THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199611. April 5, 2017.]
APOLONIO S. TANJANGCO, petitioner,vs. ANNALIE E. RODRIN, REYNALDO J. REALES, ARIZONA TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PABLO R. BUENAVENTURA, AND TIMES SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 5, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199611(Apolonio S. Tanjangco vs. Annalie E. Rodrin, Reynaldo J. Reales, Arizona Transport Corporation, Pablo R. Buenaventura, and Times Surety and Insurance Company, Inc.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari 1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated August 5, 2011 and Resolution 3 dated December 13, 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86682. HTcADC
Apolonio S. Tanjangco (Tanjangco) is the registered owner of several vehicles which he used in his hauling and forwarding business. On August 14, 1990, Tanjangco and Pablo Buenaventura (Buenaventura) executed a conditional deed of sale, pursuant to which Tanjangco sold to Buenaventura 15 vehicles, including a Mazda van with plate no. NWM-595, in consideration of P3,000,000.00 to be paid on installment. Upon the signing of the deed of conditional sale, Tanjangco turned over to Buenaventura the registration certificates of the vehicles covered by the sale. The purchase price was fully paid in August 1992. 4
On September 18, 1993, before the certificates of registration of the purchased vehicles were transferred in Buenaventura's name, the Mazda van, then driven by Reynaldo J. Reales (Reales), an employee of Arizona Transport Corporation (Arizona), figured in an accident which left Annalie E. Rodrin (Rodrin) injured. Rodrin then underwent two medical operations, spending around P221,633.89 therefor. Consequently, Rodrin filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City against Tanjangco, Buenaventura, Arizona and Times Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. (Times Surety). Rodrin prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, unearned income in the amount of P50,000.00, and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00. During the trial, Reales admitted that he was the one driving the Mazda van that hit Rodrin in the morning of September 18, 1993. 5
On the other hand, Tanjangco denied any liability on the incident, claiming that he no longer owns the Mazda van. He also filed a cross-claim against Buenaventura claiming that the latter acted in bad faith when he failed to transfer the registration of the purchased vehicles in his name, which thus exposed him to possible liabilities from claims of third persons. He asked that Buenaventura be ordered to pay him the amount of P150,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. Further, he prayed that Buenaventura and Arizona be directed to pay him jointly the following: (1) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (2) P25,000.00 as nominal damages; (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; (4) attorney's fees of not less than P78,000.00; and (5) litigation expenses of not less than P10,000.00. 6
Buenaventura and Arizona, in their joint answer, denied any liability and claimed that Reales was not their authorized driver and, hence, he alone should be held liable for the damages incurred by Rodrin. They likewise denied any liability on Tanjangco's cross-claim for lack of legal and factual merit. 7
On June 11, 2004, the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 259, in Civil Case No. 94-0364, rendered a Decision, 8 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds by preponderance of evidence, in favor of [Rodrin] and against defendants [Reales, Buenaventura and Arizona]. CAIHTE
Defendants [Reales, Buenaventura and Arizona] are hereby ordered to pay [Rodrin], jointly and severally the following amounts:
1. PhP221,633.89 as actual damages with legal rate of interest from date of demand until full payment thereof;
2. PhP100,000.00 as moral damages;
3. PhP50,000.00 for lost income;
4. PhP50,000.00 for attorney's fees and;
5. the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.9
As regards Tanjangco, the RTC opined that he is absolved from any liability considering that he is no longer the owner of the Mazda van; that any arrangements entered into by Buenaventura with Arizona was made without Tanjangco's knowledge and, as such, he could not be made liable for any damage which Rodrin incurred. 10
Only Tanjangco and Buenaventura appealed from the RTC's Decision dated June 11, 2004. Tanjangco averred that the RTC erred in not awarding him the damages he prayed for. On the other hand, Buenaventura claimed that the RTC erred in ruling that he is jointly and severally liable with Reales and Arizona for the damages incurred by Rodrin. 11
On August 5, 2011, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, 12 affirming the RTC decision albeit with modification, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the June 11, 2004 assailed Decision rendered by RTC-Branch 259 of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 94-0364 is hereby AFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATIONby holding[Tanjangco], [Reales] and [Arizona], jointly and solidary liable to pay [Rodrin] the following:
1. PhP221,633.89 as actual damages with legal rate of interest from date of demand until full payment thereof;
2. PhP100,000.00 as moral damages;
3. PhP50,000.00 for lost income;
4. PhP50,000.00 for attorney's fees and;
5. the cost of suit.
