7/25/2019 Batch 7 Lapanday, St Marys, Guilatco

1/2

G.R. No. 153076 June 21, 2007

LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL and DEVELP!ENT CRPRATIN

"LADEC#, $ENRY %ERENGUEL, and APLNI R.

DECA!P,petitioners,

vs.

!IC$AEL RAY!ND ANGALA,respondent.

&ACT'(

A Datsun crewcab driven by Deo)a*+obumped into a Chevy

pick-up owned by Ana-a(respondent) and driven by %oe/. LADECO

owned the crewcab which was assined to its manaer !ende".

Deocampo was the driver and bodyuard o# !ende". $oth vehic%es were

runnin a%on &a#ae% Casti%%o 't., Adao, Davao City headin north

towards Lanan, Davao City.

&espondent a%%eed that his pick-up was s%owin down to about #ive to ten

ki%ometers per hour (kph) and was makin a %e#t turn preparatory to

turnin south when it was bumped #rom behind by the crewcab which was

runnin at around to * kph. +he crewcab stopped meters #rom the

point o# impact. &espondent testi#ied that $orres made a sina% because

he noticed a b%inkin %iht whi%e %ookin at the speedometer.

Deocampo a%%eed that the pick-up and the crewcab he was drivin were

both runnin at about kph. +he pick-up was runnin a%on the outer

%ane. +he pick-up was about meters away when it made a /-turn

towards the %e#t. Deocampo a%%eed that he tried to avoid the pick-up but

he was unab%e to avoid the co%%ision. Deocampo stated that he did not

app%y the brakes because he knew the co%%ision was unavoidab%e.

Deocampo admitted that he stepped on the brakes on%y a#ter the co%%ision.

0etitioners a%%ee that since $orres was vio%atin a tra##ic ru%e at the time

o# the accident, respondent and $orres were the parties at #au%t.

0etitioners cite Artic%e 12 o# the Civi% Code, thus3

Art. 12. /n%ess there is proo# to the contrary, it is presumed

that a person drivin a motor vehic%e has been ne%ient i# at

the time o# the mishap, he was vio%atin any tra##ic reu%ation.

+he tria% court #ound that the crewcab was runnin very #ast whi%e

#o%%owin the pick-up and that the crewcab4s speed was the pro5imate

cause o# the accident. +he tria% court ru%ed that Deocampo had the %ast

opportunity to avoid the accident.

+he Court o# Appea%s a##irmed in toto the tria% court4s decision. 6t a%so

sustained the so%idary %iabi%ity o# LADECO and Deocampo. +he Court o#

Appea%s ru%ed that under Artic%e 1 o# the Civi% Code, the ne%ience o#

the driver is presumed to be the ne%ience o# the owner o# the vehic%e.

I''UE(. 78E+8E& &E'0O9DE9+ 6' E9+6+LED +O DA!A:E'

RULING:

Both Drivers are Negligent7e ru%e that both parties were ne%ient in this case. $orres

was at the outer %ane when he e5ecuted a /-turn. ;o%%owin 'ection 2(b)

o# &A oint%y and severa%%y

%iab%e with Deocampo because it e5ercised due di%ience in the

supervision and se%ection o# its emp%oyees. LADECO did not show its

po%icy in hirin its drivers, or the manner in which it supervised its drivers.

LADECO #ai%ed to substantiate its a%%eation that it e5ercised due di%ience

in the supervision and se%ection o# its emp%oyees. 8ence, we ho%d

LADECO so%idari%y %iab%e with Deocampo.

Respondent is Entitled to Moral Daages7e sustain the award o# mora% damaes. !oa- da*ae/are

awarded to a%%ow a p%ainti## to obtain means, diversion, or amusement that

wi%% serve to a%%eviate the mora% su##erin he has underone due to the

de#endant4s cu%pab%e action. +he tria% court #ound that respondent, who

was on board the pick-up when the co%%ision took p%ace, su##ered shock,

serious an5iety, and #riht when the crewcab bumped his pick-up. 7e

sustain the tria% court and the Court o# Appea%s in ru%in that respondent

su##icient%y showed that he su##ered shock, serious an5iety, and #riht

which entit%e him to mora% damaes.$oth the tria% court and the Court o# Appea%s #ai%ed to ive any

>usti#ication #or the award o# attorney4s #ees. Awards o# a44one/ ee/

must be based on #indins o# #act and o# %aw and stated in the decision o#

the tria% court. ;urther, no premium shou%d be p%aced on the riht to

%itiate. 8ence, we de%ete the award o# attorney4s #ees.

G.R. No. 183363 &e9ua 6, 2002

'T. !ARY:' ACADE!Y,petitioner,

vs.

;ILLIA! CARPITAN' and LUCIA '. CARPITAN', GUADA

DANIEL, JA!E' DANIEL II, JA!E' DANIEL, 'R., and VIVENCI

VILLANUEVA,respondents.

