ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 51765 March 3, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997 - ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100487 & 100607 March 3, 1997 - ARTURO JULIANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106581 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110419 March 3, 1997 - UERM-MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114383 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL COREA

  • G.R. No. 116437 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO ANDAN

  • G.R. No. 117161 March 3, 1997 - RAMON INGLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120704 March 3, 1997 - BARTOLOME C. CARALE, ET AL. v. PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123321 March 3, 1997 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123361 March 3, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125198 March 3, 1997 - MSCI-NACUSIP v. NWPC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84449 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102876 March 4, 1997 - BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENG’G CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118607 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO FRANCO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997 - INOCENCIO BASCO v. LEO H. RAPATALO

  • G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997 - RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83598 March 7, 1997 - LEONCIA BALOGBOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94994-95 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIBETH CACO

  • G.R. No. 106212 March 7, 1997 - PROGRESS HOMES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108395 March 7, 1997 - HEIRS OF TEODORO GUARING, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108604-10 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO A. BURCE

  • G.R. No. 113420 March 7, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113905 March 7, 1997 - LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116211 March 7, 1997 - MEYNARDO POLICARPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116512 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM O. CASIDO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1353 March 11, 1997 - DANILO B. PARADA v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • G.R. No. 127066 March 11, 1997 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117169 March 12, 1997 - PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121917 March 12, 1997 - ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343 March 13, 1997 - VICTOR KIERULF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100333 March 13, 1997 - HILARIO MAGCALAS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103611 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR HERBIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107131 March 13, 1997 - NFD INT’L. MANNING AGENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108454 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEDDY QUINAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109779 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MAÑOZCA

  • G.R. No. 110067 March 13, 1997 - LINDA T. ALMENDRAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111478 March 13, 1997 - GEORGE F. SALONGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111567 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO AVILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997 - SERGIO NAGUIAT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116228 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO GAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116352 March 13, 1997 - J. & D.O. AGUILAR CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116596-98 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO TOPAGUEN

  • G.R. No. 117266 March 13, 1997 - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VENTURA O. DUCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117955-58 March 13, 1997 - HERMINIGILDO TOMARONG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO C. LUBGUBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119058 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA VILLARAN

  • G.R. No. 120853 March 13, 1997 - RUDY ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122427 March 13, 1997 - BENJAMIN LAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123881 March 13, 1997 - VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91694 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS CALVO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114387 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DEVILLERES

  • G.R. No. 120592 March 14, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121765 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDOLF B. MONTEALTO

  • G.R. No. 122646 March 14, 1997 - ADELIA C. MENDOZA v. ANGELITO C. TEH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112229 March 18, 1997 - RAYMOND PE LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114924-27 March 18, 1997 - DANTE NACURAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119321 March 18, 1997 - CATALINO F. BAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 712 March 19, 1997 - PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH

  • G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TABACO

  • G.R. No. 111157 March 19, 1997 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117029 March 19, 1997 - PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121112 March 19, 1997 - FELICIDAD MIRANO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1159 March 20, 1997 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. WILLIAM C. SEVILLO

  • G.R. No. 88684 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LACBANES

  • G.R. No. 95551 March 20, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107019 March 20, 1997 - FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116404 March 20, 1997 - FRANCISCO LUNA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117218 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY NALANGAN

  • G.R. No. 119599 March 20, 1997 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127456 March 20, 1997 - JESUS A. JARIOL, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1091 March 21, 1997 - WILFREDO NAVARRO v. DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 107699 March 21, 1997 - ALEX JACOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116692 March 21, 1997 - SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117097 March 21, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG OPTOMETRISTS SA PILIPINAS, ET AL. v. ACEBEDO INTL. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118436 March 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118836 March 21, 1997 - FEDERICO DORDAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 March 21, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO, JR. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123037 March 21, 1997 - TEODORO Q. PEÑA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1184 March 24, 1997 - NBI, ET AL. v. RODOLFO TULIAO

  • G.R. No. 106588 March 24, 1997 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-318 March 25, 1997 - LUCIANA Vda. DE ARAGO v. PATERNO T. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 96229 March 25, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIOSA S. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 124137 March 25, 1997 - ROY M. LOYOLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126298 March 25, 1997 - PATRIA C. GUTIERREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99032 March 26, 1997 - RICARDO A. LLAMADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101817 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE IMMACULATA