In addition, [Buenaventura] is ordered to jointly and severally reimburse with [Reales] and [Arizona], Cross-Claimant-Appellant [Tanjangco] to the extent of the total amount he paid [to] Rodrin as well as moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.13
In ruling that it was Tanjangco, not Buenaventura, who is jointly and solidarily liable with Arizona and Reales to answer for the damages incurred by Rodrin, the CA opined that a registered owner of a vehicle, even if not used for public service, is primarily responsible under Article 2180 of the Civil Code to the public or to third persons for injuries caused to the latter. It ruled that Rodrin has no cause of action against Buenaventura not only because the Mazda van was not registered under his name, but more so because Reales was not his employee. 14
As regards Tanjangco's claim for actual damages, the CA held that Buenaventura, Arizona and Reales are bound to reimburse him the amount of actual damages that he was adjudged to pay Rodrin. The CA further awarded moral damages in favor of Tanjangco in the amount of P100,000.00 based on Article 2220 of the Civil Code. The CA pointed out that had Buenaventura fulfilled his obligation and transferred the registration of the Mazda van in his name, Tanjangco would have avoided liability on the incident. 15
The CA nevertheless denied Tanjangco's claim for exemplary damages since Buenaventura's breach of his agreement with the former was not the immediate cause of the accident that caused injury to Rodrin. 16 The CA likewise ruled that the award of attorney's fees in favor of Tanjangco is not justified. 17
Tanjangco and Buenaventura filed their respective motions for reconsideration, but the same were denied by the CA in its Resolution 18 dated December 13, 2011. aScITE
Hence, this petition filed by Tanjangco.
On February 20, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution, 19 requiring Rodrin, Reales, Arizona, Buenaventura and Times Surety (collectively, the respondents) to file their respective comments to Tanjangco's petition. Rodrin filed her comment to the petition on May 15, 2012. 20 However, despite numerous attempts, the respective notices to respondents Reales, Buenaventura, Arizona and Times Surety to file their comments to Tanjangco's petition were returned unserved for various reasons. Accordingly, considering that the said comments are not necessary for the resolution of this case, the Court hereby dispenses with the comments of respondents Reales, Buenaventura, Arizona and Times Surety.
Essentially, the issues presented for the Court's resolution are the following: first, whether the CA erred in ruling that it was Tanjangco, not Buenaventura, who is jointly and severally liable with Reales and Arizona to indemnify Rodrin for the damages she incurred notwithstanding that Tanjangco's liability to Rodrin was not raised as an issue on appeal; and second, whether the CA erred in not awarding "actual consequential damages," exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorney's fees in favor of Tanjangco.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
First, Tanjangco's claim that the CA may no longer find him jointly and severally liable with Arizona and Reales to indemnify Rodrin since his liability to the latter was not raised as an issue on appeal is untenable. Ordinarily, an appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned. 21 Nevertheless, in Diamonon v. Department of Labor and Employment, 22 the Court explained that an appellate court has a broad discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of errors and considering errors not assigned in the following instances:
(a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter;
(b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law;
(c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of a justice [sic] or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; [and]
(f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent. 23
In this case, Tanjangco's liability to Rodrin, though not raised as an issue in the appeal before the CA, was properly passed upon by the CA since the consideration of the same is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case. It is likewise closely related to the issue raised by Buenaventura in his appeal. Buenaventura, in his appeal with the CA, alleged that he is not jointly and severally liable with Reales and Arizona to indemnify Rodrin for the damages she incurred. Obviously, a resolution of the issue raised by Buenaventura necessitates an inquiry as to who among the respondents in the case below are indeed liable to indemnify Rodrin. Accordingly, the CA could not be faulted for passing upon Tanjangco's liability towards Rodrin. DETACa
In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that it was Tanjangco who is solidarily liable with Arizona and Reales for the damages incurred by Rodrin. All motor vehicles used or operated on or upon any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Land Transportation Office for the current year and any encumbrances of motor vehicles must be recorded with the said office in order to be valid against third parties. 24
In FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation (now BPI Leasing Corp.) v. Spouses Baylon, et al., 25 the Court ruled:
[T]hat the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use. Thus, even if the vehicle has already been sold, leased, or transferred to another person at the time the vehicle figured in an accident, the registered vehicle owner would still be liable for damages caused by the accident. The sale, transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, will not bind third persons aggrieved in an accident involving the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle registration underscores the importance of registering the vehicle in the name of the actual owner. 26
It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, the Mazda van was still registered in the name of Tanjangco. As the registered owner of the Mazda van, Tanjangco cannot avoid liability for damages arising from the negligent operation of the vehicle. On the other hand, the liability of Reales and Arizona stems from the fact that Reales is the driver of the Mazda van at the time of the accident while Arizona is his employer. The registered owner of a vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the driver and the latter's employer for damages incurred by passengers and third persons as a consequence of injuries or death sustained by a third person resulting from the negligent operation of the vehicle. 27 Accordingly, the CA correctly ruled that it is Tanjangco who is solidarily liable with Arizona and Reales to indemnify Rodrin for the damages she incurred arising from the negligent operation of the Mazda van.