;AC+'3

't. !ary conducted an enro%ment drive and as part o# this drive,they campain to di##erent schoo%s #or prospective students. On that#ortunate day, one named 'herwin Carpitanos--student o# 't. !ary andpart o# the campain roup went to a particu%ar schoo% with his c%assmatesridin in a mitsubishi >eepney owned by one named =ivencio =i%%anuevaand driven by his c%assmate who was a minor. A%%eed%y the %atter droved

the >eepney in a reck%ess manner and as a resu%t the >eepney turned turt%e.

As a resu%t 'herwin Carpitanos died due to the in>uries hesustained #rom the accident

+he %ower court he%d 't. !ary so%idari%y Liab%e under artic%e 1and ? o# the #ami%y code and the uardians o# the minor driver and theowner o# the >eepney as subsudiari%y %iab%e. on appea% to CA the owner o#the >eepney was #reed #rom %iabi%ities.

6''/E3 () 78E+8E& '+. !A&@ 6' L6A$LE - 9O

() 78E+8E& =6=E9C6O =6LLA9/E=A 6' L6A$LE -@E'

) /nder Artic%e 1 o# the ;ami%y Code, the #o%%owin sha%% have

specia% parenta% authority over a minor chi%d whi%e under their supervision,

instruction or custody3 () the schoo%, its administrators and teachers or() the individua%, entity or institution enaed in chi%d care. +his specia%

parenta% authority and responsibi%ity app%ies to a%% authori"ed activities,

whether inside or outside the premises o# the schoo%, entity or institution.

+hus, such authority and responsibi%ity app%ies to #ie%d trips, e5cursions

and other a##airs o# the pupi%s and students outside the schoo% premises

whenever authori"ed by the schoo% or its teachers.?

/nder Artic%e ? o# the ;ami%y Code, i# the person under custody is a

minor, those e5ercisin specia% parenta% authority are principa%%y and

so%idari%y %iab%e #or damaes caused by the acts or omissions o# the

unemancipated minor whi%e under their supervision, instruction, or

custody.

8owever, #or petitioner to be %iab%e, 4ee *u/4 9e a ndn 4a4 4e a)4o o*//on )on/deed a/ ne-en4 a/ 4e +o

7/25/2019 Batch 7 Lapanday, St Marys, Guilatco

2/2

n=u )au/ed 9e)au/e 4e ne-en)e *u/4 a>e a )au/a-

)onne)4on 4o 4e a))den4.

B6n order that there may be a recovery #or an in>ury, however, it must be

shown that the in>ury #or which recovery is souht must be the %eitimate

conseuence o# the wron done the connection between the ne%ience

and the in>ury must be a direct and natura% seuence o# events, unbroken

by intervenin e##icient causes.4 6n other words, 4e ne-en)e *u/4 9e4e +oury, and without which

the resu%t wou%d not have occurred.4B

6n this case, the respondents #ai%ed to show that the ne%ience o#

petitioner was the pro5imate cause o# the death o# the victim. Te

**eda4e )au/e o 4e a))den4 a/ no4 4e ne-en)e o +e44one

o 4e e)?-e// d>n o Ja*e/ Dane- II, 9u4 4e de4a)*en4 o 4e

/4een ee- ude o 4e =ee+.

'ini#icant%y, respondents did not present any evidence to show that the

pro5imate cause o# the accident was the ne%ience o# the schoo%

authorities, or the reck%ess drivin o# ames Danie% 66. there was noevidence that petitioner schoo% a%%owed the minor ames Danie% 66 to drive

the >eep o# respondent =ivencio =i%%anueva. 6t was Ched =i%%anueva,

randson o# respondent =ivencio =i%%anueva, who had possession and

contro% o# the >eep. 8e was drivin the vehic%e and he a%%owed ames

Danie% 66, a minor, to drive the >eep at the time o# the accident.

8ence, %iabi%ity #or the accident, whether caused by the ne%ience o# the

minor driver or mechanica% detachment o# the steerin whee% uide o# the

>eep, must be pinned on the minor4s parents primari%y. Te ne-en)e o

+e44one '4. !a/ A)ade* a/ on- a e*o4e )au/e o 4e

a))den4. %e4een 4e e*o4e )au/e and 4e n=u, 4ee n4e>ened

4e ne-en)e o 4e *no/ +aen4/ o 4e de4a)*en4 o 4e

/4een ee- ude o 4e =ee+.

Conseuent%y, we #ind that petitioner %ikewise cannot be he%d %iab%e #or

mora% damaes in the amount o# 02,.. !oa- da*ae/ *a 9e

e)o>eed 4e ae 4e +oe e-d 4a4 4e e/4eed one o an

>e)-e, e>en no4 u/ed o +u9-) /e>)e, ou-d +*a- 9e

e/+on/9-e 4o 4e +u9-) o 4o 4d +e/on/ o n=ue/ )au/ed 4e

-a44e -e 4e >e)-e a/ 9en d>en on 4e a/ o /4ee4/ .B

8ence, with the overwhe%min evidence presented by petitioner and the

respondent Danie% spouses that the accident occurred because o# the

detachment o# the steerin whee% uide o# the >eep, it is not the schoo%,but 4e e/4eed one o 4e >e)-e o /a-- 9e e-d e/+on/9-e

o da*ae/ o 4e dea4 o 'en Ca+4ano/.

G.R. No. 61516 !a) 21, 1@@

&LRENTINA A. GUILATC, petitioner,

vs.

CITY & DAGUPAN, and 4e $NRA%LE CURT &

APPEAL', respondents.

;%orentina :ui%atco was about to board a tricyc%e at a sidewa%k%ocated at 0ere" $%vd. (a nationa% road) when she accidenta%%y #e%% into anopen manho%e which was partia%%y covered by a concrete #%owerpot and%eavin a apin ho%e. 8er riht %e was #ractured, resu%tin in herhospita%i"ation and continuin di##icu%ty in %ocomotion. $ecause o# heraccident, :ui%atco was unab%e to o to work, thereby %osin her income.'he a%so %ost weiht, and she is now no %oner her #ormer >ovia% se%# sinceshe is unab%e to per#orm her re%iious, socia%, and other activities. 'he#i%ed an action #or damaes aainst the City o# Daupan.

+he City o# Daupan denied %iabi%ity on the round that themanho%e was %ocated on a nationa% road, which was not under the contro%or supervision o# the City o# Daupan thru the City Enineer.

6''/E3 78E+8E& +8E C6+@ O; DA:/0A9 6' L6A$LE +O

:/6LA+CO.

8ELD3

@es, the City o# Daupan is %iab%e. ;or Artic%e 1? to app%y, 4 /no4 ne)e//a o 4e dee)4>e oad o /4ee4 4o 9e-on 4o 4e+o>n)e, )4 o *un)+a-4. Te a4)-e on- eue/ 4a4 e4e)on4o- o /u+e>/on / ee 4e dee)4>e oad o /4ee4 .6n this case, this contro% or supervision is provided #or in the charter o#Daupan and is e5ercised throuh the City Enineer, whose duties

inc%ude the care and custody o# the pub%ic system o# waterworks andsewers. +he charter o# Daupan provides that the %ayin out, construction,and improvement o# streets, avenues, and a%%eys and sidewa%ks and thereu%ation o# the use thereo# may be %eis%ated by the !unicipa% $oard.+hus, the charter c%ear%y indicates that the city indeed has supervision andcontro% over the sidewa%k where the open drainae ho%e is %ocated.

+here is, there#ore, no doubt that the City Enineer e5ercisescontro% or supervision over the pub%ic works in uestion. 8ence, the%iabi%ity o# the city to the petitioner under artic%e ?1 o# the Civi% Code isc%ear.

N DA!AGE'3

$e a%% that as it may, the a)4ua- da*ae/awarded to the petitioner in the

amount o# 0 ,. shou%d be reduced to the proven e5penses o# 01,2ecture or uess workB as to the amount

. 7ithout the actua% proo# o#

%oss, the award o# actua% damaes becomes erroneous.

!oa- da*ae/may be awarded even without proo# o# pecuniary %oss,

inasmuch as the determination o# the amount is discretionary on the court.

+houh incapab%e o# pecuniary estimation, mora% damaes are in the

nature o# an award to compensate the c%aimant #or actua% in>ury su##ered

but which #or some reason can not be proven. 8owever, in awardin

mora% damaes, the #o%%owin shou%d be taken into consideration3

() ;irst, the pro5imate cause o# the in>ury must be the c%aimeeFs

acts.

() 'econd, there must be compensatory or actua% damaes as

satis#actory proo# o# the #actua% basis #or damaes.

(ovia% to

depressed. 'he re#rained #rom attendin socia% and civic activities.

9everthe%ess the award o# mora% damaes at 0 2,. is e5cessive.

8er handicap was not permanent and disab%ed her on%y durin her

treatment which %asted #or one year. +houh evidence o# mora% %oss and

anuish e5isted to warrant the award o# damaes, the moderatin hand o#

the %aw is ca%%ed #or. +he Court has time and aain ca%%ed attention to the

reprehensib%e propensity o# tria% >udes to award damaes without

basis, resu%tin in e5horbitant amounts. +he amount o# mora% damaes

shou%d be reduced to 0 ,. based on >urisprudence.

As #or the aad o eects such as

beauti#ication drives, the end is more important than the manner in which

the work is carried out. $ecause o# this obsession #or showin o##, such

trivia% detai%s as misp%aced #%ower pots betray the care%ess e5ecution o# the

pro>ects, causin pub%ic inconvenience and invitin accidents.