ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 154870.November 13, 2002]
PNR & BENJAMIN AQUINO vs. THE CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 NOV2002.
G.R. No. 154870(Philippine National Railways and Benjamin Aquino y Velasco vs. The Court of Appeals (Special Fifth Division, Tito C. Cosejo and Eugenia Cosejo (Spouses) and Demecito Villamor.)
Petitioners Philippine National Railways and Benjamin Aquino assail the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the decision [1] cralaw of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which found petitioners liable for damages based on quasi-delict:
From the foregoing milieu, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Philippine National Railways and Benjamin Aquino Y Velasco, jointly and severally to pay the following:
TITO COSEJO -
(1)������� The sum of P19,855.39, as actual damages;
(2)������� The sum of P200,000.00, for the wrecked car; and
(3)������� P5,000.00, as moral damages
EUGENIA COSEJO -
(1)������� P433,291.40, as actual damages;
(2)������� P800,000.00, as moral damages;
(3)������� P200,000.00, as exemplary damages
DEMECITO VILLAMOR -
(1)������� P44,500.00, as actual damages;
(2)������� P50,000.00, as moral damages;
(3)������� P20,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
(4)������� P70,000.00, due to loss of work.
With twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint, and attorney's fees of fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount recoverable, with costs against defendants.
On May 18, 1995, at 3:45 A.M., private respondent Tito Cosejo was driving a Mitsubishi car with plate no. PLV-107 with his wife, private respondent Eugenia Cosejo, their 3 children and private respondent Demecito Villamor, when suddenly the car was hit at the right side by a PNR passenger train with plate no. 578 driven by petitioner Benjamin Aquino. The car was dragged 45 meters away from the point of collision leaving the car a total wreck and injuring the three petitioners.
As a consequence, private respondent filed an action for damages arising from quasi-delict against petitioners.
The trial court decided in favor of private respondents, finding petitioner PNR guilty of negligence for its failure to put up any barrier or assign a flagman or switchman at the crossing at the time of the incident.
Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision with modification only insofar as it reduced the amount of moral and exemplary damages, deleted the award of actual damages in favor of private respondent Villamor for lack of basis and declared that the interest imposed on the awarded actual damages be pegged at only 6% p.a. to be computed from the date of the rendition of judgment, up to its finality, after which interest at 12% p.a. shall be imposed upon the same until its full satisfaction.
Petitioners are now before the Court alleging that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's finding of negligence because there were adequate warning signs strategically installed on both sides of the railroad-level crossing where the accident occurred; that in fact it was private respondent Cosejo who was negligent as he was racing against the oncoming train and ignored the continuous blowing and blasting of the locomotive whistle.
Clearly, what petitioners are raising is a question of fact, the determination of which is beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. [2] cralaw
Time and again, this Court has ruled that, in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. [3] cralaw
Moreover, petitioners failed to present a cogent reason to depart from the established rule that the Supreme Court regards with great respect and finality the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court.
WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Very truly yours,
����������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������� (Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 79-80.
[2] cralaw Philippine Tuberculosis Society vs. NLRC, 294 SCRA 567 [1998].
[3] cralaw Villarico vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 193 [1999]
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
