Fleabite - Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction

ANNOTATION FLEABITE: DAMAGES AWARDS IN PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION
By ROGELIO E. SUBONG*
_____________________________
I. Introduction, p. 552 II. Damages Defined, p. 554
1) In Philippine Jurisdiction, p. 554 2) In American Jurisdiction, p. 555
III. Distinction Among Damages, Damage & Injury, p. 556 IV. Damages in Philippine Law, p. 557 V. Kinds of Damages and their definitions, p. 558
1) Actual or Compensatory, p. 558 2) Moral, p. 559 3) Nominal, p. 559 4) Temperate and Moderate, p. 559 5) Liquidated, p. 560 6) Exemplary or corrective, p. 561
VI. Rationale of Damages, p. 562
VII. Some Pertinent Cases Showing Amounts of Damages Awarded by the Courts, p. 563 VIII. The Long and Hard Road to Decent Damages Awards, p. 572 IX. Significance of Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., p. 574 X. Conclusion, p. 575
______________________________ I. Introduction
Stupidity pays in American courts!!! An elderly woman bought coffee from a McDonald drive-through in New Mexico, USA. She placed the cup of hot coffee between her knees and
_______________
* A.B 62 (UP) & LL.B 66 (UP).
553
VOL. 281, NOVEMBER 7, 1997
553
Fleabite: Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction
tried to pull the lid off. The coffee spilled onto her lap and scalded her buttocks, thighs and labia. She sued McDonalds for gross negligence for selling this hot unreasonably dangerous coffee. Did the court throw out her case? Think again. Inspite of the warning on the coffee cup (Caution: Contents Hot!), the jury rewarded her with that incredible amount of $2.9 million in damages! (Are Lawyers Burning America?, Newsweek, March 15, 1995, pp. 22-25). The case was settled for an undisclosed amount but still hefty enough to encourage her to buy another cup of scalding hot coffee from another McDonald chain, and balance the same on top of her head while drivingfor another rip off. A tenant in Montana, U.S.A., sued the apartment owner for damages because she slipped over pebbles on the sidewalk of her rented unit. The lower court granted the motion for summary judgment of the landlord. But the Montana Supreme Court reversed the ruling and remanded the case for trial as it held that this failure to maintain the sidewalk was negligence per se (Tripped Up, ABA Journal, December, 1996, pp. 38-39). And an ex-smoker sued a cigarette company before a Florida court for damages for allegedly smoke-related illness. He knew the risk in smoking and received daily warnings labeled on every pack he buys. Did the court throw out his complaint? In fact he was awarded $750,000.00 for deliberately causing his own illness (Litigants Talk Tobacco, ABA Journal, June 1997, pp. 20-21).
What do the plaintiffs in American courts have in common? All three indubitably possess a luminous traitunmitigated stupidity! But, all these morons may be laughing all the way to the bank.
In American jurisdiction, awards of damages, especially punitive damages have been sometimes astronomical. The heirs of airplane crash victims are guaranteed at least P75,000 for the death of each passenger under an international treaty and a Federal Act. But the Americans are not happy about this amount and they wanted more. A couple sued before the US District Court in Charleston, South Carolina, a car manufacturer for damages for the death of their
554
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
son (Sergio Jimenez III) after being thrown out of a station wagon due to an allegedly defective latch in the door. The award? A whopping $ 262.5 million in damages ($12.5 million in compensatory damages and $250 million dollars in punitive damages)! This is only for the death of one person (a child whose life expectancy and expected earnings is not yet clearly defined) and perhaps, there was even contributory negligence on the part of the couple who must have left the child unattended while inside the vehicle (ABA Journal, December, 1997, p. 16). Residents of a mostly black neighborhood of New Orleans, Louisiana, who suffered mostly minor ailments after a railroad chemical fire (no death occurred) were awarded an eye-popping judgment of $3.4 billion!!! (ABA Journal, November, 1997, p. 38).