  • G.R. No. 107801 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIA V. IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 110613 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113470 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CORBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115951 March 26, 1997 - ZEBRA SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117378 March 26, 1997 - GIL CAPILI, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117408 March 26, 1997 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117604 March 26, 1997 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118332 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121031 March 26, 1997 - ROSAURO I. TORRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122013 March 26, 1997 - JOSE C. RAMIREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124333 March 26, 1997 - NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119877 March 31, 1997 - BIENVENIDO ONGKINGCO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343   March 13, 1997 - VICTOR KIERULF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 99301. March 13, 1997.]

    VICTOR KIERULF, LUCILA H. KIERULF and PORFIRIO LEGASPI, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

    [G.R. No. 99343. March 13, 1997.]

    PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. VICTOR KIERULF, LUCILA H. KIERULF and PORFIRIO LEGASPI, Respondents.

    Amado R. Fojas for petitioners Victor Kierulf. Et. Al.

    Gupit, Navarrete and Diaz as collaborating counsel for Victor Kierulf, Et. Al.

    Antonio P. Pekas for Pantranco North Express Inc.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; TRANSPORTATION; COMMON CARRIER; GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF PANTRANCO’S DRIVER WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. — Although the Court may review factual issues in some instances, the case at bar does not fall under any one of them. The fact that there is no conflict between the findings of the trial court and respondent Court bolsters our position that a review of the facts found by respondent Court is not necessary. There being no conflict between the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court that gross negligence was the real cause of the collision, we see no reason to digress from the standard rule.

    2. ID.; MORAL DAMAGES; THE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES. — The established guideline in awarding moral damages takes into consideration several factors, some of which are the social and financial standing of the injured parties and their wounded moral feelings and personal pride. This Court cannot remind the bench and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant’s acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. In Francisco v. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff falls to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, . . . social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., that resulted therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. ID.; DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM; FOR LACK OF FACTUAL BASIS, SUCH CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CANNOT BE RULED UPON BY THIS COURT AT THIS TIME. — Victor’s claim for deprivation of his right to consortium, although argued before Respondent Court, is not supported by the evidence on record. His wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had not testified that, in consequence thereof, his right to marital consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse. Again, we emphasize that this claim is factual in origin and must find basis not only in the evidence presented but also in the findings of the Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such claim cannot be ruled upon by this Court at this time.

    4. ID.; THE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL STANDING OF LUCILA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES; REASON.- The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception, no "menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.

    5. ID.; BUT MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED HER FOR HER PHYSICAL SUFFERINGS, MENTAL ANGUISH, FRIGHT, SERIOUS ANXIETY AND WOUNDED FEELINGS. — Be that as it may, it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded feelings. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp, limbs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. Despite treatment and surgery, her chin was still numb and thick. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. In this light and considering further the length of time spent in prosecuting the complaint and this appeal, we find the sum of P400,000.00 as moral damages for Petitioner Lucila to be fair and just under the circumstances.

    6. ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF PANTRANCO, THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IS JUSTIFIED. — Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. However, it cannot be recovered as a matter of right. It is based entirely on the discretion of the court. The claim of Lucila has been favorably considered in view of the finding of gross negligence by Respondent Court on the part of Pantranco. This is made clear by Respondent Court in granting Lucila’s claim of exemplary damages:" (P)ublic utility operators like the defendant, have made a mockery of our laws, rules and regulations governing operations of motor vehicles and have ignored either deliberately or through negligent disregard of their duties to exercise extraordinary degree of diligence for the safety of the travelling public and their passengers . . ." To give teeth to this warning, the exemplary damages awarded to Petitioner Lucila is increased to P200,000.00. The fact of gross negligence duly proven, we believe that Legaspi, being also a victim of gross negligence, should also receive exemplary damages. Under the facts proven, the Court awards him P25,000 as exemplary damages.

