00 as burial and other expenses
incurred in connection with the death of Christian; and (c) P3, 307,199.60
(2/3 x [80-27] x 300 per day x 26 days (excluding Sundays) x 12 months)
representing the loss of earning capacity of Christian Bermudez as taxi
driver.

ISSUE:
The issue is whether or not the trial courts’ award for damages is
proper.

HELD:

The decision is partly correct. The Court finds the amount of P50,
000.00 as death indemnity proper, following prevailing jurisprudence, and
in line with controlling policy. The award of civil indemnity may be granted
without any need of proof other than the death of the victim. Though not
awarded by the trial court, the victim’s heirs are likewise entitled to moral
damages, pegged at P50, 000.00 by controlling case law, taking into
consideration the pain and anguish of the victim’s family brought about by
his death.
However, the award of P200, 000.00 as burial and other expenses
incurred in connection with the death of the victim must be deleted. The
records are bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial court’s award
of burial and other expenses incurred in connection with the victim’s death.
The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible
evidence before it may be awarded. Credence can be given only to claims,
which are duly supported, by receipts or other credible evidence.
The trial court was correct in awarding damages for loss of earning
capacity despite the non-availability of documentary evidence. The court
based on testimony in several cases has awarded damages representing
net earning capacity. However the amount of the trial court’s award needs
to be re computed and modified accordingly.
In determining the amount of lost income, the following must be taken
into account: (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise
have lived; and (2) the rate of the loss sustained by the heirs of the
deceased. The second variable is computed by multiplying the life
expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased meaning total earnings
less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income less
living and other incidental expenses considering that there is no proof of
living expenses of the deceased, net earnings are computed at fifty percent
of the gross earnings.
In this case, the court notes that the victim was 27 years old at the
time of his death and his mother testified that as a driver of the Tamaraw
FX taxi, he was earning P650.00 a day.
Based on the foregoing computation, the award of the trial court with regard
to lost income is thus modified accordingly.
 LEGASPI OIL CO., INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 96505
JULY 1, 1993

FACTS:

Bernard Oseraos had several transactions with Legaspi Oil Co. for
the sale of copra to the latter. The price at which appellant sells the copra
varies from time to time, depending on the prevailing market price when the
contract is entered into. On February 16, 1976, appellant's agent Jose
Llover signed contract No. 3804 for the sale of 100 tons of copra at P82.00
per 100 kilos with delivery terms of 20 days effective March 8, 1976. After
the period to deliver had lapsed, appellant sold only 46,334 kilos of copra
thus leaving a balance of 53,666 kilos. Accordingly, demands were made
upon appellant to deliver the balance with a final warning that failure to
deliver will mean cancellation of the contract, the balance to be purchased
at open market and the price differential to be charged against appellant.
On October 22, 1976, since there was still no compliance, appellee
exercised its option under the contract and purchased the undelivered
balance from the open market at the prevailing price of P168.00 per 100
kilos, or a price differential of P86.00 per 100 kilos, a net loss of
P46,152.76 chargeable against appellant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is guilty of breach of contact.

RULING:

Private respondent is guilty of fraud in the performance of his

obligation under the sales contract whereunder he bound himself to deliver
to petitioner 100 metric tons of copra. However within the delivery period,
Oseraos delivered only 46,334 kilograms of copra to petitioner. Petitioner
made repeated demands upon private respondent to deliver the balance of
53,666 kilograms but private respondent ignored the same. Petitioner made
a final demand with a warning that, should private respondent fail to
complete delivery of the balance of 53,666 kilograms of copra, petitioner
would purchase the balance at the open market and charge the price
differential to private respondent. Still private respondent failed to fulfill his
contractual obligation to deliver the remaining 53,666 kilograms of copra
and since there was still no compliance by private respondent, petitioner
exercised its right under the contract and purchased 53,666 kilograms of
copra, the undelivered balance, at the open market at the then prevailing
price of P168.00 per 100 kilograms, a price differential of P46,152.76.

The conduct of private respondent clearly manifests his deliberate

fraudulent intent to evade his contractual obligation for the price of copra
had in the meantime more than doubled from P82.00 to P168 per 100
kilograms. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, those
who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
liable for damages. Pursuant to said article, private respondent is liable for
damages.

JACINTO TANGUILIG vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE

HERCE JR.
G.R. No. 117190
JANUARY 2, 1997

FACTS:

Petitioner Jacinto M. Tanguilig proposed to respondent Vicente Herce

Jr. to construct a windmill system for him. After some negotiations they
agreed on the construction of the windmill for a consideration of
P60,000.00. On 14 March 1988, due to the refusal and failure of
respondent to pay the balance, petitioner filed a complaint to collect the
amount. Respondent denied the claim saying that he had already paid this
amount to the San Pedro General Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI) which
constructed the deep well to which the windmill system was to be
connected. According to respondent, since the deep well formed part of
the system the payment he tendered to SPGMI should be credited to his
account by petitioner. Moreover, assuming that he owed petitioner a
balance of P15,000.00, this should be offset by the defects in the windmill
system which caused the structure to collapse after a strong wind hit their
place.

