SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224960. June 19, 2019.]
HILARIO MEJICA, petitioner, vs.ALBERTO YANOC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224960 — HILARIO MEJICA, petitioner, versus ALBERTO YANOC, respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Hilario Mejica (Mejica) assailing the Decision 2 dated April 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04948. The CA set aside the Judgment 3 dated July 10, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City (RTC) which found Mejica liable for breach of contract of carriage and awarded moral and actual damages for loss of income in favor of Alberto Yanoc (Yanoc). The CA deleted the award of moral damages and awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual and compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity.
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
The case stemmed from a complaint for breach of contract with damages filed by Yanoc. He is one of the passengers who was injured when the Fuso passenger jitney, operated as a common carrier by Mejica, turned sideways after it skidded backward while ascending on a bend and hit the road canal last November 3, 2009 when it was plying the Bais-Mabinay route. 4
As a consequence, Yanoc's foot and lower left leg were severely crushed, 5 leading to the amputation of his left leg. Before the accident, Yanoc used to work at the Provincial Engineer's Office of Negros Oriental as a laborer on a "pakyaw" basis. 6 In support thereof, he presented a Certification indicating that he had been employed in the said office from May 2005 to October 2009. 7 Due to the amputation of his leg, he claimed that he could no longer find any employment. 8
Meanwhile, Mejica posited that he took care of the needs of Yanoc and paid for his hospital bills. 9 He also averred that the amputation of Yanoc's left leg was due to his refusal to have the rotten portion of his left knee removed alleging that it would look very ugly once it was cured. 10
After trial, the RTC ruled that Mejica, being the operator of a common carrier, is liable for the injuries sustained by Yanoc as a result of the accident. 11 Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides as follows:
ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.
Applying the foregoing, the common carrier is presumed to be at fault when the passenger is injured or dies. The testimony of the driver reveals that before embarking on his daily trip, he checked the brake, light, oil, water and gas of the Fuso passenger jitney. However, the RTC found that the driver did not check the engine of the jitney, which later conked out and caused the braking system to fail, ultimately leading to the accident and injury of Yanoc. 12 Accordingly, the RTC ruled that Mejica failed to overcome the presumption of fault or negligence.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, by preponderance of evidence, the court finds the defendant, as a public utility operator, liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage. He is directed to pay the plaintiff the foregoing sum amount:
(a) Moral Damages — P500,000.00
(b) Indemnification for loss of Earning Capacity — P1,248,000.00.
The filing fees due the court shall constitute a lien on the monetary award granted by this court.
SO ORDERED. 13
On appeal, the CA deleted the award of moral damages. It held that as a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. 14 As an exception, such damages are recoverable in cases where: (1) the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith; as provided in Article 2220. 15 The CA ruled that there is no legal basis for awarding moral damages since there was no factual finding that Mejica acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 16 On the contrary, it was established during trial that Mejica religiously answered all the needs of Yanoc from day one of his confinement at the hospital until the latter checked out therefrom. 17
The CA likewise deleted the award of compensatory damages for loss of Yanoc's earning capacity for lack of basis. The CA noted that the computation for the award of compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity was only on the basis of the Certification which, however, fails to state the amount of Yanoc's remuneration. 18 In fact, in an Order dated February 5, 2013, the RTC even denied the admission of the said Certification since it was not properly identified by the person who executed it. 19
The CA further ruled that it also cannot give weight to Yanoc's testimony insofar as his compensation is concerned, absent any documentary evidence, because he is neither self-employed nor employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under the labor laws existing at the time of the accident. 20
Nonetheless, the CA awarded P1,000,000.00 by way of temperate damages. It reiterated that temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. 21
Mejica filed this Petition before the Court assailing the CA Decision.
The Court's Ruling
The Court modifies the CA's ruling.
Here, the Court notes that Yanoc did not appeal the CA's deletion of the award of moral damages, thus, the issues for resolution are (a) whether the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity is proper and (b) whether the amount awarded is reasonable.
The Court agrees with the ruling of the CA to disallow the award of actual damages for loss of earning capacity. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages of loss of earning capacity. 22 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 earning less than minimum wage under current labor laws, and 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. 23
As discussed, Yanoc presented a Certification to show that he used to work at the Provincial Engineer's Office of Negros Oriental as a laborer on a "pakyaw" basis; however, said Certification fails to indicate the amount of remuneration received by Yanoc. 24
There being no sufficient documentary evidence to clearly establish Yanoc's income, actual damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded. Nevertheless, the Court, in a catena of cases, has held that temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured party's actual income. 25Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.26 cites the following cases:
In Pleno v. Court of Appeals, 27 we sustained the award of temperate damages in the amount of P200,000.00 instead of actual damages for loss of earning capacity because the plaintiff's income was not sufficiently proven.
We did the same in People v. Singh28 and People v. Almedilla, 29 granting temperate damages in place of actual damages for the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of the deceased's income.
Similarly, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, 30 we deleted the award of damages for loss of earning capacity for lack of evidentiary basis of the actual extent of the loss. Nevertheless, because the income-earning capacity lost was clearly established, we awarded the heirs P500,000.00 as temperate damages. 31
Thus, it being established that temperate damages may be awarded in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity, the remaining query to be addressed by this Court is whether the amount of P1,000,000.00 is reasonable. Mejica asserts that the award of P1,000,000.00 as temperate damages by the CA, taking into account the factual circumstances of the case, is definitely unreasonable. 32
In the recent case of Spouses Estrada v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. 33(Spouses Estrada), the Court found it reasonable to award the victim, who lost his right arm, the temperate damages of P500,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for the loss/impairment of his earning capacity. In determining the reasonableness of the said amount, Spouses Estrada refers to the cases of: (a) Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., 34 where the Court awarded temperate damages in the amount of P300,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased victim, who was working as a tailor at the time of his death; (b) Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Mangalinao, 35 where the Court likewise awarded temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00 for the demise of Roberto Mangalinao who was at the time of his death the breadwinner of the family and a businessman engaged in buying and selling palay; and (c) People v. Salahuddin, 36 where the Court awarded the temperate damages of P1,000,000.00, when the claim for loss of compensation in the amount P4,398,000.00 of a murdered lawyer was disallowed due to insufficiency of evidence. 37
Considering the aforementioned rulings and factual circumstances of this case, the Court finds reasonable to award Yanoc the temperate damages of P500,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for the loss/impairment of his earning capacity by reason of the loss of his left leg.
The amount of damages awarded is declared subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04948 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Hilario Mejica is liable and ordered to pay respondent Alberto Yanoc temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00, subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-21, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 22-27. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
3.Id. at 31-36. Penned by Judge Marie Rose G. Inocando-Paras.
4.Id. at 22.
5.Id. at 23.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 32.
12.Id. at 33.
13.Id. at 36.
14.Id. at 23, citing Calalas v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 146, 154 (2000), further citing Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266, 273 (1959) and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Esguerra, 203 Phil. 107, 111-112 (1982).
15.Id., citing Calalas v. Court of Appeals, id. at 155.
16.Id. at 24.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 24-25.
19.Id. at 25.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 25-26, citing Victory Liner v. Gammad, 486 Phil. 574, 591 (2004).
22.Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., 654 Phil. 443, 456 (2011), citing Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Tan Lee, 626 Phil. 483, 497 (2010).
23.People v. Oco, 458 Phil. 815, 855 (2003).
24.Rollo, p. 25.
25.Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., supra note 22, at 457.
26.Supra note 22.
27. 244 Phil. 213, 228 and 231 (1988).
28. 412 Phil. 842, 859 (2001).
29. 456 Phil. 719, 726 (2003).
30. Supra note 21, at 591 and 596.
31. Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., supra note 22, at 457.
32. Rollo, p. 17.
33. 813 Phil. 950, 973-974 (2017).
34. Supra note 22, at 457-458, 460.
35. 680 Phil. 89, 109 (2012).
36. 778 Phil. 529 (2016).
37. Id. at 555-556.