    7. ID.; LOSS OF EARNINGS AS A COMPONENT OF DAMAGES; THE ALLEGED LOSS MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY FACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR IT PARTAKES OF A ACTUAL DAMAGES. — We agree with the findings of Respondent Court that Lucila’s claim of loss of earning capacity has not been duly proven. The alleged loss must be established by factual evidence for it partakes of actual damages. A party is entitled to adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved. Such damages, to be recoverable must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty. We have emphasized that these damages cannot be presumed, and courts in making an award must point out specific facts which can serve as basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. Mere proof of Lucila’s earnings consisting of her 1983 and 1984 income tax returns would not suffice to prove earnings for the years 1985 and 1986: The incident happened on February 28, 1987. If indeed Lucila had been earning P50,000.00 every month prior to the accident, as she alleged, there are evidentiary proofs for such earnings other than income tax returns such as, but not limited to, payroll receipts, payments to the SSS, or withholding tax paid every month. Sad to say, these other proofs have not been presented, and we cannot presume that they exist on the strength of the word of Lucila alone.


    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    How much moral, exemplary and actual damages are victims of vehicular accidents entitled to?

    In G.R. No. 99301, the victims of the vehicular mishap pray for an increase in the award of damages, over and above those granted by the appellate court. In this case, the husband of the victim of the vehicular accident claims compensation/damages for the loss of his right to marital consortium which, according to him, has been diminished due to the disfigurement suffered by his wife. In G.R. No. 99343, the transport company, which owned the bus that collided with the victims’ pickup truck, asks for exoneration by invoking an alleged fortuitous event as the cause of the mishap.

    Petitioners in both cases assail the Decision, 1 dated March 13, 1991, in CA-GR CV No. 23361 of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division 2 ordering the following: 3

    "For reasons indicated and in the light of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the case at bar, the judgment of the trial court is hereby modified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Under the first cause of action, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay Lucila H. Kierulf the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) For actual damages incurred for hospitalization, medical case (sic) and doctor’s fees, the sum of P 241,861.81;

    (2) For moral damages the sum of P 200,000.00;

    (3) For exemplary damages the amount of P 100,000.00.

    Under the second cause of action, to pay Victor Kierulf, by way of indemnification damage to the Isuzu Carry All with plate No. UV PGS 798, the amount of P 96,825.15.

    Under the third cause of action, to pay Porfirio Legaspi the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) For moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00;

    (2) To reimburse the plaintiff the amount of P6,328.19 for actual damages incurred in the treatment and hospitalization of the driver Porfirio Legaspi.

    The defendant is further ordered to pay the amount of P 50,000.00 as fair and reasonable attorney’s fees.

    And to pay the costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Respondent Court of Appeals modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92, 4 rendered on May 24, 1989 in Civil Case No. Q-50732 for damages. The dispositive portion of the said decision is quoted below: 5

    "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendant, ordering Pantranco to pay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Under the First Cause of Action

    1. In favor of plaintiff Lucila H. Kierulf actual damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED and 77/100 (P174,100.77) PESOS;

    2. To pay said plaintiff moral damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 (P100,000.00) PESOS;

    3. To pay exemplary damages in the amount of TEN THOUSAND and 00/100 (P10,000.00) PESOS.

    Under the Second Cause of Action

    1. To pay plaintiff Victor Kierulf the amount of NINETY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE and 15/100 (P96,825.15) PESOS by way of indemnification for the damages to the Isuzu Carry All with plate No. UV PGS 796 registered in his name.

    Under the Third Cause of Action

    1. To pay the plaintiff spouses by way of reimbursement for actual damages incurred for the treatment of injuries sustained by their driver Porfirio Legaspi in the amount of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT and 19/100 (P6,328.19) PESOS; and

    2. To pay plaintiff Porfirio Legaspi moral damages in the amount of TEN THOUSAND and 00/100 (P10,000.00) PESOS.

    Defendant is further ordered to pay the amount of P25,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees, and to pay costs.