These awards present a sharp and pathetic contrast to awards decreed by our courts for multiple deaths arising from tortious acts and breach of contract of carriage. The case of Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Ramon Miranda, Sps. Ricardo & Virginia Miranda, G.R. No. 110398, promulgated on November 7, 1997, highlights the hard and long climb for commensurate damages in our courts. Before we discuss and analyze the significance of this case, let us first bring out some pertinent matters in Philippine and American jurisdictions on the concept of damages. II. Damages Defined 1) In Philippine jurisdiction
a) From a legal authority
Professor Melquiades J. Gamboa, in his classic work, An Introduction to Philippine Law, 2nd Ed., p. 362, defined Damages as the indemnity which a person can recover as compensation for an injury sustained, either in his person, property, or rights. Under the Civil Law damnum or dao is the detriment, harm, or loss to person or property which is occasioned by the fault of another (Escriche, Diccionario de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia, II, p. 579).
555
555
Damages is the recompense or compensation awarded for the loss or damage suffered; otherwise expressed, it is the pecuniary value of the consequences which the law imposes for the breach of duty or violation of some right. (Carmelo V. Sison, Handbook on the Philippine Law on Damages, 1993 ed., p. 1).
b) From decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
In legal contemplation, the term damages is the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury done or wrong sustained as a consequence either of a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortuous act.Abbas vs. McPherson, 40 O.G. 2122
The generic term damages includes all kinds of damages contemplated in the Civil Code. Hence, in asking for any kind of damages, a party places himself at the disposal of the court which, under the law, is given the discretion to assess moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, without proof of pecuniary loss.Fuentes v. Carmel Corporation, 75 O.G. 1909.
The above definitions of the courts were reproduced from Justice Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 159.
2) In American jurisdiction
American Jurisprudence defines damages as the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence either of a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act. Expressed in other terms, damages are the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right (22 Am Jur 2d 13).
Damages is the word which expresses in dollars and cents the injury sustained by a plaintiff and includes both the original debt or damage and whatever interest ought to be
556
556
added to make a just verdict. Fidelity & C. Co. v. Huse & Carleton, 272 Mass 448, 172 NE 590, 72 ALR 1143 (Ibid.). Blacks Law Dictionary defines Damages as a pecuniary compensation or indemnification, which may be recovered in the courts by any person who has suffered loss, detriment, or injury, whether to his person, property or rights, through the unlawful act or omission or negligence of another. A sum of money awarded to a person injured by the tort of another. Restatement, Second, Torts, S 12A (Abridged Fifth Edition, p. 204).
This is the same definition given in Ballentines Law Dictionary citing Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. vs. Hanna (CA 5 Fla) 224 F2d 499, 53 ALR 2d 1125 (Third Edition, p. 303).
Oxford Reference: A Concise Dictionary of Law defines Damages as a sum of money awarded by a court as compensation for a tort or a breach of contract. Damages are awarded as a lump sum. The general principle is that the plaintiff is entitled to full compensation (restitutio in integrum) for his losses (Second Edition, p. 113). III. Distinction Among Damages, Damage and Injury
The terms Damages, Damage and Injury are sometimes used interchangeably, but each has a distinct technical legal meaning. Damages, as set forth above, pertains to the monetary payment or the scale or measure of recovery for a person who suffered loss or injury due to breach of contract or tortious act of another. While damage, pertains to the resultant loss, hurt or harm upon such person; and finally, injury pertains to the invasion or violation of legal right or breach of duty or the legal wrong to be redressed.
Hence, by way of example, let us take the case of a passenger of a common carrier who dies or loses a leg in a vehicular accident. Damages refers to the amount of money he may recover for the loss of his leg or which his heirs may recover in case of his death; damage refers to the fact of his loss of his
557
557
leg or his death which resulted from the accident; and injury refers to the wrongful loss of his leg or his wrongful death. IV. Damages in Philippine Law
The modern concept and principles of damages in our jurisdiction have been mostly adopted from American laws and jurisprudence. Our Civil Law system did not get much from the Spanish legal system in the area of damages. This is evident from the old Civil Code which is also known as the Civil Code of Spain in 1889. For half a century this Code was the source of our Civil Law or that body of legal provisions that governs the relationship of the members of the national community with each other. Under the old code, there were only general principles on damages not as clearly defined as in American jurisprudence. Provisions on Damages therein mainly pertain to compensatory damages and damages pursuant to a penal clause in a contract. The old code did not expressly recognize the concept of moral damages although it has been awarded by the High Court in some cases. What is noteworthy is that the provision that absolves an obligor for damages due to fortuitous event had been reproduced from the old code (Art. 1107a) to the new Code in an amended and rephrased form as Art. 2201. This provision has spawned a wealth of jurisprudence on breach of contract and culpa aquilana or tortious cases.
The Code Commission specifically created by law to revise and update the old Civil Code of Spain of 1899 explained the inclusion of more comprehensive provisions on damages in the new code:
The subject of Damages is introduced in the Project. The present Code has but few general principles on the measure of damage. Moreover, practically the only damages in the present code are compensatory ones and those agreed upon in a penal clause. Moral damages are not expressly recognized as in the present Civil Code, although in one instanceinjury to reputationsuch damages have been allowed by the Supreme Court of Spain and some Spanish jurists believed that moral damages are allowable. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has awarded moral damages in a few cases.
558
558
The measure of damages is of far-reaching importance in every legal system. Upon it depends the just compensation for every wrong or breach of contract.
The Commission has, therefore deemed it advisable to include in the project a Title on Damages which embodies some principles of American law on the subject. The American courts have developed abundant rules and principles upon the adjudication of damages (Report of the Code Commission reproduced from Carmelo V. Sison, Handbook on Philippine Law on Damages, 1993 ed., p. 1). V. Kinds of Damages and Their Definitions Thus under the new Civil Code, a body of provisions ondamages as culled from American jurisprudence was specifically provided. Under the new Civil Code, the provisions ondamages are set forth in Title XVIIIDamages, Chapter 1,Articles 2195 to 2235. In these articles particularly Art. 2197,there are six (6) forms of damages as specified in the law,namely:
1) Actual or compensatory; 2) Moral; 3) Nominal; 4) Temperate or moderate; 5) Liquidated; or 6) Exemplary or corrective.
As to their specific definitions
1) Actual or compensatory
This is not directly defined by the pertinent provision of the new Civil Code.
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved, such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
From the above, actual or compensatory damages are such pecuniary loss suffered by a person and duly proved by him.
The Supreme Court has defined actual and compensatory damages as those recoverable because of pecuniary lossin
559
559
business, trade, property, profession, job, or occupation, and the same must be proved (Perfecto vs. Gonzales, 128 SCRA 635 (1984); Rubio vs. CA, 141 SCRA 488 (1986). 2) Moral
Under the new Civil Code, the term moral damages is defined by way of enumerating the things included in this term:
Art. 2217. Moral Damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury, though capable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered.
From the above provisions, we can infer that moral damages are monetary compensation although not capable of pecuniary computation for defendants wrongful act or omission resulting to physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. 3) Nominal
The term nominal damages is not also directly defined in the new Civil Code. However, the pertinent codal provision provides the basic idea of this form of damages:
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
In American jurisdiction, nominal damages are either those damages recoverable where a legal right is to be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or from the nature of the case, some compensable injury has been shown but the amount of that injury has not been proved (22 Am Jur 2d 20).
560
560
Fleabite: Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction 4) Temperate or moderate
Also the term temperate or moderate damages has not been categorically defined under the new Civil Code, but it suggests its nature and provides condition when it may be recovered.
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages which are more than nominal, but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
Temperate or moderate damages are between nominal and compensatory. This is when the court finds that there was monetary loss suffered but the amount cannot be exactly quantified owing to the nature of the case. The definition of this term in American Jurisprudence is about similar to what we have in the new Civil Code for we borrowed this concept from the Americans. Temperate damages are those allowed in certain classes, without proof of actual or special damage, where the wrong done must in fact have caused actual damage to the plaintiff though from the nature of the case, he cannot furnish independent, distinct proof thereof. Temperate damages are more than nominal damages, and, rather, are such as would be a reasonable compensation for the injury sustained. The amount thus allowed is to be
fixed by the jury, but the court in its instructions should give the jury some data from which to determine what would be temperate damages (22 Am Jur 2d 33).