Be that as it may, as aptly found by the CA, Buenaventura, as actual owner of the Mazda van, is bound to indemnify Tanjangco of the amount that he may be required to pay as damages for the injury caused to Rodrin. 28
Second, Tanjangco's claim for "actual consequential damages" in the fixed amount of P150,000.00 is not only unclear, but is likewise unfounded.
[A]ctual or compensatory damages are those damages which the injured party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none were intended. Pertaining as they do to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement, they are intended to put the injured party in the position in which he was before he was injured. 29 (Citations omitted)
In this case, the actual or compensatory damages to which Tanjangco is entitled to is that amount which he would actually pay as damages to Rodrin. The Court notes that the CA has already directed Buenaventura, Arizona and Reales to pay Tanjangco whatever amount the latter would pay to Rodrin. Accordingly, Tanjangco's claim for actual damages in this petition is unfounded considering the CA's aforementioned directive. HEITAD
The award of "actual consequential damages" in the fixed amount of P150,000.00 in addition to the actual damages already awarded by the CA is likewise untenable. The rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered. In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable. 30 Here, Tanjangco arbitrarily claimed the amount of P150,000.00 sans any proof therefor.
Equally untenable is Tanjangco's claim for exemplary damages. To warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner. The requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimants' right to them has been established; (2) that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; and (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. 31
Tanjangco's claim for exemplary damages is clearly unfounded. It is true that Buenaventura committed a breach of his contract with Tanjangco when he failed to immediately transfer the registration of the Mazda van in his name. Nevertheless, the records of this case are bereft of any other circumstance which would show that such breach of contract was done in bad faith or in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.
Further, Tanjangco is also not entitled to an award of nominal damages. Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. 32 In this case, Buenaventura's breach of contract resulted to an actual and quantifiable damage, which was incurred by Tanjangco. Indeed, on account of such breach, the award of actual damages was given in favor of Tanjangco. Accordingly, nominal damages cannot be granted to Tanjangco. aDSIHc
Furthermore, Tanjangco is also not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. It is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and attorney's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. 33 It is not sufficient to merely allege that the claimant of attorney's fees was compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought; there must be a showing that the losing party acted willfully or in bad faith and practically compelled the claimant to litigate and incur litigation expenses. 34
Tanjangco merely alleged that he was compelled to litigate with third persons and incur expenses therefor as a consequence of Buenaventura's breach and nothing more. Absent any proof that Buenaventura acted willfully or in bad faith in causing damage to Rodrin, which thus compelled Tanjangco to litigate and incur litigation expenses, the award of attorney's fees in favor of Tanjangco is properly denied.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated August 5, 2011 and Resolution dated December 13, 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86682 are AFFIRMED."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-43.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring; id. at 45-65.
3.Id. at 67-69.
4.Id. at 47-48.
5.Id. at 48.
6.Id. at 49-50.
7.Id. at 50.
8. Rendered by Judge Zosimo V. Escano; id. at 70-81.
9.Id. at 81.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 51-53.
12.Id. at 45-65.
13.Id. at 64-65.
14.Id. at 58.
15.Id. at 61-62.
16.Id. at 62-63.
17.Id. at 64.
18.Id. at 67-69.
19.Id. at 84.
20.Id. at 111-113.
21.Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol & Tibayan v. Court of Appeals, 430 Phil. 53, 61 (2002).
22. 384 Phil. 15 (2000).
23.Id. at 23.
24.Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), Section 5.
25. 668 Phil. 184 (2011).
26.Id. at 195.
27.See Spouses Jayme v. Apostol, et al., 592 Phil. 425, 437 (2008).
28.See Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v.Mangalinao, et al., 680 Phil. 89, 107 (2012).
29.Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. v. Barretto, 657 Phil. 607, 616 (2011).
30.Id. at 617.
31.Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., 405 Phil. 741, 750 (2001).
32.Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 33, 43, citing Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., id. at 751.
33.See Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine, 489 Phil. 380, 402 (2005), citing Inter-Asia Investments Industries, Inc. v. CA, 451 Phil. 554, 562 (2003).
34.Buñing v. Santos, 533 Phil. 610, 616 (2006).