    All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Facts


    The following may be culled from the undisputed factual findings of the trial court and Respondent Court of Appeals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The initial investigation conducted by Pfc. D.O. Cornelio disclosed that at about 7:45 p.m. of 28 February 1987, the Pantranco bus, bearing plate number AVE-845 (TB PIL 86), was traveling along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) from Congressional Avenue towards Clover Leaf, Balintawak. Before it reached the corner of Oliveros Drive, the driver lost control of the bus, causing it to swerve to the left, and then to fly over the center island occupying the east-bound lane of EDSA. The front of the bus bumped the front portion of an Isuzu pickup driven by Legaspi, which was moving along Congressional Avenue heading towards Roosevelt Avenue. As a result, the points of contact of both vehicles were damaged and physical injuries were inflicted on Legaspi and his passenger Lucila Kierulf, both of whom were treated at the Quezon City General Hospital. The bus also hit and injured a pedestrian who was then crossing EDSA.

    Despite the impact, said bus continued to move forward and its front portion rammed against a Caltex gasoline station, damaging its building and gasoline dispensing equipment.

    As a consequence of the incident, Lucila suffered injuries, as stated in the medical report 6 of the examining physician, Dr. Pedro P. Solis of the Quezon City General Hospital. The injuries sustained by Lucila required major surgeries like "tracheotomy, open reduction, mandibular fracture, intermaxillary repair of multiple laceration" and prolonged treatment by specialists. Per medical report of Dr. Alex L. Castillo, Legaspi also suffered injuries. 7

    The front portion of the pickup truck, owned by Spouses Kierulf, bearing plate number UV PGS 798, was smashed to pieces. The cost of repair was estimated at P107,583.50.

    Pantranco, in its petition, 8 adds that on said day, the abovementioned bus was driven by Jose Malanum. While cruising along EDSA, a used engine differential accidentally and suddenly dropped from a junk truck in front of the bus. Said differential hit the underchassis of the bus, throwing Malanum off his seat and making him lose control of said bus. The bus swerved to the left, hit the center island, and bumped the pickup of the spouses.

    The Issues


    Spouses Kierulf and their driver Legaspi raise the following assignment of errors in this appeal: 9

    "A

    The respondent court of appeals erred in awarding only P200,000.00 and P25,000.00 as and for moral damages for the petitioners Kierulf and Legaspi respectively when it should at least have been P1,000,000.00 and P100,000.00 respectively.

    B


    The respondent court of appeals erred in awarding only P100,000.00 to the petitioners Kierulf and nothing to petitioner Legaspi as and for exemplary damages when it should have at least been P500,000.00 and P50,000.00 respectively.

    C


    The respondent court of appeals erred in not awarding any amount for the lost income due to the petitioner Lucila H. Kierulf.

    D


    The respondent court of appeals erred in not awarding the amount of P107,583.50 for the damages sustained by the Isuzu carry-all pick-up truck.

    E


    The respondent court of appeals erred in not awarding any legal interest on the sums awarded"

    On the other hand, Pantranco raises the following assignment of errors: 10

    "4.1 The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the driver of Pantranco was negligent;

    4.2 The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Pantranco and not a fortuitous event; and

    4.2 (sic) The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in awarding excessive damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In sum, Spouses Kierulf and Legaspi argue that the damages awarded were inadequate while Pantranco counters that they were astronomical, bloated and not duly proved. 11

    The Court’s Ruling


    First Issue: Negligence and Proximate

    Cause Are Factual
    Issues


    Even on appeal, Pantranco insists that its driver was not negligent and that the mishap was due to a fortuitous event. February 28, 1987, the date of the incident, was a Saturday; hence, driving at the speed of 40-50 kilometers per hour (kph) was prudent. It contends that the proximate cause was the accidental dropping of a used engine differential by a junk truck immediately ahead of the bus. 12

    As to what really caused the bus to careen to the opposite lane of EDSA and collide with the pickup truck driven by Legaspi is a factual issue which this Court cannot pass upon. As a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court. This Court is not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. 13

    Although the Court may review factual issues in some instances, 14 the case at bar does not fall under any one of them. The fact that there is no conflict between the findings of the trial court and respondent Court bolsters our position that a review of the facts found by respondent Court is not necessary. 15 There being no conflict between the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court that gross negligence was the real cause of the collision, we see no reason to digress from the standard rule.