Petitioner refused to pay and argued that private respondent was

already in default in the payment of his outstanding balance of P15,000.00
and hence should bear his own loss.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is correct in his contention that
respondent is already in default thus he should bear the loss of the
windmill.

RULING:

Petitioner's argument that private respondent was already in default

in the payment of his outstanding balance of P15,000.00 and hence should
bear his own loss, is untenable. In reciprocal obligations, neither party
incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a
proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. When the windmill failed
to function properly it became incumbent upon petitioner to institute the
proper repairs in accordance with the guaranty stated in the contract.
Thus, respondent cannot be said to have incurred in delay; instead, it is
petitioner who should bear the expenses for the reconstruction of the
windmill. Article 1167 of the Civil Code is explicit on this point that if a
person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at
his cost.

BAYNE ADJUSTERS VS. CA

GR No. 116332 January 25, 2000
FACTS:

In May 1987 Colgate Palmolive Philippine, Inc., imported alkyl

benzene from Japan valued at US$255,802.88. The said liquid cargo was
insured with herein private respondent Insurance Company of North
America against all risk for its full value. Petitioner Bayne Adjusters and
Surveyors Inc., was contracted by the consignee to supervise the proper
handling and discharge of the cargo from the chemical tanker to a receiving
barge until the cargo is pumped into the consignee’s shore tank. When the
cargo arrived in Manila petitioner’s surveyor supervised the transfer of the
cargo from the chemical tanker to the receiving barge. Pumping operation
from the barge to the consignee’s shore tank commenced at 2020 hours of
June 27, 1987. Pumping of the liquid cargo from the barge to the
consignee’s tank was interrupted several times due to mechanical
problems with the pump. When the pump broke down once again at about
1300 hours of June 29, 1987, the petitioner’s surveyor left the premises
without leaving any instruction with the barge foreman what to do in the
event that the pump becomes operational again. Petitioner sent Amado
Fontillas, a cargo surveyor, not a liquid bulk surveyor, to the premises and
it was agreed that pumping operation would resume the following day at
1030 hours. Fontillas tried to inform both the barge men and the assigned
surveyor of the scheduled resumption of pumping operation but he could
not find them so he left the premises. When the barge men arrived in the
early evening, they found the valves of the tank open and resumed
pumping operation in the absence of any instruction from the surveyor to
the contrary. The following morning it was found that an undetermined
amount of alkyl benzene was lost due to overflow.

The consignee filed a claim with the private respondent insurance

corporation for the value of the lost liquid cargo.

Both the trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner’s
failure to comply with the Standard Operating Procedure for Handling
Liquid Bulk Cargo when pumping operation is suspended as the proximate
cause of the loss.

ISSUE:
 Whether petitioner is liable for the damages incurred arising from
culpa contractual.

RULING:

The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation

renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the
obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise
due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature
of the obligation so demands. The factual findings and conclusions of the
trial and appellate court when supported by substantial evidence are
entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal except on very
strong and cogent grounds. Both parties agree that the petitioner is bound
to supervise the proper discharge of the liquid cargo from the chemical
tanker to the receiving barge and from the latter to the consignee’s shore
tank.

It is clear that under the standard procedure the surveyor is required

to seal all cargo compartment manhole covers and the barge and manifold
covers to avoid unsupervised discharge of the liquid cargo and to avert loss
or contamination thereof. The petitioner’s failure to closely supervise the
discharge of the cargo in accordance with accepted guidelines is the
proximate cause of the loss. We find no cogent reason to overturn the legal
conclusion reached by the lower courts that the petitioner is negligent in the
performance of its duty as a marine superintendent surveyor under the
Standard Operating Procedure in handling liquid cargo and held the
petitioner liable for damages for the loss of the cargo.

YHT REALTY VS. CA

GR. No. 126780 February 17, 2005

FACTS:

McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He

rented a safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit
box every time he registered at Tropicana in previous trips. As a tourist,
McLoughlin was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to
its safety deposit boxes. The safety deposit box could only be opened
through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest,
and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel.
When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he alone
could personally request the management who then would assign one of its
employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety
deposit box with the two keys.
However, when he returned coming from a trip, he noticed that his
money in the envelope was lacking and that the jewelries were gone.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner is liable for the loss of the personal properties of

respondent.

RULING:

Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the
performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for
damages. Article 2180 provides that the owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions. Also, this Court has ruled
that if an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the employer was
negligent in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the victim to
prove the negligence of such employer. Thus, given the fact that the loss
of McLoughlin’s money was consummated through the negligence of
Tropicana’s employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box
without the guest’s consent, both the assisting employees and YHT Realty
Corporation itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held
solidarily liable.
Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by
posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by
the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest
whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 2001
is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
The hotel business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with
public interest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The
law in turn does not allow such duty to the public to be negated or diluted
by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” that ordinarily appear
in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety
deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by the
management since two keys are necessary to open the safety deposit box.
Without the assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have
occurred.
Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence in allowing Tan,
who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of
McLoughlin, even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in
allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would result in
undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the
management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the
pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access
to the safety deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach
thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This
will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its
employees in conspiracy with the guest’s relatives and visitors.