Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Torreon v. Aparra Jr.
Torreon v. Aparra Jr.
DECISION
LEONEN, J : p
II
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that those who commit acts
constituting a quasi-delict are liable to pay damages:
Article 2176. Â Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Vergara v. Court of Appeals 51 enumerated the elements necessary to
establish a quasi-delict case:
These requisites are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by
act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose-acts
he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and
effect between such negligence and the damages. 52
This Court affirms the finding of the Court of Appeals that Caballes and
Aparra were grossly negligent in transporting the passengers. The Court of
Appeals ruled:
Records bore that after appellant Aparra took over the control
of the wheel of the cargo truck and drove the same, appellant
Caballes merely rushed to get on the truck and only sat beside
appellant Aparra. Appellant Caballes, despite the fact that appellant
Aparra possessed only a student driver's permit, allowed him to
continue driving the truck. Moreover, We cannot glean from the
records that appellant Caballes cautioned appellant Aparra while the
latter was driving the truck. It must be pointed out that the cargo
truck had more than thirty (30) passengers on board at its back, who
were either just standing or sitting on their bags, with nothing to hold
on for support, while the truck was moving. Furthermore, the road
was only four (4) meters wide, rough and with many pot holes.
Obviously, these circumstances warrant that the driver be somebody
of competence and experience in maneuvering a vehicle under such
a precarious condition. Therefore, the acts of appellant Aparra in
taking the wheel and of appellant Caballes in allowing the former to
take the wheel are plain manifestations of negligence. 53 ATICcS
The Civil Code holds Simolde liable for the damages that his actions
have caused. 57 Article 2206 specifically applies when a death occurs as a
result of a crime or a quasi-delict:
Article 2206.    The amount of damages for death caused
by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least Three thousand pesos,
even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition:
(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;
(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;
(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.
(Emphasis supplied)
The same rules on damages are applicable whether or not the death
occurred as a result of a crime or a quasi-delict. To summarize, the heirs are
entitled to recover:
1.    As indemnity for the death of the victim of the
offense — P12,000.00, without the need of any evidence or proof of
damages, and even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances attending the commission of the offense [now
P50,000.00].
2.    As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
deceased — an amount to be fixed by the court according to the
circumstances of the deceased related to his actual income at the
time of death and his probable life expectancy, the said indemnity to
be assessed and awarded by the court as a matter of duty, unless the
deceased had no earning capacity at said time on account of
permanent disability not caused by the accused. If the deceased was
obliged to give support, under Art. 291, Civil Code, the recipient who
is not an heir, may demand support from the accused for not more
than five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court.
3.    As moral damages for mental anguish, — an amount
to be fixed by the court. This may be recovered even by the
illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased.
4.    As exemplary damages, when the crime is attended
by one or more aggravating circumstances, — an amount to be fixed
in the discretion of the court, the same to be considered separate
from fines.
5.    As attorney's fees and expenses of litigation , —
the actual amount thereof, (but only when a separate civil action to
recover civil liability has been filed or when exemplary damages are
awarded).
6.    Interests in the proper cases.
7.    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 P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity
for the sole fact of death, and that these damages may, however,
be respectively increased or lessened according to the mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious
reasons. 58 (Emphasis supplied)
Civil or death indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. 59
Initially fixed by the Civil Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity is
currently fixed at P50,000.00. 60
Thus, respondents are liable to pay Rodolfo's heirs P50,000.00. They
are liable to pay another P50,000.00 to answer for the death of Monalisa.
In Pestaño v. Spouses Sumayang , 61 this Court applied Article 2206 of
the Civil Code and awarded compensation for the deceased's lost earning
capacity in addition to the award of civil indemnity. The indemnity for the
deceased's lost earning capacity is meant to compensate the heirs for the
income they would have received had the deceased continued to live. 62
Pleyto v. Lomboy 63 provided the formula to compute a deceased's
earning capacity:
It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the factors that should be
taken into account in determining the compensable amount of lost
earnings are: (1) the number of years for which the victim would
otherwise have lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of
the deceased. Jurisprudence provides that the first factor, i.e., life
expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 - age at
death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
Actuarial Combined Experience Table of Mortality. As to the second
factor, it is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net
earnings of the deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses
necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living
and other incidental expenses. The net earning is ordinarily
computed at fifty percent (50%) of the gross earnings. Thus, the
formula used by this Court in computing loss of earning capacity is:
Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age at time of death) x
(gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living
expenses)]. 64 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The reason behind the formula for loss of earning capacity was
discussed in Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: 65
[The award of damages for loss of earning capacity is] 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, We 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 creation of such earnings or
income and less living and other incidental expenses. 66 (Citations
omitted) AIDSTE
A: Â At this time, almost five years, I think I have thrown that away
already, the records.