    We quote with concurrence the factual findings of the appellate and trial courts, showing that the accident was, contrary to the belief of Pantranco, the result of the gross negligence of its driver. To wit: 16

    "The vehicular accident was certainly not due to a fortuitous event. We agree with the trial court’s findings that the proximate cause was the negligence of the defendant’s driver, such as: (1) Driving at that part of EDSA at 7:45 P.M. from Congressional Avenue towards Clover Leaf overpass in the direction of Balintawak at 40-50 kph is certainly not a manifestation of good driving habit of a careful and prudent man exercising the extraordinary diligence required by law. Traffic in that place and at that time of the day is always heavy. (2) Losing control of the wheel in such a place crowded with moving vehicles, jumping over the island which separates the East bound from the West bound lane of EDSA indicate that the defendant’s bus was traveling at a speed limit beyond what a prudent and careful driver is expected of, if such driver were exercising due diligence required by law. (3) Finally, crossing over the island and traversing the opposite lane and hitting an oncoming vehicle with such force as to smash the front of such vehicle and finally being forced to stop by bumping against a Caltex service station — all show not only negligence, but recklessness of the defendant’s driver. (4) If defendant’s driver was not driving fast, was not recklessly negligent and had exercised due care and prudence, with due respect to human life and to others travelling in the same place, the driver could have stopped the bus the moment it crossed the island, and avoided crossing over to the other lane and bumping against vehicles travelling in opposite direction. The defendant’s driver did not take any evasive action and utterly failed to adopt any measure to avoid injuries and damage to others because he ‘lost control of the bus’, which was like a juggernaut, let loose in a big crowd, smashing everything on its path." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Second Issue: Moral Damages

    Complainants aver that the moral damages awarded by Respondent Court are "clearly and woefully not enough." The established guideline in awarding moral damages takes into consideration several factors, some of which are the social and financial standing of the injured parties and 17 their wounded moral feelings and personal pride. 18 The Kierulf spouses add that the Respondent Court should have considered another factor: the loss of their conjugal fellowship and the impairment or destruction of their sexual life. 19

    The spouses aver that the disfigurement of Lucila’s physical appearance cannot but affect their marital right to "consortium" which would have remained normal were it not for the accident. Thus the moral damages awarded in favor of Lucila should be increased to 1,000,000.00, not only for Lucila but also for her husband Victor who also suffered "psychologically." A California case, Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 20 is cited as authority for the claim of damages by reason of loss of marital consortium, i.e. loss of conjugal fellowship and sexual relations. 21

    Pantranco rebuts that Victor’s claim of moral damages on alleged loss of consortium is without legal basis. Article 2219 of the Civil Code provides that only the person suffering the injury may claim moral damages. Additionally, no evidence was adduced to show that the consortium had indeed been impaired and the Court cannot presume that marital relations disappeared with the accident. 22

    The Courts notes that the Rodriguez case clearly reversed the original common law view first enunciated in the case of Deshotel v. Atchison, 23 that a wife could not recover for the loss of her husband’s services by the act of a third party. Rodriguez ruled that when a person is injured to the extent that he/she is no longer capable of giving love, affection, comfort and sexual relations to his or her spouse, that spouse has suffered a direct and real personal loss. The loss is immediate and consequential rather than remote and unforeseeable; it is personal to the spouse and separate and distinct from that of the injured person.

    Rodriguez involved a couple in their early 20s, who were married for only 16 months and full of dreams of building a family of their own, when the husband was struck and almost paralyzed by a falling 600-pound pipe. The wife testified how her life had deteriorated because her husband became a lifelong invalid, confined to the home. bedridden and in constant need of assistance for his bodily functions; and how her social, recreational and sexual life had been severely restricted. It also deprived her of the chance to bear their children. As a. constant witness to her husband’s pain, mental anguish and frustration, she was always nervous, tense, depressed and had trouble sleeping, eating and concentrating. Thus, the California court awarded her damages for loss of consortium.

    Whether Rodriguez may be cited as authority to support the award of moral damages to Victor and/or Lucila Kierulf for "loss of consortium," however, cannot be properly considered in this case.

    Victor’s claim for deprivation of his right to consortium, although argued before Respondent Court, is not supported by the evidence on record. His wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had not testified that, in consequence thereof, his right to marital consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse. Again, we emphasize that this claim is factual in origin and must find basis not only in the evidence presented but also in the findings of the Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such claim cannot be ruled upon by this Court at this time.

    Third Issue: No Consideration of Social

    and Financial Standing in this Case

    The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception, no "menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing. 24

    Be that as it may, it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded feelings. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp, limbs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. Despite treatment and surgery, her chin was still numb and thick. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. 25 In this light and considering further the length of time spent in prosecuting the complaint and this appeal, we find the sum of P400,000.00 as moral damages for Petitioner Lucila to be fair and just under the circumstances.

    Fourth Issue: Exemplary Damages

    Complainants also pray for an increase of exemplary damages to P500,000.00 and P50,000.00 for Spouses Kierulf and Legaspi, respectively. This prayer is based on the pronouncement of this Court in Batangas Transportation Company v. Caguimbal 26 that "it is high time to impress effectively upon public utility operators the nature and extent of their responsibility in respect of the safety of their passengers and their duty to exercise greater care in the selection of drivers and conductors . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Pantranco opposes this, for under Article 2231 of the Civil Code, "exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence." And allegedly, gross negligence is sorely lacking in the instant case.

    Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. 27 However, it cannot be recovered as a matter of right. It is based entirely on the discretion of the court. 28 Jurisprudence sets certain requirements before exemplary damages may be awarded, to wit: 29

    "(1) (T)hey may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant;

    (2) the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages; and

    (3) the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner"

    The claim of Lucila has been favorably considered in view of the finding of gross negligence by Respondent Court on the part of Pantranco. This is made clear by Respondent Court in granting Lucila’s claim of exemplary damages: 30

    "(P)ublic utility operators like the defendant, have made a mockery of our laws, rules and regulations governing operations of motor vehicles and have ignored either deliberately or through negligent disregard of their duties to exercise extraordinary degree of diligence for the safety of the travelling public and their passengers. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    To give teeth to this warning, the exemplary damages awarded to Petitioner Lucila is increased to P200,000.00. The fact of gross negligence duly proven, we believe that Legaspi, being also a victim of gross negligence, should also receive exemplary damages. Under the facts proven, the Court awards him P25,000 as exemplary damages.

    Fifth Issue: Loss of Earnings as a Component of Damages

    Lost income in the amount of P16,500.00 is also claimed by Legaspi stating that his "whole future has been jeopardized." 31 This, in turn, is not rebutted by Pantranco.

    It should be noted that Respondent Court already considered this when it stated that the award of P25,000.00 included compensation for "mental anguish and emotional strain of not earning anything with a family to support." Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury and are not meant to enrich complainant at the expense of defendant. 32

    We find, however, the claim of Legaspi to be duly substantiated. Pantranco failed to rebut the claim of Porfirio that he had been incapacitated for ten (10) months and that during said period he did not have any income. Considering that, prior to the accident, he was employed as a driver and was earning P1,650.00 a month, his claim for P16,500.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity for said period is amply supported by the records 33 and is demandable under Article 2205 of the Civil Code. 34

    Complainants contend that Lucila is also entitled to damages for "loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury" under Article 2205 of the Civil Code. Notably, both the trial court and public respondent denied this prayer because of her failure to produce her income tax returns for the years 1985 and 1986, notwithstanding the production of her 1983 and 1984 income tax returns.

    Pantranco opposes the above claim for loss of earning capacity on the ground that there is no proof "that for the two years immediately preceding the accident Lucila was indeed deriving income from some source which was cut off by the accident." 35

    We agree with the findings of Respondent Court that Lucila’s claim of loss of earning capacity has not been duly proven. The alleged loss must be established by factual evidence for it partakes of actual damages. A party is entitled to adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved. Such damages, to be recoverable must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty. We have emphasized that these damages cannot be presumed, and courts in making an award must point out specific facts which can serve as basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. 36 Mere proof of Lucila’s earnings consisting of her 1983 and 1984 income tax returns would not suffice to prove earnings for the years 1985 and 1986. The incident happened on February 28, 1987. If indeed Lucila had been earning P50,000.00 every month prior to the accident, as she alleged, there are evidentiary proofs for such earnings other than income tax returns such as, but not limited to, payroll receipts, payments to the SSS, or withholding tax paid every month. Sad to say, these other proofs have not been presented, and we cannot presume that they exist on the strength of the word of Lucila alone.

    Sixth Issue: Reduction of Actual Damages

    on the Pickup Based on an Estimate

    Complainants contend that the reduction of 10% from the written estimate of the cost of repairs by the trial court is pure speculation. 37 Pantranco opposes this by pointing out that judicial notice is made by respondent Court of the propensity of motor repair shops to exaggerate their estimates. 38

    An estimate, as it is categorized, is not an actual expense incurred or to be incurred in the repair. The reduction made by respondent court is reasonable considering that in this instance such estimate was secured by the complainants themselves.

    Epilogue

    This Court cannot remind the bench and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, 39 it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages 40 and its causal connection to defendant’s acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. 41 In Francisco v. GSIS, 42 the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 43 the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, . . . social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., that resulted therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. 44 Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. 45 Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount. The yardstick should be that the amount awarded should not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial judge. 46 Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review in G.R. No. 99301 is PARTIALLY GRANTED, while that of Pantranco North Express, Inc., in G.R. No. 99343 is DISMISSED. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of moral damages to Lucila and Legaspi is hereby INCREASED to P400,000.00 and P50,000.00 respectively; exemplary damages to Lucila is INCREASED to P200,000.00. Legaspi is awarded exemplary damages of P50,000.00. The amount of P16,500.00 as actual or compensatory damages is also GRANTED to Legaspi. All other awards of Respondent Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Pantranco shall also PAY legal interest of 6% per annum on all sums awarded from the date of promulgation of the decision of the trial court, May 24, 1989, until actual payment.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 44-56; Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, pp. 16-28.

    2. Composed of J. Jose C. Campos, Jr., ponente, and JJ. Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr. and Filemon H. Mendoza.

    3. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 55-56.

    4. Presided by Judge Pacita Canizares-Nye, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.

    5. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 44-45.

    6. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, p. 49.

    "FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Wound, lacerated, 10.0 cm., running forwards and upwards, located at the temporal region, scalp, right side; 10.0 cm., from the median line; C-shaped 13.0 cm., located at the parietal region, scalp, right side; 4.0 cm., from the median line; 2.0 cm., located at the angle of themmouth (sic), left and right side.

    Abrasion, extensive, involving the anterolateral aspect of the neck and supraclavicular region, left side; extensive involving the medial aspect, distal third of the forearm; extensive involving the anterior aspect of the kneesand (sic) lateral aspect of the upper half, left side, 0.5 cm., numbering in two, anterior aspect, knee, right side; 1.0 cm., numbering in two, located at the medial aspect, knee right side; multilinear ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 cm., running horizontally located at the lateral aspect, proximal third, leg, right side; 5.0 cm., located at the mid clavicular line at the level of the second rib, left side.

    Contusion, involving the posterior aspect, hand, left side; s.0 (sic) cm., in diameter, located at the antero-medial aspect, proximal third leg, right side.

    SKULL #227609 (3-1-87)

    CHEST No demonstrable skull fracture.

    FOR

    RIBS

    CERVICAL There is a complete transverse fracture of the

    left third posterior rib with mild subpleural

    hematoma. Incidental note of normal

    cardiopulmonary findings.

    BOTH Limited view of the cervical vertebrae with

    C6 and

    CLAVICLES C7 not visualized in the lateral view, show

    no evident fracture nor dislocation.

    WRIST No demonstrable fracture in both clavicles and

    wrist. There is a double fracture of the mandible

    with some separation and displacement. Suggest

    panorex view.

    CONCLUSIONS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. The above described physical injuries are found in the body of the subject, the age of which is compatible to the alleged date of infliction.

    2. Under normal conditions, without subsequent complication and/or deeper involvement present, but not clinically apparent at the time of the examination, the above-described physical injuries will require medical attendance or will incapacitate the victim for a period not less than 31 (thirty one) days." (Annex "B")."cralaw virtua1aw library

    7. G.R. No. 99301, Rollo, p. 51.

    "DIAGNOSIS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    — Fracture open, comminuted inferior pole, patalla (R)

    — Wound lacerated, sutured 2.5 cm. pariental (sic) (L)

    — Wound, lacerated, sutured 1.5 cm. parietal (R)

    OPERATION PERFORMED: Partial pallectomy

    PROBABLE DISABILITY/PERIOD OF HEARING:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Not less that 30 days. (Annex "D")."cralaw virtua1aw library

    8. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, pp. 8-9.

    9. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 19-20.

    10. Rollo, G.R No. 99343 pp. 9-10

    11. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, p. 69.

    12. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, pp. 10-12.

    13. Gaw v. IAC, 220 SCRA 405, March 24, 1993.

    14. Maximo Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997.

    15. Co v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 195, 200, August 11, 1995; Meneses v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162, 171, July 14, 1995; Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193, 198-199, July 14, 1995; Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 376, 380, July 14, 1995; and Gobonseng, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472, 474-475, July 17, 1995.

    16. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 51-52.

    17. Lopez v. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431, 444, March 30, 1966.

    18. Yutuk v. Manila Electric Co., 2 SCRA 337, 346, May 31, 1961.

    19. Petitioners cite the following American jurisprudence: Togstad v. Vesely, 291 NW 2d 686, Minn 1980; Guevin v. Manchester Street Railway Company, 78 NH 289, 99 Atl. 298, LRA 1917 C 410; Nees v. Julian Goldman Stores, 109 Wva 329, 154 SE 769; and Budek v. Chicago, 279 Ill App 410.

    20. 115 Cal. Rptr. 765; 525 P. 2d 669.

    21. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, p. 111.

    22. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, pp. 65-66.

    23. 2d 664, 328 P. 2d 449 [1958].

    24. Cf . Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 43 SCRA 397, February 29, 1972.

    25. TSN, October 21, 1988, pp. 5-8.

    26. 22 SCRA 171, 176-177, January 29, 1968.

    27. People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54, 116, October 6, 1995.

    28. Article 2233 of the New Civil Code.

    29. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume V, 1992 Edition, pp. 663-664, citing Octot v. Ybañez, 111 SCRA 79, 84, January 18, 1982; De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 166, 179, August 31, 1988; Northwest Airlines Inc. v. Cuenca, 14 SCRA 1063, 1066, August 31, 1965; Pan Pacific Company (Phil.) v. Phil. Advertising Corporation, 23 SCRA 977, 992, June 12, 1968; Marchan v. Mendoza, 26 SCRA 731, 734, January 31, 1969; Magbanua v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 137 SCRA 328, 332, June 29, 1985; Globe Mackay v. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 779, 791, August 25, 1989.

    30. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, p. 54.

    31. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, p. 112.

    32. Tan v. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 310, 324, December 20, 1994; Zenith Insurance Corporation v. CA, 185 SCRA 398, 402, May 14, 1990; and Robleza v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 354, 369, June 28, 1989.

    33. TSN, January 8, 1988, p. 11; Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, p. 121.

    34. "Article 2205. Damages may be recovered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury;

    (2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    35. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, pp. 67-68.

    36. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 348, 356, January 20, 1995; Refractories Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 539, 545-546, August 17, 1989; and Capco v. Macasaet, 189 SCRA 561, 570, September 13, 1990.

    37. Rollo, G.R. No. 99301, pp. 121-122.

    38. Rollo, G.R. No. 99343, p. 68.

    39. Art. 2216, Civil Code.

    40. Art. 2217, Civil Code.

    41. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, 21 SCRA 292, 300, September 29, 1967; Radio Communications v. Rodriguez, 182 SCRA 899, 907, February 28, 1990.

    42. G.R. L-18155, March 30, 1939.

    43. G.R. No. 98458, July 17, 1996, p. 15, citing Primero v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 156 SCRA 435, 444, December 14, 1987 and Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 234 SCRA 632, 638, August 1, 1994.

    44. Radio Communications v. Rodriguez, supra.

    45. Makabali v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 253, 260, January 22, 1988

    46. Pleno v. Court of Appeals, 161 SCRA 208, 223, May 9, 1988.

    G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343   March 13, 1997 - VICTOR KIERULF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED