Torts and Damages Assigned Cases

7/23/2019 Torts and Damages Assigned Cases

1/41

G.R. No. 156037 May 28, 2007

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.SEBASTIAN M. BAKING,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

SANDOA!"GUTIERRE#, J.:

For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 1assailing the Deision!dated "a# $%, !%%! and Resolution dated Nove&'er (,

!%%! of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. C No. (-$(, entitled /Se'astian ". 0aing, plaintiff*appellee, versus "erur# Drug Co. In.,

defendant*appellant./

2he fats are3

On Nove&'er !(, 144$, Se'astian ". 0aing, respondent, went to the lini of Dr. Cesar S# for a &edial he*up. On the following da#, after

undergoing an EC+, 'lood, and he&atolog# e5a&inations and urinal#sis, Dr. S# found that respondent6s 'lood sugar and trigl#eride were a'ove

nor&al levels. Dr. S# then gave respondent two &edial presriptions 7 Dia&iron for his 'lood sugar and 0enali8e ta'lets for his

trigl#eride.gtd

Respondent then proeeded to petitioner "erur# Drug Corporation 9)la'ang 0ranh: to 'u# the presri'ed &ediines. ;owever, the saleslad#

&isread the presription for Dia&iron as a presription for Dor&iu&. 2hus, what was sold to respondent was Dor&iu&, a potent sleepingta'let.

or on the third da# he too the &ediine, respondent figured in a vehiular aident. 2he ar he was driving ollided with the ar

of one ?osie Peralta. Respondent fell asleep while driving. ;e ould not re&e&'er an#thing a'out the ollision nor felt its i&pat.

Suspeting that the ta'let he too &a# have a 'earing on his ph#sial and &ental state at the ti&e of the ollision, respondent returned to Dr. S#6s

lini. % of @ue8on Cit# a o&plaint for da&ages againstpetitioner, doeted as Civil Case No. @*4*!%14$.

)fter hearing, the trial ourt rendered its Deision dated "arh 1>, 144- in favor of respondent, thus3

A;EREFORE, pre&ises onsidered, '# preponderane of evidene, the Court here'# renders Budg&ent in favor of the plaintiff and against the

defendant ordering the latter to pa# &itigated da&ages as follows3

1. P!(%,%%%.%% as &oral da&ages

!. P!%,%%%.%% as attorne#6s fees and litigation e5penses

$. plus of the ost of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the Court of )ppeals, in its Deision, affir&ed in toto the R2C Budg&ent. Petitioner filed a &otion for reonsideration 'ut it was

denied in a Resolution dated Nove&'er (, !%%!.

;ene, this petition.

Petitioner ontends that the Deision of the Court of )ppeals is not in aord with law or prevailing Burisprudene.

Respondent, on the other hand, &aintains that the petition las &erit and, therefore, should 'e denied.

2he issues for our resolution are3

1. Ahether petitioner was negligent, and if so, whether suh negligene was the pro5i&ate ause of respondent6s aident and

!. Ahether the award of &oral da&ages, attorne#6s fees, litigation e5penses, and ost of the suit is Bustified.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt1


2/41

)rtile !1-= of the New Civil Code provides3

)rt. !1-=. Ahoever '# at or o&ission auses da&age to another, there 'eing fault or negligene, is o'liged to pa# for the da&age done. Suh

fault or negligene, if there is no pre*e5isting ontratual relation 'etween the parties, is alled a uasi*delit and is governed '# the provisions

of this Chapter.

2o sustain a lai& 'ased on the a'ove provision, the following reuisites &ust onur3 9a: da&age suffered '# the plaintiff 9': fault or

negligene of the defendant and, 9: onnetion of ause and effet 'etween the fault or negligene of the defendant and the da&age inurred '#

the plaintiff.$

2here is no dispute that respondent suffered da&ages.

It is generall# reogni8ed that the drugstore 'usiness is i&'ued with pu'li interest. 2he health and safet# of the people will 'e put into Beopard#if drugstore e&plo#ees will not e5erise the highest degree of are and diligene in selling &ediines. Inas&uh as the &atter of negligene is a

uestion of fat, we defer to the findings of the trial ourt affir&ed '# the Court of )ppeals.

O'viousl#, petitioner6s e&plo#ee was grossl# negligent in selling to respondent Dor&iu&, instead of the presri'ed Dia&iron. Considering

that a fatal &istae ould 'e a &atter of life and death for a 'u#ing patient, the said e&plo#ee should have 'een ver# autious in dispensing

&ediines. She should have verified whether the &ediine she gave respondent was indeed the one presri'ed '# his ph#siian. 2he are

reuired &ust 'e o&&ensurate with the danger involved, and the sill e&plo#ed &ust orrespond with the superior nowledge of the 'usinesswhih the law de&ands.1awphi1.nt

Petitioner ontends that the pro5i&ate ause of the aident was respondent6s negligene in driving his ar.

Ae disagree.

Pro5i&ate ause is defined as an# ause that produes inBur# in a natural and ontinuous seuene, un'roen '# an# effiient intervening ause,

suh that the result would not have ourred otherwise. Pro5i&ate ause is deter&ined fro& the fats of eah ase, upon a o&'ined

onsideration of logi, o&&on sense, poli#, and preedent.(

;ere, the vehiular aident ould not have ourred had petitioner6s e&plo#ee 'een areful in reading Dr. S#6s presription. Aithout the potent

effets of Dor&iu&, a sleeping ta'let, it was unliel# that respondent would fall asleep while driving his ar, resulting in a ollision.

Co&ple&enting )rtile !1-= is )rtile !1>% of the sa&e Code whih states3

)R2. !1>%. 2he o'ligation i&posed '# )rtile !1-= is de&anda'le not onl# for one6s own ats or o&issions, 'ut also for those of persons forwho& one is responsi'le.

5 5 5

2he owners and &anagers of an esta'lish&ent or enterprise are liewise responsi'le for da&ages aused '# their e&plo#ees in the servie of the

'ranhes in whih the latter are e&plo#ed or on the oasion of their funtions.

E&plo#ers shall 'e lia'le for the da&ages aused '# their e&plo#ees and household helpers ating within the sope of their assigned tass, even

though the for&er are not engaged in an# 'usiness or industr#.

5 5 5

2he responsi'ilit# treated of in this artile shall ease when the persons herein &entioned prove that the# o'served the diligene of a good father

of a fa&il# to prevent da&age.

It is thus lear that the e&plo#er of a negligent e&plo#ee is lia'le for the da&ages aused '# the latter. Ahen an inBur# is aused '# thenegligene of an e&plo#ee, there instantl# arises a presu&ption of the law that there has 'een negligene on the part of the e&plo#er, either in

the seletion of his e&plo#ee or in the supervision over hi&, after suh seletion. 2he presu&ption, however, &a# 'e re'utted '# a lear showing

on the part of the e&plo#er that he has e5erised the are and diligene of a good father of a fa&il# in the seletion and supervision of his

e&plo#ee.=;ere, petitionerGs failure to prove that it e5erised the due diligene of a good father of a fa&il# in the seletion and supervision of its

e&plo#ee will &ae it solidaril# lia'le for da&ages aused '# the latter.

)s regards the award of &oral da&ages, we hold the sa&e to 'e in order. "oral da&ages &a# 'e awarded whenever the defendant6s wrongful

at or o&ission is the pro5i&ate ause of the plaintiff6s ph#sial suffering, &ental anguish, fright, serious an5iet#, 'es&irhed reputation,wounded feelings, &oral sho, soial hu&iliation, and si&ilar inBur# in the ases speified or analogous to those provided in )rtile !!14 of the

Civil Code.-

Respondent has adeuatel# esta'lished the fatual 'asis for the award of &oral da&ages when he testified that he suffered &ental anguish and

an5iet# as a result of the aident aused '# the negligene of petitioner6s e&plo#ee.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt7


3/41

2here is no hard*and*fast rule in deter&ining what would 'e a fair and reasona'le a&ount of &oral da&ages, sine eah ase &ust 'e governed

'# its own peuliar fats. ;owever, it &ust 'e o&&ensurate to the loss or inBur# suffered.>2aing into onsideration the attending

iru&stanes here, we are onvined that the a&ount awarded '# the trial ourt is e5or'itant. 2hus, we redue the a&ount of &oral da&ages

fro& P!(%,%%%.%% toP(%,%%%.%% onl#.

In addition, we also dee& it neessar# to award e5e&plar# da&ages. )rtile !!!4 allows the grant of e5e&plar# da&ages '# wa# of e5a&ple or

orretion for the pu'li good. )s &entioned earlier, the drugstore 'usiness is affeted with pu'li interest. Petitioner should have e5erted ut&ost

diligene in the seletion and supervision of its e&plo#ees. On the part of the e&plo#ee onerned, she should have 'een e5tre&el# autious indispensing phar&aeutial produts. Due to the sensitive nature of its 'usiness, petitioner &ust at all ti&es &aintain a high level of

&etiulousness. 2herefore, an award of e5e&plar# da&ages in the a&ount of P!(,%%%.%% is in order.1awphi1.nt

On the &atter of attorne#6s fees and e5penses of litigation, it is settled that the reasons or grounds for the award thereof &ust 'e set forth in the

deision of the ourt.4Sine the trial ourt6s deision did not give the 'asis of the award, the sa&e &ust 'e deleted. In i'ra& "anufaturing

Corporation v. "anila Eletri Co&pan#,1%we held3

Hiewise, the award for attorne#6s fees and litigation e5penses should 'e deleted. Aell*enshrined is that /an award for attorne#6s fees &ust 'e

stated in the te5t of the ourt6s deision and not in the dispositive portion onl#/ (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Courtof Appeals, 2! SC"A 1#$ %1##&' and en *ua +aper +roduts, -n. v. Court of Appeals, 2! SC"A 2&/ %1##'). 2his is also true with the

litigation e5penses where the 'od# of the deision disussed nothing for its 'asis.

A;EREFORE, we DEN the petition. 2he hallenged Deision and Resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. C No. (-$( are

)FFIR"ED with &odifiation in the sense that 9a: the award of &oral da&ages to respondent is redued fro& P!(%,%%%.%% to P(%,%%%.%% 9':

petitioner is liewise ordered to pa# said respondent e5e&plar# da&ages in the a&ount of P!(,%%%.%% and 9: the award of attorne#6s fees and

litigation e5penses is deleted.

Costs against petitioner.

Repu'li of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

"anila

SECOND DIISION

G.R. No. 161$%6 No&'()'* 1%, 2008

MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE,petitioner,

vs.BIT+UE! MACAS,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

UISUMBING,Acting C.J.-

For review on ertiorari are the Deision1dated Septe&'er 1=, !%%! and the Resolution !dated Dee&'er 1>, !%%$ of the Court of )ppeals inC)*+.R. C No. =1%$, whih affir&ed the Deision$of the Regional 2rial Court 9R2C: of Davao Cit#, 0ranh 1%, in Civil Case No. !$,-!$*4(.

2he fats are undisputed.

E#ewitness Rosalinda Palero testified that on ?ul# 14, 144, at a'out 3%% p.&., at the intersetion of 0uhangin and San iente Streets in DavaoCit#, 1(*#ear old high shool student 0ithuel "aas, herein respondent, was standing on the shoulder of the road. She was a'out two and a half

&eters awa# fro& the respondent when he was 'u&ped and run over '# a Ford Fiera, driven '# Chona C. Ci&afrana. Rosalinda and another

unidentified person i&&ediatel# a&e to the respondentGs resue and told Ci&afrana to tae the viti& to the hospital. Ci&afrana rushed the

respondent to the Davao "edial Center.

Dr. ;ilario Dia8, the orthopedi surgeon who attended to the respondent, testified that the respondent suffered severe &usular and &aBor vesselinBuries, as well as open 'one fratures in 'oth thighs and other parts of his legs. In order to save his life, the surgeon had to a&putate 'oth legs

up to the groins.

Ci&afrana had sine a'sonded and disappeared. Reords showed that the Ford Fiera was registered in the na&e of herein petitioner, )tt#.

"edardo )g. Cadiente. ;owever, Cadiente lai&ed that when the aident happened, he was no longer the owner of the Ford Fiera. ;e alleged

that he sold the vehile to Engr. Rogelio ?alipa on "arh !>, 144, (and turned over the Certifiate of Registration and Offiial Reeipt to ?alipa,

with the understanding that the latter would 'e the one to ause the transfer of the registration.

2he viti&Gs father, Sa&uel "aas, filed a o&plaint=for torts and da&ages against Ci&afrana and Cadiente 'efore the R2C of Davao Cit#,0ranh 1%. Cadiente later filed a third*part# o&plaint -against ?alipa.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_156037_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_161946_2008.html#fnt7


4/41

In answer, ?alipa lai&ed that he was no longer the owner of the Ford Fiera at the ti&e of the aident. ;e alleged that he sold the vehile to

)'raha& )'u'aar on ?une !%, 144.>;e thus filed a fourth*part# o&plaint4against )'u'aar.

)fter trial, the ourt ruled3

A;EREFORE, Budg&ent is rendered in favor of the plaintiff delaring )tt#. "edardo )g. Cadiente and Engr. Rogelio ?alipa Bointl#

and severall# lia'le for da&ages to the plaintiff for their own negligene as stated a'ove, and ordering the& to inde&nif# the plaintiff

Bointl# and severall# as follows3

9a: P$%%,%%%.%% as o&pensator# da&ages for the per&anent and al&ost total disa'ilit# 'eing suffered '# hi&

9': P1(%,%%%.%% for &oral da&ages

9: P1>,4>!.>( as rei&'urse&ent of &edial e5penses

9d: P$%,%%%.%% for attorne#Gs fees and

9e: osts of suit.

SO ORDERED.1%

On appeal, the Court of )ppeals held that the findings of the trial ourt were in aordane with the esta'lished fats and was supported '# theevidene on reord. 2hus, it dereed as follows3

+ERE/ORE, pre&ises onsidered, the instant appeal is DENIEDand the deision of the Regional 2rial Court of Davao Cit# in

Civil Case No. !$-!$*4( is here'# A//IRMED.

SO ORDERED.11

Fro& the aforeuoted deision of the Court of )ppeals and the su'seuent denial of the &otion for reonsideration, onl# Cadiente appealed to

this Court.

2he instant petition alleges that the Court of )ppeals o&&itted serious errors of law in affir&ing the deision of the trial ourt. Petitioner

Cadiente raises the following as issues3

I.

A)S 2;ERE J CON2RI0


5/41

2he respondent stresses that as the registered owner of the Ford Fiera whih figured in the aident, the petitioner is pri&aril# lia'le for the

inBur# aused '# the said vehile. ;e &aintains that the alleged sale of the vehile to ?alipa was tainted with irregularit#, whih indiated

ollusion 'etween the petitioner and ?alipa.1=

)fter a areful onsideration of the partiesG su'&issions, we find the petition without &erit.

)rtile !1-4 of the Civil Code provides3

Ahen the plaintiffGs own negligene was the i&&ediate and pro5i&ate ause of his inBur#, he annot reover da&ages. 0ut if his

negligene was onl# ontri'utor#, the i&&ediate and pro5i&ate ause of the inBur# 'eing the defendantGs la of due are, the plaintiff&a# reover da&ages, 'ut the ourts shall &itigate the da&ages to 'e awarded.

2he underl#ing preept on ontri'utor# negligene is that a plaintiff who is partl# responsi'le for his own inBur# should not 'e entitled to reoverda&ages in full, 'ut &ust proportionatel# 'ear the onseuenes of his own negligene. 2he defendant is thus held lia'le onl# for the da&ages

atuall# aused '# his negligene.1-

In this ase, reords show that when the aident happened, the viti& was standing on the shoulder, whih was the une&ented portion of the

highwa#. )s noted '# the trial ourt, the shoulder was intended for pedestrian use alone. Onl# stationar# vehiles, suh as those loading or

unloading passengers &a# use the shoulder. Running vehiles are not supposed to pass through the said une&ented portion of the highwa#.

;owever, the Ford Fiera in this ase, without so &uh as slowing down, too off fro& the e&ented part of the highwa#, ine5plia'l# swerved tothe shoulder, and relessl# 'u&ped and ran over an innoent viti&. 2he viti& was Bust where he should 'e when the unfortunate event

transpired.

Ci&afrana, on the other hand, had no rightful 'usiness driving as relessl# as she did. 2he respondent annot 'e e5peted to have foreseen that

the Ford Fiera, erstwhile speeding along the e&ented part of the highwa# would suddenl# swerve to the shoulder, then 'u&p and run hi& over.

2hus, we are una'le to aept the petitionerGs ontention that the respondent was negligent.

Co&ing now to the seond and third issues, this Court has reentl# reiterated in+C- 0easin and inane, -n. v. C+B 3eneral -nsurane Co.,

-n.,1>that the registered owner of an# vehile, even if he had alread# sold it to so&eone else, is pri&aril# responsi'le to the pu'li for whateverda&age or inBur# the vehile &a# ause. Aee5plained,

JAere a registered owner allowed to evade responsi'ilit# '# proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would 'e eas# for

hi&, '# ollusion with others or otherwise, to esape said responsi'ilit# and transfer the sa&e to an indefinite person, or to one who

possesses no propert# with whih to respond finaniall# for the da&age or inBur# done. ) viti& of relessness on the pu'li

highwa#s is usuall# without &eans to disover or identif# the person atuall# ausing the inBur# or da&age. ;e has no &eans other

than '# a reourse to the registration in the "otor ehiles Offie to deter&ine who is the owner. 2he protetion that the law ai&s to

e5tend to hi& would 'eo&e illusor# were the registered owner given the opportunit# to esape lia'ilit# '# disproving his ownership.14

In the ase of 4illanueva v. 5o6ino,!%we said that the poli# 'ehind vehile registration is the eas# identifiation of the owner who an 'e heldresponsi'le in ase of aident, da&age or inBur# aused '# the vehile. 2his is so as not to inonveniene or preBudie a third part# inBured '#

one whose identit# annot 'e seured.!1

2herefore, sine the Ford Fiera was still registered in the petitionerGs na&e at the ti&e when the &isfortune too plae, the petitioner annot

esape lia'ilit# for the per&anent inBur# it aused the respondent, who had sine stopped shooling and is now fored to fae life with nar# 'ut

two re&aining li&'s.

+ERE/ORE,the petition is DENIED for la of &erit. 2he assailed Deision dated Septe&'er 1=, !%%! and Resolution dated Dee&'er 1>,

!%%$ of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. C No. =1%$ are here'# A//IRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

!EONARDO A. UISUMBING

)ting Chief ?ustie

AE CONC


6/41

ATTESTATION

I attest that the onlusions in the a'ove Deision had 'een reahed in onsultation 'efore the ase was assigned to the writer of the opinion of

the CourtGs Division.

!EONARDO A. UISUMBING

)ssoiate ?ustie

Chairperson

CERTI/ICATION

Pursuant to Setion 1$, )rtile III of the Constitution, and the Division ChairpersonGs )ttestation, it is here'# ertified that the onlusions inthe a'ove Deision were reahed in onsultation 'efore the ase was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtGs Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief ?ustie

T+IRD DIISION

NATIONA! POER G.R. No. 165$6$

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,Present3

N)RES*S)N2I)+O,7.,

Chairperson,

)


7/41

) trail leading to Sangilo, Itogon, e5isted in Dalino and this trail was regularl# used '# &e&'ers of the o&&unit#. So&eti&e in the

14-%s, petitioner NPC installed high*tension eletrial trans&ission lines of =4 ilovolts 9: traversing the trail. Eventuall#, so&e of the

trans&ission lines sagged and dangled reduing their distane fro& the ground to onl# a'out eight to ten feet. 2his posed a

great threat to passers'# who were e5posed to the danger of eletroution espeiall# during the wet season.