Q: Â From your estimate, how much income was he receiving?
A: Â His basic salary is P10,000.00 a month and he is receiving 20%
commission on the net profit.
Q: Â How about for the other businesses, did he also receive share?
A: Â Sometimes.
Q: Â How much do you think was Rod[o]lfo Torreon earning at that
time?
A: Â More or less P15,000.00 and I think he was receiving
commission from the salesmen. 73
The simplified formula to compute loss of earning capacity was given in
the ponencia of People v. Wahiman: 74
[2/3 x 80 - age] x [gross annual income - necessary expenses
equivalent to 50% of the gross annual income] 75
The concurring opinion in Wahiman was instructive on how to properly
apply this formula:
This is a step-by-step guide to compute an award for loss of
earning capacity.
(1) Â Subtract the age of the deceased from 80.
(2) Â Multiply the answer in (1) by 2, and divide it by 3
(these operations, are interchangeable).
(3) Â Multiply 50% to the annual gross income of the
deceased.
(4) Â Multiply the answer in (2) by the answer in (3). This is
the loss of earning capacity to be awarded.
When the evidence on record only shows monthly gross
income, annual gross income is derived from multiplying the monthly
gross income by 12. When the daily wage is the only information
provided during trial, such amount may be multiplied by 260, or the
number of usual workdays in a year, to arrive at annual gross income.
76
At the time of his death, Rodolfo was 48 years old and was earning
P15,000.00 monthly. 77 To determine his annual gross income, this Court
multiplied his gross monthly income by 12 to get the result of P180,000.00.
Computing for life expectancy, or steps 1 and 2, results:
Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - 48)
Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (32)
Life Expectancy = 21.33 years
Applying his life expectancy and annual gross income to the general
formula, or step 3:
Loss of Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x 1/2 annual gross income
Loss of Earning Capacity = 21.33 x (P180,000.00/2)
Loss of Earning Capacity = 21.33 x P90,000.00
Loss of Earning Capacity = P1,919,700.00
Respondents are liable to pay P1,919,700.00 to compensate for the
income Rodolfo's heirs would have received had he lived.
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. 78 Consequently, she cannot
be entitled to an award of actual damages on account of Monalisa's loss.
III
With regard to the award of moral damages, this Court affirms the
Court of Appeals' ruling to grant it. Article 2206 of the Civil Code expressly
grants moral damages in addition to the award of civil indemnity. 79
In her petition, Vivian maintains that the amount of moral damages
granted her should be increased. This Court is not convinced. Although the
Civil Code 80 grants compensation for the mental anguish suffered by the
heirs for the loss of their loved one, this award is not meant to enrich the
petitioner at the expense of the respondents. 81
The Court of Appeals correctly granted P50,000.00 as moral damages
to the heirs of Rodolfo. An award of P50,000.00 is also awarded to the heirs
of Monalisa.
In addition, this Court affirms the award for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or to correct a wrongful
conduct. 82 It is imposed as a punishment for highly reprehensible conduct,
meant to deter serious wrongdoing. 83 Specifically, in cases of quasi-delicts,
it is granted if the respondent acted with gross negligence. 84
* Â On official leave.
3. Â Id. at 80-82. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C.
Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and
Edgardo T. Lloren of the Former Twenty-Second Division of the Court of
Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
4. Â Id. at 36-37.
5. Â Id. at 43.
6. Â Id. at 14-15.
7. Â Id. at 43-44.
8. Â Id. at 44.
9. Â Id.
10. Â Id.
15. Â Id.
42. Â Id.
47. Â Id.
57. Â Art. 2202. 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.
58. Â Castro v. Bustos , 136 Phil. 553, 561-562 (1969) [Per J. Barredo, En Banc].
59. Â People v. Buban, 551 Phil. 120, 135 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
60. Â PhilTranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 340 Phil. 98, 109-
110 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Third Division].
69. Â Concurring Opinion of J. Leonen in People v. Wahiman , 760 Phil. 368, 384-
385 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].
72. Â Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 263 Phil. 806, 819 (1990) [Per
J. Grinio-Aquino, First Division].
74. Â People v. Wahiman , 760 Phil. 368 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].
79. Â See Mercado v. Lira , 113 Phil. 112 (1961) [Per J. Paredes, First Division].
81. Â See Kierulf v. Court of Appeals , 336 Phil. 414 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].
83. Â See People v. Catubig y Horio, 416 Phil. 102 (2001) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
92. Â See Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 304 Phil. 236 (1994)
[Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
   Article 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is
judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point.
94. Â See Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 304 Phil. 236 (1994)
[Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
95. Â CIVIL CODE, art. 2213 provides: