TORREON and ABELLANA vs.

APARRA
FACTS
1. Characters
a. Rodolfo Torreon = Father Torreon
b. Vivian Torreon = Wife Torreon (note - di siya kasama sa trip)
c. Monalisa Torreon = Daughter1
d. Johanna Torreon = Daughter2
2. The Torreons arrived with Abellana at the municipal wharf of Jefate, Bohol. They looked for a motorboat which
would transport them from the wharf to the poblacion.
3. A cargo truck arrived to carry the passengers, but the petitioners refused to board because it was
overcrowded, so they waited for another, only to be told that it was only that cargo truck that would enter the
wharf.
4. Approximately 10 mins later, the same cargo truck arrived. This time, petitioners boarded it. No proper seats
in the truck, so the 30 or so passengers were either standing up or sitting on their bags
5. Instead of the designated driver (Caballes) driving the vehicle, the diesel mechanic (Aparra) drove it.
6. Because the road was only 4 meters and 24 inches wide, rough, and full of potholes, and because there were
some people he had to avoid by swerving, Aparra eventually lost control and they fell off the wharf
7. Father Torreon and Daugher1 Torreon died, while Daugher2 Torreon and Abellana were injured.
8. Wife Torreon and Abellana filed several cases against Aparra and Caballes.
9. During trial, one SPO2 Torniado testified that the road was only wide enough for 1 vehicle and that when he
asked for Aparra’s license, he could only give a student permit
10. RTC - Simolde (Owner), Caballes (Designated Driver), and Aparra (Diesel Mechanic) are jointly and severally
liable to pay damages
. 300k actual
a. 50k moral
b. 10k litigation expenses
c. 35k attys fees
d. 10k exemplary
11. CA affirmed with modifications. It held Simolde solidarily liable for failing to exercise DDSS since the road was
very narrow and full of potholes. It also deleted award of actual damages for loss of Father Torreon’s earning
capactiy
. 50k for death of Father Torreon
a. 50k for death of Daughter1 Torreon
b. 25k temperate
c. 50k moral
d. 10k exemplary
e. 10k attys fees
f. 25k litigation expenses
12. Wife Torreon filed motion for recon to increase award of damages

ISSUE
1. W/N actual damages for loss of earning capacity should be awarded - YES
2. W/N value of other awarded damages should increase

RULING
WHEREFORE, the April 3, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71090 is MODIFIED. Respondents
Carmelo T. Simolde, Felix Caballes, and Generoso Aparra, Jr., are ORDERED to pay solidarily petitioner Vivian B.
Torreon the amounts of:
a. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Rodolfo Torreon;
b. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Monalisa Torreon;
c. P1,919,700.00 as actual damages for Rodolfo Torreon's lost earning capacity;
d. P100,000.00 as moral damages composed of P50,000.00 for Rodolfo Torreon's heirs and P50,000.00
for Monalisa Torreon's heirs;
e. P10,000.00 as exemplary damages;
f. P100,000.00 as attorney fees; and
g. P50,000.00 as litigation expenses.
||
RATIO

ACTUAL DAMAGES

 Affirmed findings of CA that Caballes and Aparra were grossly negligent in transporting passengers. Caballes
grossly negligent for letting Aparra drive his truck due to his inexperience. Quasi delict clearly proven.
 In addition, Simolde is held vicariously liable under 2180 par 5.
 In an effort to avoid liability, Simolde argues that passengers boarded the truck without his knowledge, but
instead of helping him, his testimony proves his failure to supervise his employees. He should have been more
diligent in ensuring that his employees acted within the scope of their assingned tasks.
 Article 2206 applies. It says that when death results out of a crime or quasi-delict, it shall be at least P3k, even
though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition, it says:
o (1) 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; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
o (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291,
the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period
not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
o (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
 The same rules on damages are applicable whether or not death occured as a result of a crime, but
it must be emphasized that the indemnities for loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for moral
damages are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed sum of P12k corresponding to
the indemnity for the sole fact of death
 Civil or death indemnity is mandatory. Initially fixed by the Civil Code at 3k, it is not 50k.
 Formula to compute deceased’s earning capcity (Pleyto vs Lomboy): Net Earning Capacity = [⅔ x
(80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living
expenses)]
 The said damages consists not of the full amount of his earnings, but the support they would have
received from him had he not died, less the necessary expenses of his own living. Thus, only net
earnings are to be considered, that is, the total earnings less expenses necessary in creation of such
earnings less living and other incidental expenses.
 This formula should be used in absence of proof in terms of statistics and actuarial presented
by the plaintiff
 CA deleted award of actual damages because documentary evidence should have been
substantiated. We disagree.
 Since this is a civil case, only preponderance of evidence is required. In determining if this quantum
of proof is met, the court is not required to exclusively consider documentary evidence. Testimonial
evidence, if not questioned for credibility, bears the same weight as documentary evidence.
 In one tort case, the court accepted the testimony from co-workers of the deceased to establish his
income before his death. All the more then should an employer be allowed to testify on the amount
paid to the deceased employee.
 It is to be noted that Abellana is the employer of Father Torreon. Abellana testified that at the
time of his death, Father Torreon was earning P15k/mo and was 48 yrs old.
 Applying the equation, the loss of earning capacity totalled P1.9M. Thus, respondents are liable to
pay P1.9M to compensate Rodolfo’s heirs
 On the other hand, Vivian failed to prove the actual damages she suffered for the death of her
daughter, Monalisa. Vivian merely testified as to the funeral and burial expenses she incurred without
producing any receipt or other evidence to support her claim. Consequently, she cannot be entitled
to an award of actual damages on account of Monalisa's loss. F
OTHER DAMAGES
 CA ruling affirmed. Art 2206 expressly grants moral damages in addition to civil indemnity.
 Petitioner maintains that amount of moral damages should increase. The court disagrees; the award
is not meant to enrich the petitioner at the expense of the respondents.
 The 50k award for Father and Daughter1 Torreon is correct
 In addition, the court affirms the award for exemplary damages. These are imposed by way of
example to correct wrongful conduct. In quasi-delicts cases, these are awarded if defendant acted
with gross negligence.
 In this case, respondents were grossly negligent. Aparra drove without a license, and Caballes not
only allowed this to happen, but also permitted passengers to board the cargo truck. Simolde also
grossly negligent for tolerating such behavior.
 All other damages are in order, except attorneys fees and litigation expenses, which are increased
to 100k and 50k respectively, considering the protracted litigation.