)s earl# as 1441, the leaders of )&puao, Itogon &ade ver'al and written reuests for NPC to institute safet# &easures to protet

users of the trail fro& their high tension wires. On ?une 1>, 1441 and Fe'ruar# 11, 144$, Pa'lo and Pedro Ngaosie, elders of the o&&unit#,wrote Engr. Paterno 0ana#ot, )rea "anager of NPC, to &ae i&&ediate and appropriate repairs of the high tension wires. 2he# reiterated the

danger it posed to s&all*sale &iners espeiall# during the wet season. 2he# related an inident where one 'o# was nearl# eletrouted.

In a letter dated "arh 1, 144(, Engr. 0ana#ot infor&ed Itogon "a#or Cresenio Paalso that NPC had installed nine additional poles

on their 0eel*Phile5 =% line.2he# liewise identified a possi'le rerouting she&e with an esti&ated total ost of 1.- &illion pesos to

i&prove the distane fro& its deteriorating lines to the ground.

On ?une !-, 144(, No'le and his o*poet &iner, "elhor ?i&ene8, were at Dalino. 2he# ut two 'a&'oo poles for their poet

&ining. One was 1> to 14 feet long and the other was 1 feet long. Eah &an arried one pole hori8ontall# on his shoulder3 No'le arried the

shorter pole while "elhor arried the longer pole. No'le waled ahead as 'oth passed through the trail underneath the NPC high tension

trans&ission lines on their wa# to their wor plae.

)s No'le was going uphill and turning left on a urve, the tip of the 'a&'oo pole he was arr#ing touhed one of the dangling high

tension wires. "elhor, who was waling 'ehind hi&, narrated that he heard a 'u88ing sound when the tip of No'les pole touhed the wire for

onl# a'out one or two seonds. 2hereafter, he saw No'le fall to the ground. "elhor rushed to No'le and shoo hi& 'ut the latter was alread#

dead. 2heir o*worers heard "elhors shout for help and together the# 'rought the 'od# of No'le to their a&p.

) post*&orte& e5a&ination '# Dra. Ignaia Re#es Ciriao, "uniipal ;ealth Offier of Itogon, 0enguet, deter&ined the ause of

death to 'e ardia arrest, seondar# to ventriular fi'ulation, seondar# to eletroution.L!MShe also o'served a s&all 'urned area in the &iddle

right finger of the viti&.

Polie investigators who visited the site of the inident onfir&ed that portions of the high tension wires a'ove the trail hung ver# low,

Bust a'out eight to ten feet a'ove theground. 2he# noted that the residents, shool hildren, and poet &iners usuall# used the trail and had to

pass diretl# underneath the wires. 2he trail was the onl# via'le wa# sine the other side was a preipie. In addition, the# did not see an# danger

warning signs installed in the trail.

2he elders and leaders of the o&&unit#, through "a#or Cresenio Paalso, infor&ed the +eneral "anager of NPC in Itogon of the

inident. )fter learning of the eletroution, NPC repaired the dangling and sagging trans&ission lines and put up warning signs around the area.

Conseuentl#, the heirs of the deeased No'le filed a lai& for da&ages against the NPC 'efore the Regional 2rial Court 9R2C: in

0enguet. In its answer, NPC denied 'eing negligent in &aintaining the safet# of the high tension trans&ission lines. It averred that there were

danger and warning signs installed 'ut these were stolen '# hildren.E5avations were also &ade to inrease the neessar# learane fro& the

ground to a'out 1- to 1> feet 'ut so&e towers or poles san due to poet &ining in the area.

)t the trial, NPC witnesses testified that the ause of death ould not have 'een eletroution 'eause the viti& did not suffer

e5tensive 'urns despite the strong =4 arried '# the trans&ission lines. NPC argued that if No'le did die '# eletroution, it was due to his

own negligene. 2he o&pan# ounter*lai&ed for attorne#s fees and ost of litigation.

RTC D4o4o
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn2


8/41

On Fe'ruar# 1-, 144>, the R2C deided in favor of respondents. 2he falloof its deision reads3

A;EREFORE, Budg&ent is here'# rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant NPC as follows3

1. Delaring defendant NPC guilt# of Negligene 9@uasi*Delit: in onnetion with the death of No'le Casionan

!. Ordering NPC as a onseuene of its negligene, to pa# the plaintiffs ?ose and Hinda Casionan, as heirs of the

deeased, No'le Casionan, the following Da&ages3

a. P(%,%%%.%% as inde&nit# for the death of their son No'le Casionan

'. P1%%,%%%.%% as &oral da&ages

. P(%,%%%.%% as e5e&plar# da&ages

d. P(!,!--.(% as atual da&ages inurred for the e5penses of 'urial and wae in onnetion with the

death of No'le Casionan

e. P-!%,%%%.%% as the loss of unearned ino&e and

f. P!%,%%%.%% as attorne#s fees and the ost of suit and

$. Dis&issing the ounter lai& of the NPC for la of &erit. L$M

2he R2C gave &ore redene to the testi&on# of witnesses for respondents than those of NPC who were not atuall# present at the

ti&e of the inident. 2he trial ourt o'served that witnesses for NPC were 'iased witnesses 'eause the# were all e&plo#ed '# the o&pan#,

e5ept for the witness fro& the Depart&ent of Environ&ent and Natural Resoures 9DENR:. 2he R2C found3

"elhor ?i&ene8 was ver# vivid in his aount. ;e delared that he and No'le Casionan ut two 'a&'oo poles,

one 1 feet and the other a'out 1> feet. 2he shorter 'a&'oo pole was arried '# No'le Casionan and the longer 'a&'oo polewas arried '# hi&. )nd the# waled along the trail underneath the trans&ission lines. ;e was following No'le Casionan.

)nd when the# were going uphill in the trail and No'le Casionan was to turn left in a urve, the 'a&'oo pole of Casionan

swung around and its tip at the 'a touhed for one or two seonds or for a split &o&ent the trans&ission line that was

dangling and a 'u88ing sound was heard.And Casionan i66ediatel9 fell dead and si6pl9 stopped breathin. :hat better

aount would there be than this;


9/41

2he C) sustained the findings of fat of the trial ourt 'ut redued the award of &oral da&ages fro& P1%%,%%%.%% to P(%,%%%.%%. 2he C) further

disallowed the award of attorne#s fees 'eause the reason for the award was not e5pressl# stated in the 'od# of the deision.

I44'4

2he following issues are presented for Our onsideration3 9i: Ahether the award for da&ages should 'e deleted in view of the ontri'utor#

negligene of the viti& and 9ii: Ahether the award for unearned ino&e, e5e&plar#, and &oral da&ages should 'e deleted for la of fatualand legal 'ases.L-M

O* R9:

I

2hat the viti& No'le died fro& 'eing eletrouted '# the high*tension trans&ission wires of petitioner is not ontested '#

petitioner. Ae are, however, ased to delete or &itigate the da&ages awarded '# the trial and appellate ourts in view of what petitioner alleges

to 'e ontri'utor# negligene on the part of the viti&.

)s a rule, onl# uestions of law &a# 'e entertained on appeal '# ertiorariunder Rule (. 2he finding of negligene on the part of petitioner '#

the trial ourt and affir&ed '# the C) is a uestion of fat whih Ae annot pass upon sine it would entail going into fatual &atters on whih

the finding of negligene was 'ased.L>MCorollar# to this, the finding '# 'oth ourts of the la of ontri'utor# negligene on the part of the viti&

is a fatual issue whih is dee&ed onlusive upon this Court a'sent an# o&pelling reason for / to 1!/ long and $ / thi whih are attahed to the rails '# 'olts, two on eah side, to eep the rails aligned. )lthough

the# ould 'e re&oved onl# with speial euip&ent, the fish plates that should have ept the rails aligned ould not 'e foundat the sene of the aident.

There is no ?uestion that the 6aintenane of the rails, for the purpose, inter alia, of preventin derail6ents, was

the responsibilit9 of the petitioner, and that this responsibilit9 was not dishared. )ording to ?ose Re#es, its own witness,

who was in harge of the ontrol and supervision of its train operations, ases of derail&ent in the &illing distrit were
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn9


10/41

freuent and there were even ti&es when suh derail&ents were reported ever# hour. 2he petitioner should therefore have

taen &ore prudent steps to prevent suh aidents instead of waiting until a life was finall# lost 'eause of its negligene. L1%M

"oreover, Ae find no ontri'utor# negligene on No'les part.

Negligene is the failure to o'serve, for the protetion of the interest of another person, that degree of are, preaution, and vigilane

whih the iru&stanes Bustl# de&and, where'# suh other person suffers inBur#. L11MOn the other hand, o*)o*y ':9:'' 4 o? o

' a* o; ' @*'? a*y, o*): a4 a 9':a9 a4' o ' a*( ' a4 4;;'*'?,


11/41

lihts was a pro@i6ate ause of the ollision however, the absene of suh lihts will not prelude or di6inish reover9 if

the sene of the aident was well illu6inated b9 street lihts, if substitute lihts were present whih learl9 rendered the

bi9list visible, if the 6otorist saw the bi9le in spite of the absene of lihts thereon, or if the 6otorist would have been

unable to see the bi9le even if it had been e?uipped with lihts. ) 'i#le euipped with defetive or ineffetive 'raes

&a# support a finding of negligene 'arring or di&inishing reover# '# an inBured 'i#list where suh ondition was a

ontri'uting ause of the aident.

2he a'ove dotrines reveal a o&&on thread. The failure of the bi9le owner to o6pl9 with aepted safet9

praties, whether or not i6posed b9 ordinane or statute, is not suffiient to neate or 6itiate reover9 unless a ausal

onnetion is established between suh failure and the inur9 sustained. 2he priniple liewise finds affir&ation in Sanitar9

Stea6, wherein we delared that the violation of a traffi statute &ust 'e shown as the pro5i&ate ause of the inBur#, or thatit su'stantiall# ontri'uted thereto. )onuevo had the 'urden of learl# proving that the alleged negligene of illagraia wasthe pro5i&ate or ontri'utor# ause of the latters inBur#.L1>M9E&phasis added:

2hat the poet &iners were unliensed was not a Bustifiation for petitioner to leave their trans&ission lines dangling. Ae uote with

approval the o'servation of the R2Con this &atter3

2he lai& of NPC that the poet &iners have no right to operate within the area of Dalino, Itogon, 0enguet as

there was no per&it issued '# DENR is 'eside the point. 2he fat is that there were not onl# poet &iners 'ut also there

were &an# residents in the area of Dalino, )&puao, Itogon, 0enguet using the trail. 2hese residents were using this trail

underneath the trans&ission lines 5 5 5. 2he# were using this trail even 'efore the trans&ission lines were installed in the

14-%s '# NPC. The poket 6iners, althouh the9 have no per6it to do poket 6inin in the area, are also hu6an beins who

have to eke out a livin in the onl9 wa9 the9 know how. The fat that the9 were not issued a per6it b9 the 5>" to do poket6inin is no ustifiation for >+C to si6pl9 leave their trans6ission lines danlin or hanin to 1D feet above the round

posin daner to the life and li6b of ever9one in said o66unit9.5 5 5L14M9E&phasis added:

In su&, the viti& was not guilt# of ontri'utor# negligene. ;ene, petitioner is not entitled to a &itigation of its lia'ilit#.

II

' o< ?''*(' ' *o*'y o; ' a'(9a*y ?a(a:'4 .

Fro& the testi&on# of the viti&s &other, it was dul# esta'lished during trial that he was earning P$,%%%.%% a &onth. 2o deter&ine the

o&pensa'le a&ount of lost earnings, Ae onsider 91: the nu&'er of #ears for whih the viti& would otherwise have lived 9life e5petan#:

and 9!: the rate of loss sustained '# the heirs of the deeased. Hife e5petan# is o&puted '# appl#ing the for&ula 9!$ 5 L>% * age at deathM:

adopted in the )&erian E5petan# 2a'le of "ortalit# or the )tuarial Co&'ined E5periene2a'le of "ortalit#. 2he seond fator is o&puted

'# &ultipl#ing the life e5petan# '# the net earnings of the deeased, i.e., the total earnings less e5penses neessar# in the reation of suh

earnings or ino&e and less living and other inidental e5penses. 2he net earning is ordinaril# o&puted at fift# perent 9(%: of the gross

earnings. 2hus, the for&ula used '# this Court in o&puting loss of earning apait# is3 Net Earning Capait# Q L!$ 5 9>% age at ti&e of death:

5 9gross annual ino&e reasona'le and neessar# living e5penses:M. L!%M

Ae sustain the trial ourt o&putation of unearned ino&e of the viti&3

5 5 5 the loss of his unearned ino&e an 'e o&puted as follows3 two*thirds of >% #ears, &inus !% #ears,

ti&es P$=,%%%.%% per #ear, euals P1,%,%%%.%%. 2his is 'eause No'le Casionan, at the ti&e of his death, was !% #ears old

and was health# and strong. )nd, therefore, his life e5petan# would nor&all# reah up to >% #ears old in aordane withthe a'ove for&ula illustrated in the aforesaid ases. 2hus, No'le Casionan had =% &ore #ears life e5petan# sine he was

!% #ears old at the ti&e of his death on ?une !-, 144(. 2wo*thirds of =% #ears ti&es P$=,%%%.%% sine he was earning

a'out P$,%%%.%% a &onth of P$=,%%%.%% a #ear would 'e P1,%,%%%.%%.

;owever, in deter&ining the unearned ino&e, the 'asi onern is to deter&ine the da&ages sustained '# the heirs or

dependents of the deeased Casionan. )nd here, the da&ages onsist not of the full a&ount of his earnings 'ut the supportthe# would have reeived fro& the deeased had he not died as a onseuene of the unlawful at of the NPC. 5 5 5 2he

a&ount reovera'le is not the loss of the entire earnings 'ut the loss of that portion of the earnings whih the heirs would

have reeived as support. ;ene, fro& the a&ount of P1,%,%%%.%%, a reasona'le a&ount for the neessar# e5penses of

No'le Casionan had he lived would 'e deduted. Following the ruling in+eople v. Euilaton, !%( SCR) !-4, the Courtdee&s that (% perent of the gross earnings of the deeased of P1,%,%%%.%% should 'e deduted for his neessar# e5penses

had he lived, thus leaving the other half of a'out P-!%,%%%.%% as the net earnings that would have gone for the support of hisheirs. 2his is the unearned ino&e of whih the heirs were deprived of. L!1M
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/165969.htm#_ftn21


12/41

In uasi delits, e5e&plar# da&ages are awarded where the offender was guilt# of gross negligene. L!!M+ross negligene has 'een

defined to 'e the want or a'sene of even slight are or diligene as to a&ount to a reless disregard of the safet# of person or propert#. It

evines a thoughtless disregard of onseuenes without e5erting an# effort to avoid the&. L!$M

Petitioner de&onstrated its disregard for the safet# of the &e&'ers of the o&&unit# of Dalino who used the trail regularl# when it

failed to address the sagging high tension wires despite nu&erous previous reuests and warnings. It onl# e5erted efforts to retif# the danger it

posed after a death fro& eletroution alread# ourred. +ross negligene was thus apparent, warranting the award of e5e&plar# da&ages.

)s to the award of &oral da&ages, Ae sustain the C) redution of the award. "oral da&ages are designed to o&pensate the lai&ant

for atual inBur# suffered and not to i&pose a penalt# on the wrongdoer. It is not &eant to enrih the o&plainant 'ut to ena'le the inBured part#

to o'tain &eans to o'viate the &oral suffering e5periene. 2rial ourts should guard against the award of e5or'itant da&ages lest the# 'e

aused of preBudie or orruption in their deision &aing. L!MAe find that the C) orretl# redued the award fro& P1%%,%%%.%% to P(%,%%%.%%.

)s for the award for attorne#s fees, well*settled is the rule that the reason for the award &ust 'e disussed in the te5t of the ourts

deision and not onl# in the dispositive portion. L!(ME5ept for thefallo, a disussion on the reason for the award for attorne#s fees was not

inluded '# the R2C in its deision. 2he C) thus orretl# disallowed it on appeal.

+RE/ORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed deision of the Court of )ppeals A//IRMED.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 708$0. S''()'* 18, 1$$2.

CRESENCIO !IBI a? AME!IA YAP !IBI,Petitioners, &. +ON. INTERMEDIATE APPE!!ATE COURT, /E!IPE GOTIONG a?

S+IR!EY GOTIONG,Respondents.

A9'> Y. Ta, ;o*Petitioners.

Ma*o D. O* a? Da9o . O* ;o*Private Respondents.

SY!!ABUS

1. CIIH H)A @


13/41

In this final denoue&ent of the Budiial reourse the stages whereof were alternatel# initiated '# the parties, petitioners are now 'efore us seeing

the reversal of the Budg&ent of respondent ourt pro&ulgated on ?anuar# !, 14>( in )C*+.R. C No. =4%=% with the following deretal

portion3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/A;EREFORE, the deision of the lower ourt dis&issing plaintiff6s o&plaint is here'# reversed and instead, Budg&ent is here'# rendered

sentening defendants, Bointl# and solidaril#, to pa# to plaintiffs the following a&ounts3hanro'les.o& 3 virtual law li'rar#

1. "oral da&ages, P$%,%%%.%%%

!. E5e&plar# da&ages, P1%,%%%.%%

$. )ttorne#6s fees, P!%,%%%.%%, and osts.

;owever, denial of defendants*appellees6 ounterlai&s is affir&ed./ 1

S#nthesi8ed fro& the findings of the lower ourts, it appears that respondent spouses are the legiti&ate parents of ?ulie )nn +otiong who, at the

ti&e of the deplora'le inident whih too plae and fro& whih she died on ?anuar# 1, 14-4, was an 1>*#ear old first #ear o&&ere student

of the when ?ulie )nn

'roe up her relationship with Aendell after she supposedl# found hi& to 'e sadisti and irresponsi'le. During the first and seond wees of

?anuar#, 14-4, Aendell ept pestering ?ulie )nn with de&ands for reoniliation 'ut the latter persisted in her refusal, pro&pting the for&er toresort to threats against her. In order to avoid hi&, ?ulie )nn sta#ed in the house of her 'est friend, "alou )lfonso, at the orner of "aria

Cristina and ?uana Os&ea Streets, Ce'u Cit#, fro& ?anuar# - to 1$, 14->.

On ?anuar# 1, 14-4, ?ulie )nn and Aendell died, eah fro& a single gunshot wound inflited with the sa&e firear&, a S&ith and Aesson

revolver liensed in the na&e of petitioner Cresenio Hi'i, whih was reovered fro& the sene of the ri&e inside the residene of private

respondents at the orner of +eneral "a5ilo& and D. ?aosale& streets of the sa&e it#.

Due to the a'sene of an e#ewitness aount of the iru&stanes surrounding the death of 'oth &inors, their parents, who are the ontending

parties herein, posited their respetive theories drawn fro& their interpretation of iru&stantial evidene, availa'le reports, dou&ents and

evidene of ph#sial fats.

Private respondents, 'ereaved over the death of their daughter, su'&itted that Aendell aused her death '# shooting her with the aforesaidfirear& and, thereafter, turning the gun on hi&self to o&&it suiide. On the other hand,+etitioners, pu88led and liewise distressed over the

death of their son, reBeted the i&putation and ontended that an unnown third part#, who& Aendell &a# have displeased or antagoni8ed '#

reason of his wor as a narotis infor&er of the Consta'ular# )nti*Narotis % as follows3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/A;EREFORE, pre&ises dul# onsidered, Budg&ent is here'# rendered dis&issing plaintiffs6 o&plaint for insuffiien# of the evidene.

Defendants6 ounterlai& is liewise denied for la of suffiient &erit./ !

On appeal to respondent ourt, said Budg&ent of the lower ourt dis&issing the o&plaint of therein plaintiffs*appellants was set aside and

another Budg&ent was rendered against defendants*appellees who, as petitioners in the present appeal '# ertiorari, now su'&it for resolution

the following issues in this ase3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

1. Ahether or not respondent ourt orretl# reversed the trial ourt in aordane with esta'lished deisional laws and

!. Ahether or not )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code was orretl# interpreted '# respondent ourt to &ae petitioners lia'le for viarious lia'ilit#. $

In the proeedings 'efore the trial ourt, Dr. ?esus P. Cerna, Polie "edio*Hegal Offier of Ce'u, su'&itted his findings and opinions on so&e

postulates for deter&ining whether or not the gunshot wound was inflited on Aendell Hi'i '# his own suiidal at. ;owever, undue e&phasis

was plaed '# the lower ourt on the a'sene of gunpowder or tattooing around the wound at the point of entr# of the 'ullet. It should 'e

e&phasi8ed, however, that this is not the onl# iru&stane to 'e taen into aount in the deter&ination of whether it was suiide or not.

It is true that said witness delared that he found no evidene of ontat or lose*ontat of an e5plosive disharge in the entrane wound.

;owever, as pointed out '# private respondents, the 'od# of deeased Aendell Hi'i &ust have 'een washed at the funeral parlor, onsidering the

hast# inter&ent thereof a little after eight 9>: hours fro& the ourrene wherein he died. Dr. Cerna hi&self ould not ategoriall# state that the

'od# of Aendell Hi'i was left untouhed at the funeral parlor 'efore he was a'le to ondut his autops#. It will also 'e noted that Dr. Cerna was

negligent in not onduting a paraffin test on Aendell Hi'i, hene possi'le evidene of gunpowder residue on Aendell6s hands was forever lostwhen Aendell was hastil# 'uried.ralawnad

"ore speifiall#, Dr. Cerna testified that he onduted an autops# on the 'od# of Aendell Hi'i a'out eight 9>: hours after the inident or, to 'ee5at, eight 9>: hours and twent# 9!%: &inutes 'ased on the reord of death that when he arrived at the Cos&opolitan Funeral ;o&es, the 'od#

of the deeased was alread# on the autops# ta'le and in the stage of rigor &ortis and that said 'od# was not washed, 'ut it was dried.

;owever, on rediret e5a&ination, he ad&itted that during the >*hour interval, he never saw the 'od# nor did he see whether said 'od# waswiped or washed in the area of the wound on the head whih he e5a&ined 'eause the deeased was inside the &orgue. ( In fat, on ross*

e5a&ination, he had earlier ad&itted that as far as the entrane of the wound, the traBetor# of the 'ullet and the e5it of the wound are onerned,

it is possi'le that Aendell Hi'i shot hi&self. =


14/41

;e further testified that the &u88le of the gun was not pressed on the head of the viti& and that he found no 'urning or singeing of the hair or

e5tensive laeration on the gunshot wound of entrane whih are general harateristis of ontat or near*ontat fire. On diret e5a&ination,

Dr. Cerna nonetheless &ade these larifiation3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/@ Is it not a fat that there are ertain guns whih are so &ade that there would 'e no 'la residue or tattooing that ould result fro& these guns'eause the# are what we all leanK

) es, sir. I now that there are what we all s&oeless powder.

)22. OR2I3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

@ es. So, in ases, therefore, of guns where the powder is s&oeless, those indiations that #ou said &a# not rule out the possi'ilit# that the

gun was loser than ! inhes, is that orretK

) If the . . . assu&ing that the gun used was .. the 'ullet used was a s&oeless powder.

@ )t an# rate, dotor, fro& . . . disregarding those other &atters that #ou have notied, the singeing, et., fro& the traBetor#, 'ased on thetraBetor# of the 'ullet as shown in #our own seth, is it not a fat that the gun ould have 'een fired '# the person hi&self, the viti& hi&self,

Aendell Hi'i, 'eause it shows a point of entr# a little a'ove the right ear and point of e5it a little a'ove that, to 'e ver# fair and on #our oathK

) )s far as the point of entrane is onerned and as far as the traBetor# of the 'ullet is onerned and as far as the angle or the &anner of fire is

onerned, it ould have 'een fired '# the viti&./ -

)s shown '# the evidene, there were onl# two used 'ullets > found at the sene of the ri&e, eah of whih were the 'ullets that hit ?ulie )nn

+otiong and Aendell Hi'i, respetivel#. )lso, the seth prepared '# the "edio*Hegal Division of the National 0ureau of Investigation, 4

shows that there is onl# one gunshot wound of entrane loated at the right te&ple of Aendell Hi'i. 2he nerops# report prepared '# Dr. Cerna

states3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

@ @ @

/+unshot wound, EN2R)NCE, ovaloid, %.( 5 %. &., with ontusion ollar widest inferiorl# '# %.! &., edges inverted, oriented upward,

loated at the head, te&poral region, right, !.> &s. 'ehind and (.( &s. a'ove right e5ternal auditor# &eatus, direted slightl# forward, upward

and to the left, involving sin and soft tissues, &aing a punh*in frature on the te&poral 'one, right, penetrating ranial avit#, laerating

e5tensivel# along its ourse the 'rain tissues, fraturing parietal 'one, left, and finall# &aing an ETI2 wound, irregular, !.% 5 1.> &s., edges9e:verted, parietal region, left, !.% &s. 'ehind and 1!.4 &s. a'ove left e5ternal auditor# &eatus.hanro'les virtualawli'rar#

hanro'les.o&3hanro'les.o&.ph

@ @ @

/Evidene of ontat or lose*ontat fire, suh as 'urning around the gunshot wound of entrane, gunpowder tatooing 9si:, s&udging, singeingof hair, e5tensive laeration or 'ursting of the gunshot wound of entrane, or separation of the sin fro& the underl#ing tissue, are a'sent./ 1%

On ross*e5a&ination, Dr. Cerna de&onstrated his theor# whih was &ade of reord, thus3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/@ Now, will #ou please use #ourself as Aendell Hi'i, and following the entrane of the wound, the traBetor# of the 'ullet and the e5it of the

wound, and &easuring #ourself ! inhes, will #ou please indiate to the ;onora'le Court how would it have 'een possi'le for Aendell Hi'i toill hi&selfK Aill #ou please indiate the ! inhesK

AI2NESS3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

) )tuall#, sir, the ! inhes is appro5i&atel# one ar&6s length.

)22. SENININ+3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

I would lie to &ae of reord that the witness has de&onstrated '# e5tending his right ar& al&ost straight towards his head./ 11

Private respondents assail the fat that the trial ourt gave redene to the testi&onies of defendants6 witnesses H#dia )ng and ?a&es Enriue2an, the first 'eing a resident of an apart&ent aross the street fro& the +otiongs and the seond, a resident of the house adBaent to the +otiong

residene, who delared having seen a /shadow/ of a person at the gate of the +otiong house after hearing shots therefro&.

On ross*e5a&ination, H#dia )ng testified that the apart&ent where she was sta#ing faes the gas station that it is the seond apart&ent that

fro& her window she an see diretl# the gate of the +otiongs and, that there is a firewall 'etween her apart&ent and the gas station. 1! )fter

seeing a &an Bu&p fro& the gate of the +otiongs to the rooftop of the 2ans, she alled the polie station 'ut the telephone lines were 'us#. Hateron, she taled with ?a&es Enriue 2an and told hi& that she saw a &an leap fro& the gate towards his rooftop. 1$

;owever, ?a&es Enriue 2an testified that he saw a /shadow/ on top of the gate of the +otiongs, 'ut denied having taled with an#one regarding

what he saw. ;e e5plained that he lives in a duple5 house with a garden in front of it that his house is ne5t to Felipe +otiong6s house and he

further gave the following answers to these uestions3hanro'les.o& 3 virtual law li'rar#

/)22. OR2I3 92O AI2NESS:.


15/41

@ Ahat is the height of the wall of the +otiong6s in relation to #our houseK


) It is a'out > feet.

)22. OR2I3 92O AI2NESS:

@ )nd where were #ou looing fro&K


) Fro& upstairs in living roo&.

)22. OR2I 92O AI2NESS:

@ Fro& our living roo& window, is that orretK


) es, 'ut not ver# lear 'eause the wall is high./ 1

)nal#8ing the foregoing testi&onies, we agree with respondent ourt that the sa&e do not inspire redene as to the relia'ilit# and aura# of

the witnesses6 o'servations, sine the visual pereptions of 'oth were o'struted '# high walls in their respetive houses in relation to the house

of herein private respondents. On the other hand, witness "anolo )lfonso, testif#ing on re'uttal, attested without ontradition that he and his

sister, "alou )lfonso, were waiting for ?ulie )nn +otiong when the# heard her srea& that when "anolo li&'ed the fene to see what was

going on inside the +otiong house, he heard the first shot and, not &ore than five 9(: seonds later, he heard another shot. Conseuentl#, he

went down fro& the fene and drove to the polie station to report the inident. 1( "anolo6s diret and andid testi&on# esta'lishes ande5plains the fat that it was he who& H#dia )ng and ?a&es Enriue 2an saw as the /shadow/ of a &an at the gate of the +otiong house.

Ae have perfore to reBet petitioners6 effete and unsu'stantiated pretension that it was another &an who shot Aendell and ?ulie )nn. It is

signifiant that the Hi'i fa&il# did not even point to or present an# suspet in the ri&e nor did the# file an# ase against an# alleged /?ohn

Doe./ Nor an we sustain the trial ourt6s du'ious theor# that Aendell Hi'i did not die '# his own hand 'eause of the overwhel&ing evidene

testi&onial, dou&entar# and pitorial the onfluene of whih point to Aendell as the assailant of ?ulie )nn, his &otive 'eing revenge forher reBetion of his persistent pleas for a reoniliation.hanro'les.o&3ralaw3red

Petitioners6 defense that the# had e5erised the due diligene of a good father of a fa&il#, hene the# should not 'e ivill# lia'le for the ri&e

o&&itted '# their &inor son, is not 'orne out '# the evidene on reord either.

Petitioner )&elita ap Hi'i, &other of Aendell, testified that her hus'and, Cresenio Hi'i, owns a gun whih he ept in a safet# deposit 'o5inside a drawer in their 'edroo&. Eah of these petitioners holds a e# to the safet# deposit 'o5 and )&elita6s e# is alwa#s in her 'ag, all of

whih fats were nown to Aendell. 2he# have never seen their son Aendell taing or using the gun. She ad&itted, however, that on that fateful

night the gun was no longer in the safet# deposit 'o5. 1= Ae, aordingl#, annot 'ut entertain serious dou'ts that petitioner spouses had reall#

'een e5erising the diligene of a good father of a fa&il# '# safel# loing the fatal gun awa#. Aendell ould not have gotten hold thereof unless

one of the e#s to the safet# deposit 'o5 was negligentl# left l#ing around or he had free aess to the 'ag of his &other where the other e#

was.

2he diligene of a good father of a fa&il# reuired '# law in a parent and hild relationship onsists, to a large e5tent, of the instrution and

supervision of the hild. Petitioners were gravel# re&iss in their duties as parents in not diligentl# supervising the ativities of their son, despite

his &inorit# and i&&aturit#, so &uh so that it was onl# at the ti&e of Aendell6s death that the# allegedl# disovered that he was a C)N< agent

and that Cresenio6s gun was &issing fro& the safet# deposit 'o5. 0oth parents were sadl# wanting in their dut# and responsi'ilit# in &onitoring

and nowing the ativities of their hildren who, for all the# now, &a# 'e engaged in dangerous wor suh as 'eing drug infor&ers, 1- or even

drug users. Neither was a plausi'le e5planation given for the photograph of Aendell, with a handwritten dediation to ?ulie )nn at the 'athereof, 1> holding upright what learl# appears as a revolver and on how or wh# he was in possession of that firear&.

In setting aside the Budg&ent of the ourt a uo and holding petitioners ivill# lia'le, as e5plained at the start of this opinion, respondent ourt

waved aside the protestations of diligene on the part of petitioners and had this to sa#3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/. . . It is still the dut# of parents to now the ativit# of their hildren who &a# 'e engaged in this dangerous ativit# involving the &enae of

drugs. ;ad the defendants*appellees 'een diligent in supervising the ativities of their son, Aendell, and in eeping said gun fro& his reah, the#

ould have prevented Aendell fro& illing ?ulie )nn +otiong. 2herefore, appellants are lia'le under )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code whih

provides3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

U2he father, and in ase of his death or inapait#, the &other, are responsi'le for the da&ages aused '# their &inor hildren who live in theiro&pan#.6

/;aving 'een grossl# negligent in preventing Aendell Hi'i fro& having aess to said gun whih was allegedl# ept in a safet# deposit 'o5,defendants*appellees are su'sidiaril# lia'le for the natural onseuene of the ri&inal at of said &inor who was living in their o&pan#. 2his

viarious lia'ilit# of herein defendants*appellees has 'een reiterated '# the Supre&e Court in &an# ases, pro&inent of whih is the ase of

Fuellas v. Cadano, et. al. 9H*1%4, Ot. $1, 14=1, $ SCR) $=1*$=-:, whih held that3hanro'1es virtual 1aw li'rar#

U2he su'sidiar# lia'ilit# of parents for da&ages aused '# their &inor hildren i&posed '# )rtile !1>% of the New Civil Code overs

o'ligations arising fro& 'oth uasi*delits and ri&inal offenses.6


16/41

U2he su'sidiar# lia'ilit# of parent6s arising fro& the ri&inal ats of their &inor hildren who ated with disern&ent is deter&ined under the

provisions of )rtile !1>%, N.C.C. and under )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal Code, 'eause to hold that the for&er onl# overs o'ligations

whih arise fro& uasi*delits and not o'ligations whih arise fro& ri&inal offenses, would result in the a'surdit# that while for an at where

&ere negligene intervenes the father or &other &a# stand su'sidiaril# lia'le for the da&ages aused '# his or her son, no lia'ilit# would attah

if the da&age is aused with ri&inal intent.6 9$ SCR) $=1*$=!:.

/. . . In the instant ase, &inor son of herein defendants*appellees, Aendell Hi'i so&ehow got hold of the e# to the drawer where said gun was

ept under lo without defendant*spouses ever nowing that said gun had 'een &issing fro& that safet# 'o5 sine 14-> when Aendell Hi'i

had: a piture taen wherein he proudl# displa#ed said gun and dediated this piture to his sweetheart, ?ulie )nn +otiong also sine then,

Aendell Hi'i was said to have ept said gun in his ar, in eeping up with his supposed role of a C)N< agent . . ./ hanro'les lawli'rar# 3rednad

@ @ @

/0ased on the foregoing disussions of the assigned errors, this Court holds that the lower ourt was not orret in dis&issing herein plaintiffs*

appellants6 o&plaint 'eause as preponderantl# shown '# evidene, defendants*appellees utterl# failed to e5erise all the diligene of a goodfather of the fa&il# in preventing their &inor son fro& o&&itting this ri&e '# &eans of the gun of defendants*appellees whih was freel#

aessi'le to Aendell Hi'i for the# have not regularl# heed whether said gun was still under lo, 'ut learned that it was &issing fro& the

safet# deposit 'o5 onl# after the ri&e had 'een o&&itted./ 9E&phases ours.: 14

Ae agree with the onlusion of respondent ourt that petitioners should 'e held lia'le for the ivil lia'ilit# 'ased on what appears fro& all

indiations was a ri&e o&&itted '# their &inor son. Ae tae this opportunit#, however, to digress and disuss its ratioination therefor on

Burisprudential dita whih we feel reuire larifiation.

In i&posing santions for the so*alled viarious lia'ilit# of petitioners, respondent ourt ites Fuellas v. Cadano, Et. )l. !% whih supposedl#

holds that/ 9t:he su'sidiar# lia'ilit# of parents for da&ages aused '# their &inor hildren i&posed '# )rtile !1>% of the New Civil Code

overs o'ligations arising fro& 'oth uasi*delits and ri&inal offenses,/ followed '# an e5tended uotation ostensi'l# fro& the sa&e ase

e5plaining wh# under )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code and )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal Code parents should assu&e su'sidiar# lia'ilit# forda&ages aused '# their &inor hildren. 2he uoted passages are set out two paragraphs 'a, with pertinent undersoring for purposes of the

disussion hereunder.hanro'les law li'rar#

Now, we do not have an# o'Betion to the dotrinal rule holding, the parents lia'le, 'ut the ategori8ation of their lia'ilit# as 'eing su'sidiar#,

and not pri&ar#, in nature reuires a hard seond loo onsidering previous deisions of this ourt on the &atter whih warrant o&parative

anal#ses. Our onern ste&s fro& our readings that if the lia'ilit# of the parents for ri&es or uasi*delits of their &inor hildren is su'sidiar#,then the parents an neither invoe nor 'e a'solved of ivil lia'ilit# on the defense that the# ated with the diligene of a good father of a fa&il#

to prevent da&ages. On the other hand, if suh lia'ilit# i&puted to the parents is onsidered diret and pri&ar#, that diligene would onstitute a

valid and su'stantial defense.

Ae 'elieve that the ivil lia'ilit# of parents for uasi*delits of their &inor hildren, as onte&plated in )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code, is

pri&ar# and not su'sidiar#. In fat, if we appl# )rtile !14 of said ode whih provides for solidar# lia'ilit# of Boint tortfeasors, the personsresponsi'le for the at or o&ission, in this ase the &inor and the father and, in ase of his death of inapait#, the &other, are solidaril# lia'le.

)ordingl#, suh parental lia'ilit# is pri&ar# and not su'sidiar#, hene the last paragraph of )rtile !1>% provides that/ 9t:he responsi'ilit#

treated of in this artile shall ease when the persons herein &entioned prove that the# o'served all the diligene of a good father of a fa&il# to

prevent da&ages./ralaw virtua1aw li'rar#

Ae are also persuaded that the lia'ilit# of the parents for felonies o&&itted '# their &inor hildren is liewise pri&ar#, not su'sidiar#. )rtile1%1 of the Revised Penal Code provides3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/)R2ICHE 1%1. Rules regarding ivil lia'ilit# in ertain ases.

@ @ @

First. In ases of su'divisions . . . !, and $ of )rtile 1!, the ivil lia'ilit# for ats o&&itted '# . . . a person under nine #ears of age, or '# one

over nine 'ut under fifteen #ears of age, who has ated without disern&ent, shall devolve upon those having suh person under their legal

authorit# or ontrol, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligene on their part./ 96phasis supplied.: !1

)ordingl#, Bust lie the rule in )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code, under the foregoing provision the ivil lia'ilit# of the parents for ri&eso&&itted '# their &inor hildren is liewise diret and pri&ar#, and also su'Bet to the defense of la of fault or negligene on their part, that

is, the e5erise of the diligene of a good father of a fa&il#.

2hat in 'oth uasi*delits and ri&es the parents pri&aril# respond for suh da&ages is 'uttressed '# the orresponding provisions in 'oth odes

that the &inor transgressor shall 'e answera'le or shall respond with his own propert# onl# in the a'sene or in ase of insolven# of the for&er.

2hus, for ivil lia'ilit# e5 uasi delito of &inors, )rtile !1>! of the Civil Code states that/ 9i:f the &inor ausing da&age has no parents orguardian, the &inor . . . shall 'e answera'le with his own propert# in an ation against hi& where a guardian ad lite& shall 'e appointed./ For

ivil lia'ilit# e5 delito of &inors, an euivalent provision is found in the third paragraph of )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal Code, towit3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/Should there 'e no person having suh . . . &inor under his authorit#, legal guardianship or ontrol, or if suh person 'e insolvent, said . . .

&inor shall respond with 9his: own propert#, e5epting propert# e5e&pt fro& e5eution, in aordane with ivil law./ralaw virtua1aw li'rar#


17/41

2he ivil lia'ilit# of parents for felonies o&&itted '# their &inor hildren onte&plated in the aforesaid rule in )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal

Code in relation to )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code has, aside fro& the aforeited ase of Fuellas, 'een the su'Bet of a nu&'er of ases

adBudiated '# this Court, vi8.3 E5onde v. Capuno, Et )l., !! )raneta v. )rreglado, !$ Salen, Et. )l. v. 0ale, ! Pale#an, et., Et. )l. v.

0angili, Et )l., !( and Elano, et al, v. ;ill, Et. )l. != Parenthetiall#, the aforesaid ases were 'asiall# on the issue of the ivil lia'ilit# of

parents for ri&es o&&itted '# their &inor hildren over 4 'ut under 1( #ears of age, who ated with disern&ent, and also of &inors 1( #ears

of a#e or over, sine these situations are not overed '# )rtile 1%1, Revised Penal Code. In 'oth instanes, this Court held that the issue ofparental ivil lia'ilit# should 'e resolved in aordane with the provisions of )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code for the reasons well e5pressed in

Salen and adopted in the ases herein'efore enu&erated that to hold that the ivil lia'ilit# under )rtile !1>% would appl# onl# to uasi*delits

and not to ri&inal offenses would result in the a'surdit# that in an at involving &ere negligene the parents would 'e lia'le 'ut not where the

da&age is aused with ri&inal intent. In said ases, however, there are unfortunate varianes resulting in a regretta'le inonsisten# in the

Court6s deter&ination of whether the lia'ilit# of the parents, in ases involving either ri&es or uasi*delits of their &inor hildren, is pri&ar#or su'sidiar#.

In E5onde, where the 1(*#ear old &inor was onvited of dou'le ho&iide through reless i&prudene, in a separate ivil ation arising fro&

the ri&e the &inor and his father were held Bointl# and severall# lia'le for failure of the latter to prove the diligene of a good father of a fa&il#.

2he sa&e lia'ilit# in solidu& and, therefore, pri&ar# lia'ilit# was i&posed in a separate ivil ation in )raneta on the parents and their 1*#ear

old son who was found guilt# of frustrated ho&iide, 'ut on the authorit# of )rtile !14 of the Civil Code providing for solidar# responsi'ilit#

of two or &ore persons who are lia'le for a uasi*delit.

;owever, in Salen, the father was delared su'sidiaril# lia'le for da&ages arising fro& the onvition of his son, who was over 1( 'ut less than

1> #ears of age, '# appl#ing )rtile !1>% 'ut, this ti&e, disregarding )rtile !14 of the Civil Code. In the present ase, as alread# e5plained,

the petitioners herein were also held lia'le 'ut supposedl# in line with Fuellas whih purportedl# delared the parents su'sidiaril# lia'le for the

ivil lia'ilit# for serious ph#sial inBuries o&&itted '# their 1$*#ear old son. On the other hand, in Pale#an, the &other and her 14*#ear old sonwere adBudged solidaril# lia'le for da&ages arising fro& his onvition for ho&iide '# the appliation of )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code sine

this is liewise not overed '# )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal Code. Finall#, in Elano, although the son was auitted in a ho&iide harge

due to /la of intent, oupled with &istae,/ it was ruled that while under )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code there should 'e solidar# lia'ilit# for

da&ages, sine the son, /although &arried, was living with his father and getting su'sistene fro& hi& at the ti&e of the ourrene,/ 'ut /is

now of age, as a &atter of euit#/ the father was onl# held su'sidiaril# lia'le.

It 'ears stressing, however, that the Revised Penal Code provides for su'sidiar# lia'ilit# onl# for persons ausing da&ages under the o&pulsion

of irresisti'le fore or under the i&pulse of an unontrolla'le fear !- inneepers, taverneepers and proprietors of esta'lish&ents !> e&plo#ers,

teahers, persons and orporations engaged in industr# !4 and prinipals, ao&plies and aessories for the unpaid ivil lia'ilit# of their o*

aused in the other lasses. $%

)lso, o&ing 'a to respondent ourt6s reliane on Fuellas in its deision in the present ase, it is not e5atl# aurate to sa# that Fuellasprovided for su'sidiar# lia'ilit# of the parents therein. ) areful srutin# shows that what respondent ourt uoted ver'ati& in its deision now

on appeal in the present ase, and whih it attri'uted to Fuellas, was the s#lla'us on the law report of said ase whih spoe of /su'sidiar#/

lia'ilit#. ;owever, suh ategori8ation does not speifiall# appear in the te5t of the deision in Fuellas. In fat, after reviewing therein the ases

of E5onde, )raneta and Salen and the disussions in said ases of )rtile 1%1 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to )rtile !1>% of the Civil

Code, this Court onluded its deision in this wise3Bg3hanro'les.o&.ph

/"oreover, the ase at 'ar was deided '# the Court of )ppeals on the 'asis of evidene su'&itted therein '# 'oth parties, independent of the

ri&inal ase. )nd responsi'ilit# for fault or negligene under )rtile !1-= upon whih the present ation was instituted, is entirel# separate and

distint fro& the ivil lia'ilit# arising fro& fault or negligene under the Penal Code 9)rt. !1--:, and having in &ind the reasons 'ehind the law

as heretofore stated, an# disussion as to the &inor6s ri&inal responsi'ilit# is of no &o&ent./ralaw virtua1aw li'rar#

% of the Civil Code. $1

%, the enfore&ent of suh lia'ilit# shall 'e effeted against the father and, in ase of his death or inapait#, the &other.2his was a&plified '# the Child and outh Aelfare Code whih provides that the sa&e shall devolve upon the father and, in ase of his death or

inapait#, upon the &other or, in ase of her death or inapait#, upon the guardian, 'ut the lia'ilit# &a# also 'e voluntaril# assu&ed '# a

relative or fa&il# friend of the #outhful offender. $! ;owever, under the Fa&il# Code, this ivil lia'ilit# is now, without suh alternative

ualifiation, the responsi'ilit# of the parents and those who e5erise parental authorit# over the &inor offender. $$ For ivil lia'ilit# arising

fro& uasi*delits o&&itted '# &inors, the sa&e rules shall appl# in aordane with )rtiles !1>% and !1>! of the Civil Code, as so &odified.

In the ase at 'ar, whether the death of the hapless ?ulie )nn +otiong was aused '# a felon# or a uasi*delit o&&itted '# Aendell Hi'i,

respondent ourt did not err in holding petitioners lia'le for da&ages arising therefro&. Su'Bet to the preeding &odifiations of the pre&ises

relied upon '# it therefor and on the 'ases of the legal i&peratives herein e5plained, we onBoin in its findings that said petitioners failed to dul#

e5erise the reuisite diligentissi&i patris fa&ilias to prevent suh da&ages.

)CCORDIN+H, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Budg&ent of respondent Court of )ppeals is here'# )FFIR"ED, with osts

against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.


18/41

G.R. No. 82%65 /')*a*y 25, 1$$1

ST. /RANCIS +IG+ SC+OO!, a4 *'*'4''? )y SPS. /ERNANDO NANTES AND ROSARIO !ACANDU!A, BENAMIN I!UMIN,

TIRSO DE C+AE#, !UISITO INAS, CONNIE ARUIO AND PATRIA CADI#, petitioners,vs.T+E +ONORAB!E COURT O/ APPEA!S, E!EENT+ DIISION a? DR. ROMU!O CASTI!!O a? !I!IA CADI#,respondents.

7ose C. lores, 7r. for petitioners.

7ovito . Talabon for private respondents.

PARAS,J.:

2his is a petition for review of the deision of the Court of )ppeals, the dispositive portion of whih reads3

A;EREFORE, the deision under appeal is here'# affir&ed, with the following &odifiations3 91: E5e&plar# da&ages in the a&ount

of P!%,%%%.%% are here'# awarded to plaintiffs, in addition to the atual da&ages of P$%,%%%.%%, &oral da&ages of P!%,%%%.%% and

attorne#Gs fees in the a&ount of P1(,%%%.%% awarded to plaintiffs in the deision under appeal 9!: St. Franis ;igh Shool, represented

'# the Spouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario Haandula, and 0enBa&in Illu&in, are here'# held Bointl# and severall# lia'le with

defendants Connie )ruio, 2irso de Chaves, Huisito inas and Patria Cadis for the pa#&ent to plaintiffs of the a'ove&entioned atualda&ages, &oral da&ages, e5e&plar# da&ages and attorne#Gs fees, and for osts and 9$: Defendants ol# ?aro and Nida )ragones are

here'# a'solved fro& lia'ilit#, and the ase against the&, together with their respetive ounterlai&s, is here'# ordered dis&issed.

SO ORDERED. 9p. =%,"ollo:

2he o&plaint alleged that Ferdinand Castillo, then a fresh&an student of Setion 1*C at the St. Franis ;igh Shool, wanted to Boin a shool

pini undertaen '# Class I*0 and Class I*C at 2alaan 0eah, Saria#a, @ue8on. FerdinandGs parents, respondents spouses Dr. Ro&ulo Castillo

and Hilia Cadi8 Castillo, 'eause of short notie, did not allow their son to Boin 'ut &erel# allowed hi& to 'ring food to the teahers for thepini, with the diretive that he should go 'a ho&e after doing so. ;owever, 'eause of persuasion of the teahers, Ferdinand went on with

the& to the 'eah.

During the pini and while the students, inluding Ferdinand, were in the water, one of the fe&ale teahers was apparentl# drowning. So&e of

the students, inluding Ferdinand, a&e to her resue, 'ut in the proess, it was Ferdinand hi&self who drowned. ;is 'od# was reovered 'ut

efforts to resusitate hi& ashore failed. ;e was 'rought to a ertain Dr. Huna in Saria#a, @ue8on and later to the "t. Cannel +eneral ;ospital

where he was pronouned dead on arrival.

2hereupon, respondent spouses filed a o&plaint doeted as Civil Case No. >>$, in the Regional 2rial Court, 0ranh HIII of Huena Cit#,

against the St. Franis ;igh Shool, represented '# the spouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario Haandula, 0enBa&in Illu&in 9its prinipal:, and

the teahers3 2irso de Chaves, Huisito inas, Connie )ruio, Nida )ragones, ol# ?aro, and Patria Cadi8, for Da&ages whih respondentsallegedl# inurred fro& the death of their 1$*#ear old son, Ferdinand Castillo. Contending that the death of their son was due to the failure of the

petitioners to e5erise the proper diligene of a good father of the fa&il# in preventing their sonGs drowning, respondents pra#ed of atual, &oral

and e5e&plar# da&ages, attorne#Gs fees and e5penses for litigation.

2he trial ourt found in favor of the respondents and against petitioners*teahers )ruio, de Chaves, inas, )ragones, ?aro and Cadi8, ordering

all of the& Bointl# and severall# to pa# respondents the su& of P$%,%%%.%% as atual da&ages, P!%,%%%.%% as &oral da&ages, P1(,%%%.%% as

attorne#Gs fees, and to pa# the osts. 2he ourt a ?uoreasoned3

2aing into onsideration the evidene presented, this Court 'elieves that the defendant teahers na&el#3 Connie )ruio, Huisitoinas, 2irso de Chaves, ol# ?aro, Nida )ragones and Patria Cadi8 had failed to e5erise the diligene reuired of the& '# law under

the iru&stanes to guard against the har& the# had foreseen. 9pp. !4$%,"ollo:

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Ahile it is alleged that when defendants ol# ?aro and Nida )ragones arrived at the pini site, the drowning inident had alread#

ourred, suh fat does not and annot e5use the& fro& their lia'ilit#. In fat, it ould 'e said that '# o&ing late, the# were re&issin their dut# to safeguard the students. 9p. $%,"ollo:

2he students, #oung as the# were then 91! to 1$ #ears old:, were easil# attrated to the sea without aforethought of the dangers it

offers. et, the preautions and re&inders allegedl# perfor&ed '# the defendants*teahers definitel# fell short of the standard reuired'# law under the iru&stanes. Ahile the defendants*teahers ad&itted that so&e parts of the sea where the pini was held are deep,


19/41

the supposed lifeguards of the hildren did not even atuall# go to the water to test the depth of the partiular area where the hildren

would swi&. )nd indeed the fears of the plaintiffs that the pini area was dangerous was onfir&ed '# the fat that three persons

during the pini got drowned at the sa&e ti&e. ;ad the defendant teahers &ade an atual and ph#sial o'servation of the water

'efore the# allowed the students to swi&, the# ould have found out that the area where the hildren were swi&&ing was indeed

dangerous. )nd not onl# that, the &ale teahers who aording to the fe&ale teahers were there to supervise the hildren to ensure

their safet# were not even at the area where the hildren were swi&&ing. 2he# were so&ewhere and as testified to '# plaintiffsGwitness the# were having a drining spree. 9pp. ((*(=,"ollo:

On the other hand, the trial ourt dis&issed the ase against the St. Franis ;igh Shool, 0enBa&in Illu&in and )urora Cadorna. Said the ourt a

?uo3

)s shown and adverted to a'ove, this Court annot find suffiient evidene showing that the pini was a shool santioned one.

Si&ilarl# no evidene has 'een shown to hold defendants 0enBa&in Illu&in and )urora Cadorna responsi'le for the death of

Ferdinand Castillo together with the other defendant teahers. It has 'een suffiientl# shown that 0enBa&in Illu&in had hi&self not

onsented to the pini and in fat he did not Boin it. On the other hand, defendant )urora Cadorna had then her own lass to superviseand in fat she was not a&ongst those allegedl# invited '# defendant Connie )ruio to supervise lass I*C to whih Ferdinand Castillo

'elongs. 9p. $%,"ollo:

0oth petitioners and respondents appealed to the Court of )ppeals. Respondents*spouses assigned the following errors o&&itted '# the trial

ourt3

1. 2he lower ourt erred in not delaring the defendant St. Franis ;igh Shool and its ad&inistratorprinipal 0enBa&in Illu&in as

euall# lia'le not onl# for its approved o*urriular ativities 'ut also for those whih the# unreasona'l# failed to e5erise ontrol and

supervision lie the holding of pini in the dangerous water of 2alaan 0eah, Saria#a, @ue8on.

!. 2he lower ourt erred in not delaring the St. Franis ;igh Shool and prinipal 0enBa&in Illu&in as Bointl# and solidaril# lia'lewith their o*defendants*teahers Rosario Haandula, et als., for the tragi death of Ferdinand Castillo in a pini at 2alaan 0eah,

Saria#a, @ue8on, last "arh !%, 14>!.

$. 2he lower ourt erred in not delaring higher a&ount for atual and &oral da&ages for the unti&el# and tragi death of Ferdinand

Castillo in favor of plaintiffs*appellants against all the defendants. 9pp. (=*(-,"ollo:

2he Court of )ppeals ruled3

Ae find plaintiffs*appellantsG su'&ission well*taen.

Even were Ae to find that the pini in uestion was not a shool*sponsored ativit#, nonetheless it annot 'e gainsaid that the sa&ewas held under the supervision of the teahers e&plo#ed '# the said shool, partiularl# the teaher in harge of Class I*C to who& the

viti& 'elonged, and those who& she invited to help her in supervising the lass during the pini. Considering that the ourt a?uofound negligene on the part of the si5 defendants*teahers who, as suh, were harged with the supervision of the hildren during

the pini, the St. Franis ;igh Shool and the shool prinipal, 0enBa&in Illu&in, are lia'le under )rtile !1-= taen together with

the 1st, th and (th paragraphs of )rtile !1>% of the Civil Code. 2he# annot esape lia'ilit# on the &ere e5use that the pini was

not an /e5tra*urriular ativit# of the St. Franis ;igh Shool./ Ae find fro& the evidene that, as lai&ed '# plaintiffs*appellants,

the shool prinipal had nowledge of the pini even fro& its planning stage and had even 'een invited to attend the affair and #et he

did not e5press an# prohi'ition against undertaing the pini, nor did he presri'e an# preautionar# &easures to 'e adopted duringthe pini. )t the least, Ae &ust find that the shool and the responsi'le shool offiials, partiularl# the prinipal, 0enBa&in Illu&in,

had auiesed to the holding of the pini.

%,supra,the defendant shool and defendant shool prinipal &ust 'e found Bointl# and severall# lia'le with the

defendants*teahers for the da&ages inurred '# the plaintiffs as a result of the death of their son. It is the rule that in ases where the

a'ove*ited provisions find appliation, the negligene of the e&plo#ees in ausing the inBur# or da&age gives rise to a presu&ption of

negligene on the part of the owner andor &anager of the esta'lish&ent 9in the present ase, St. Franis ;igh Shool and itsprinipal: and while this presu&ption is not onlusive, it &a# 'e overthrown onl# '# lear and onvining proof that the owner

andor &anager e5erised the are and diligene of a good father of a fa&il# in the seletion andor supervision of the e&plo#ee or

e&plo#ees ausing the inBur# or da&age 9in this ase, the defendants*teahers:. 2he reord does not dislose suh evidene as would

serve to overo&e the aforesaid presu&ption and a'solve the St. Franis ;igh Shool and its prinipal fro& lia'ilit# under the a'ove*

ited provisions.

)s to the third assigned error interposed '# plaintiffs*appellants, while Ae annot 'ut o&&iserate with the plaintiffs for the traged#

that 'efell the& in the unti&el# death of their son Ferdinand Castillo and understand their suffering as parents, espeiall# the viti&Gs&other who, aording to appellants, suffered a nervous 'readown as a result of the traged#, Ae find that the a&ounts fi5ed '# the

ourt a ?uoas atual da&ages and &oral da&ages 9P$%,%%%.%% and P!%,%%%.%%, respetivel#: are reasona'le and are those whih are

sustained '# the evidene and the law.

;owever, Ae 'elieve that e5e&plar# or orretive da&ages in the a&ount of P!%,%%%.%% &a# and should 'e, as it is here'#, i&posed in

the present ase '# wa# of e5a&ple of orretion for the pu'li good, pursuant to )rtile !!!4 of the Civil Code. 9pp. (-*(4, "ollo:

On the other hand, petitioners*teahers assigned the following errors o&&itted '# the trial ourt3


20/41

1. /. . . in finding the defendants Connie )ruio, 2irso de Chave8, Huisito inas, Nida )ragones, ol# ?aro and Patria Cadi8 guilt# of

negligene and Bointl# and severall# lia'le for da&ages suh finding not 'eing supported '# fats and evidene.

!. /. . . in dis&issing the ounterlai& interposed '# the defendants. 9p. (4,"ollo:

On this sore, respondent Court ruled3

2he &ain thrust of defendants*appellants appeal is that plaintiffs, the parents of the viti& Ferdinand Castillo, were not a'le to prove

'# their evidene that the# did not give their son onsent to Boin the pini in uestion. ;owever, Ae agree with the trial ourt in its

finding that whether or not the viti&Gs parents had given suh per&ission to their son was i&&aterial to the deter&ination of thee5istene of lia'ilit# on the part of the defendants for the da&age inurred '# the plaintiffs*appellants as a result of the death of theirson. Ahat is &aterial to suh a deter&ination is whether or not there was negligene on the part of defendants vis8a8visthe supervision

of the viti&Gs group during the pini and, as or

Documents

Torts and Damages Assigned Cases