SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239872. March 11, 2019.]
HEIRS OF JOSE ROSARIO, JR., REPRESENTED BY VICTORIA H. ROSARIO [SUBSTITUTED BY PATRICIA ANGELA ROSARIO, MA. SOPHIA LOURDES ROSARIO AND JOSE VICTOR ROSARIO] AND JOSE ROSARIO, SR., petitioners, vs.DANILO SABUGO, HEIRS OF FEDERICO FARIÑAS, NAMELY: REMEDIOS C. FARIÑAS, TERESITA V. FARIÑAS, RICHARD V. FARIÑAS, JACKIE FARIÑAS, ROGER FARIÑAS, RODOLFO FARIÑAS, LETICIA FARIÑAS-CALOPE, MICHAEL FARIÑAS, BRIAN FARIÑAS, GLORIA FARIÑAS-PERALTA, RIZALINA * FARIÑAS-FAVIS, ERIC FARIÑAS, BABY REMEDIOS FARIÑAS OR HIS ASSIGNEES OR REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PERSONS WHO HAS CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER THE SUBJECT FARIÑAS BUS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239872 — Heirs of Jose Rosario, Jr., represented by Victoria H. Rosario [substituted by Patricia Angela Rosario, Ma. Sophia Lourdes Rosario and Jose Victor Rosario] and Jose Rosario, Sr. v. Danilo Sabugo, Heirs of Federico Fariñas, namely: Remedios C. Fariñas, Teresita V. Fariñas, Richard V. Fariñas, Jackie Fariñas, Roger Fariñas, Rodolfo Fariñas, Leticia Fariñas-Calope, Michael Fariñas, Brian Fariñas, Gloria Fariñas-Peralta, Rizalina Fariñas-Favis, Eric Fariñas, Baby Remedios Fariñas or his assignees or representatives or the persons who has control and supervision over the subject Fariñas Bus
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 dated August 24, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated May 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 96412, which affirmed with modifications the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 96.
The case stemmed from a complaint for damages filed against Danilo Sabugo (Sabugo) and the heirs of Federico Fariñas.
In 2002, Jose Rosario, Jr. (Rosario, Jr.), accompanied by two others, was traversing a highway in Ilocos Sur by his car when a Fariñas Bus No. 28 with Plate Number AVG 158, manned by Sabugo suddenly appeared from the opposite lane and tried to encroach upon his lane while overtaking a cargo truck. In an effort to avoid a collision with the bus, Rosario, Jr. tried to swerve his car to the right shoulder of the road. However, he was forced to swerve back to the left causing a head-on collision with the Fariñas bus because of the presence of the people therein. 3
The collision resulted in physical injuries to Rosario, Jr. and his two companions. They were brought to a hospital in La Union, wherein Rosario, Jr. was pronounced dead. 4 HSAcaE
In a Police Report, it was stated that Sabugo's act of overtaking another vehicle and encroaching upon the opposite lane occupied by the car driven by Rosario, Jr. was the proximate cause of the accident, which led to the death of Rosario, Jr. and multiple injuries to his companions. 5
Instead of offering financial assistance to the bereaved family to alleviate the suffering of the passing of Rosario, Jr., the operator of the Fariñas bus, Federico Fariñas, filed a complaint against the heirs of Rosario, Jr. for the damages caused to the bus, injuries to its passengers, litigation expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. 6
For their part, the heirs of Rosario, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against Sabugo and the heirs of Fariñas seeking for indemnity for the death of Rosario, Jr.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the Heirs of Rosario, Jr. and found that Sabugo and Fariñas, substituted by his heirs, jointly and severally liable for damages in the aggregate amount of P23,169,277.95. It was found by the RTC that Sabugo was driving in a reckless and negligent manner in wanton disregard of the traffic rules and regulations at the time of the accident, which resulted in the death of Rosario, Jr. For failure of Fariñas as substituted by his heirs, to prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Sabugo, the RTC found him solidarily liable. 7 The fallo thereof reads:
Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Danilo Sabugo and the Heirs of Federico Fariñas namely: Remedios C. Fariñas, Teresita V. Fariñas, Richard V. Fariñas, Jackie Fariñas, Roger Fariñas, Rodolfo Fariñas, Leticia Fariñas-Calope, Michael Fariñas, Brian Fariñas, Gloria Fariñas-Peralta, Rezalina Fariñas-Favis, Eric Fariñas, Baby Remedios Fariñas or his assignees or representatives or the persons who [have] control and supervision over the subject Fariñas Bus and ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiffs the sum of:
(a) PhP1,063,414.15 as actual damages plus 12% interest per annum beginning from the filing of the complaint;
(b) PhP19,200,000.00 for loss of earning capacity;
(c) PhP2,000,000.00 as moral damages;
(d) PhP500,000.00 as exemplary damages;
(e) PhP157,000.00 (PhP50,000.00 as acceptance fee and PhP3,000.00 per acceptance [19 court appearances]) as attorney's fees;
(f) PhP248,862.80 as cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 8
Aggrieved, the heirs of Fariñas filed an appeal before the CA.
In a Decision dated August 24, 2017, the CA likewise found that the cause of the accident was the reckless driving of Sabugo. Hence, he is liable for damages. On the part of the heirs of Fariñas, the CA found them liable because of failure to show that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising their employee. The CA noted that they failed to show during trial that they subjected their drivers to pre-employment screening process to determine their fitness and qualification for the job. As to the amount of damages, the CA deleted the award for loss of earning capacity for insufficiency of evidence, awarded civil indemnity for the death of Rosario, Jr., reduced the amount of moral damages, retained the amount of exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
(a) PhP1,063,414.15 as actual damages with 12% interest per annum to reckon from the date of filing of the complaint;
(b) PhP200,000.00 as moral damages;
(c) PhP500,000.00 as exemplary damages;
(d) PhP157,000.00 as attorney's fees;
(e) PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death;
(f) PhP248,862.80 as cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 9 HESIcT
Consequently, the heirs of Rosario, Jr. filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated May 25, 2018.
Undeterred, the heirs of Rosario, Jr. filed this petition.
We affirm the ruling of the CA with modifications as to the award of damages.
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. In the case of Philippine Hawk Corp. v. Tan Lee, 10 this Court enumerated the exceptions to such rule, to wit:
x x x. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. 11 (Citation omitted)
According to the heirs of Rosario, Jr., the deceased, a businessman who studied in the University of Northern Colorado in the United States of America, was giving his family P50,000.00 a month as their allowance, excluding the expenses for the education of his children and their household.
However, based on such testimony, we cannot conclude that this case falls under the exception as the supposed earnings of Rosario, Jr. greatly exceeded the prevailing monthly minimum wage. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence to prove the claim for loss of earning capacity, we are constrained to affirm the deletion of such award.
Nevertheless, we award temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the deceased's actual income. 12
The capacity of the deceased to earn was not disputed. Neither, is the fact that he left three children who were minors at the time that the complaint was filed. His children and wife mainly rely on the income earned by the deceased as he is the sole financial provider of the family. Hence, the amount of P500,000.00 as temperate damages is deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.
As to the amount of moral damages, we are constrained to increase the same.
The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration of the spiritual status quo ante. Moral damages are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person. 13
In this case, it is apparent that the family of the deceased suffered extreme mental distress upon the demise of the head of their family. The deceased's two daughters were still of tender age, and his son was still in the womb of his wife when the accident occurred. The grief that surrounded his family upon his death is simply ineffable. With this, we reinstate the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court in the amount of P500,000.00.
As the obligation breached in this case arose from quasi-delict, and consistent with our ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., the award of actual damages and exemplary damages shall earn an interest of 12% from the date of the rendition of the RTC judgment or on December 28, 2009 to June 30, 2013, and the interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction. As to the award of civil indemnity, it shall earn an interest of 6% per annum from the rendition of the CA Decision until full satisfaction thereof. As to the award of temperate and moral damages, it shall earn an interest of 6% from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction. caITAC
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated August 24, 2017, and Resolution dated May 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96412 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the Danilo Sabugo and the Heirs of Federico Fariñas, namely: Remedios C. Fariñas, Teresita V. Fariñas, Richard V. Fariñas, Jackie Fariñas, Roger Fariñas, Rodolfo Fariñas, Leticia Fariñas-Calope, Michael Fariñas, Brian Fariñas, Gloria Fariñas-Peralta, Rezalina Fariñas-Favis, Eric Fariñas, Baby Remedios Fariñas or his assignees of representatives or the persons who has control or supervision over Fariñas Bus No. 28 with Plate Number AVG 158 are hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally PAY the heirs of Jose Rosario, Jr. the following:
(a) P1,063,414.15 as actual damages, which shall earn an interest of twelve percent (12%) from the date of the rendition of the RTC judgment or on December 28, 2009 to June 30, 2013, and the interest of six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction;
(b) P500,000.00 as temperate damages, which shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof;
(c) P500,000.00 as moral damages, which shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof;
(d) P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, which shall earn an interest of twelve percent (12%) from the date of the rendition of the RTC judgment or on December 28, 2009 to June 30, 2013, and the interest of six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction;
(e) P157,000.00 as attorney's fees;
(f) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death which shall earn an interest of 6% from the rendition of the CA Decision until full satisfaction; and
(g) P248,862.80 as cost of suit. ICHDca
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Rezalina" in some parts of the rollo.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 39-51.
2. Id. at 53-54.
3. Id. at 40-41.
4. Id. at 41.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 43.
8. Id. at 40.
9. Id. at 50.
10. 626 Phil. 483 (2010).
11. Id. at 497.
12. Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., 654 Phil. 443, 457 (2011).
13. Mercury Drug Corporation v. Spouses Richard and Carmen Huang, G.R. No. 172122, June 22, 2017.