This species of damages is difficult to fix precise monetary equivalent and it includes loss of goodwill, commercial credit or expected customers/clients for a particular enterprise. 5) Liquidated
As to liquidated damages, the new Civil Code has defined the term:
561
561
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
The concept of liquidated damages is clear here. It is simply the amount a contracting party categorically bound himself to pay upon breaching a written agreement or contract. Liquidated damages means a sum stipulated and agreed upon by the parties at the time of entering into a contract, as being payable as compensation for injuries in the event of a breach (22 Am Jur 2d 297). 6) Exemplary or corrective
The term exemplary or corrective damages under the new Civil Code is not directly defined but its nature is also suggested.
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
From the above the following definition may be elicited: Exemplary or corrective damages are another species of monetary compensation in favor of a person, as additional award, who has been adjudged to be entitled to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. In American jurisdiction, exemplary or corrective damages are called punitive damagesa form of money judgment which is most feared by defendants in suits for damages in American courts. The reason is that while other damages may only be limited by the evidence presented, the jury can award billions of dollars in punitive damages, as it may fancy.
Exemplary, or punitive, damages are generally defined or described as damages which are given as an enhancement of compensatory damages because of the wanton, reckless, malicious, or oppressive character of the acts complained of. Such damages go beyond the compensatory damages suffered in the case; they are allowed as a punishment of the defendant and as a deterrent to others (22 Am Jur 2d 322).
562
562
Fleabite: Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction VI. Rationale of Damages
Damages have been devised in the law to fulfill one of its basic goalsto effect a form of justice to those who have been civilly and criminally wronged. In criminal law, justice is usually in the form of death or imprisonment of the accused, fine or damages, or prevention from occupying certain positions (e.g., disqualification from assuming a public office) or forfeiture of certain benefits. Aside from these sanctions, there may be also monetary judgments in the form of fines and damages. In Civil Law, justice may be in the form of judgments granting mandatory or prohibitory reliefs to the plaintiffs. Then in addition thereto, there may be monetary awards for amounts due to a collecting party or damages for certain breach of contract or tortious act.
Damages aim to pecuniarily compensate a person for the wrong done to him to enable him to pick up the pieces so to speak and as a balm to a wounded feeling. All these six (6) forms of damages have a common denominatorpecuniary exaction which is expressed in pesos and centavos when awarded by the courts. The concept of Damages rests upon the need to pay monetary compensation to the aggrieved party based upon the principle of practicality and acceptance of the unthinkable and the unchangeable (death or destruction) and the need for the claimants to move on and go on with their lives after the wrong upon his person or property or wrong (death) upon his relative. In other words, there is the unarticulated assumption that a wrong has been done and nothing more can be done also to resurrect the dead, fully restore the injured limbs or repair or return to original state a damaged property. Hence, the next best thing is to award monetarily the wronged party or his heirs for what happened to him or to his property either as compensation or as punishment to send a strong signal to those who might commit a similar violation in the future.
563
563
Fleabite: Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction VII. Some Pertinent Cases Showing Amounts of Damages Awarded by the Courts
a) Layda vs. CA, 90 Phil. 724 (1952)
Let us discuss cases decided after the war when the new Civil Code took effect. We have Layda vs. CA, 90 Phil. 724 (1952) which uniquely ruled moral damages as in the nature of exemplary damages to serve as warning to negligent operators. A passenger was thrown out of a bus when it hit the side of a mountain in Barotac Viejo, Iloilo province sometime in November, 1948. He suffered serious injuries in his body (ribs and lungs) and was treated in the hospital that prevented him from working for some time. He sued the operator for damages for which the trial court awarded him P4,000 in moral damages and P915 in actual damages. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the award of moral damages was reduced to P500 and actual damages to P495.55.
Plaintiff questioned the CA ruling as most unfair and he invited attention of previous rulings of the High Court wherein commensurate awards of moral damages were granted to plaintiffs. Held: Judgment modified. The trial court award of moral damages of P4,000 was restored and the rest of the CA decision was affirmed. The High Court observed that respondent is a public utility operator whose commitment is to serve the public carefully, prudently and diligently so that the passengers may be brought by his men with safety to their place of destination. Here moral damages took the nature of exemplary damages:
There is need of imposing a stern and commensurate indemnity to the victim to serve as an exemplary measure and as a warning to all similarly situated to put a stop to the rampant and seemingly ever increasing accidents and mishaps caused by a flagrant disregard of traffic law and regulations. In this respect, the award of P4,000 given by the court a quo to the petitioner is reasonable.
The rule is that exemplary damages are warranted when moral damages are awarded. And in case no death results from breach of contract of carriage, granting moral damages
564
564
is only justified when there is proof of bad faith on the part of the carrier (Art. 2220). This decision did not exactly follow the concepts of moral and exemplary damages.
b) Alcantara vs. Surro and Meralco, 93 Phil. 472 (1953)
Another case involving breach of contract of carriage was Alcantara vs. Surro & Meralco, 93 Phil. 471 (1953). Sometime in November, 1945, during the early months of the Liberation, a bus of Meralco, which was then engaged in public utility, hit another vehicle also owned by it. The collision pinned to death a passenger. The minor children of the decedent sued for damages and were awarded the following: P18,000 expected salary for 4 years (1946 to 1949); P5,000 moral and patrimonial damages for physical and moral sufferings of his family and P2,155 as pecuniary expenses. Both parties appealed mainly questioning the award of damages. Held: Decision affirmed. The High Court held that there was no fixed basis for determining indemnity for the heirs of a deceased person. Much is left to the discretion of the court considering the moral and material damages involved. The lower court considered the following factors: 1) tender ages of the plaintiffs at the time of the death of their father; 2) age and life expectancy of deceased; 3) health of deceased at time of death; 4) earning capacity of deceased; 5) actual pecuniary damages; 6) pain and suffering of deceased and plaintiffs; 7) pecuniary situation of the party liable.
The High Court sustained the award of P18,000 representing the expected salary of decedent for 4 years had he lived. It cited Com. Act No. 284 setting a ceiling of
P2,000 for civil liability for death of a person but it pointed out that this amount has been increased to P6,000 since Liberation in criminal cases as a matter of right and without necessity of proof. While the lower court noted that under the American Experience Table of Mortality, the deceased had a life expectancy of 28.90 years (he died at 39 years old), it did not adopt this basis but fixed the award on the expected income for 4 years.
565
565
c) Manila Steamship Co., Inc. vs. Insa Abdulhaman, et al., 100 Phil. 33 (1956)
Manila Steamship Co., Inc. vs. Insa Abdulhaman, et al., 100 Phil. 33 (1956) involved the collision of 2 small motor vessels off the cost San Ramon Beach, Zamboanga City in 1948. Nine (9) passengers of the smaller vessel, a motor launch died after the latter capsized. A suit was filed against the 2 owners of the vessels by the heirs. The lower court found both vessels at fault and rendered judgment against the owners solidarity. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of joint liability of the 2 vessel owners but exempted the owner of the motor launch since this vessel sank and was a total loss. For the death of the 9 passengers the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court award of P20,784.00 plus one-half of the cost. Held: The award of damages was affirmed, but both defendants were declared solidarily liable inspite of the sinking of the other vessel because liability extends beyond the value of the vessel if the owner thereof was at fault for the accident.
d) Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 32 SCRA 511 (1970)
Then in 1970, the High Court came out with a landmark ruling on the computation of monetary payment for wrongful deaths in Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 32 SCRA 511 (1970). This became a leading guide for the courts in determining damages for heirs based upon the life expectancy of the deceased. Sometime in March 1970, a young man boarded a bus of a transport company bound for Manila from Lingayen, Pangasinan. When this bus reached a bridge in Minalin, Pampanga, it suddenly bumped an animal-driven cart carrying bamboo poles one of which pierced the bus windshield and hitting a passenger in the head causing his death. The sisters of the deceased who was 30 years old and single at the time of death, sued for a total of P63,750.00 in damages for this wrongful death caused by breach of contract of carriage. The lower court granted the entire claim which
566
566
decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals. The bus company appealed the amounts of damages awarded.
Held: Decision affirmed. The High Court held that in determining the amount of damages, two (2) factors should be considered: a) life expectancy of the deceased; and b) fixed loss of beneficiaries. As to life expectancy, the High Court adopted the formula of the trial court and followed by the Court of Appeals as derived from American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality: The formula is as follows: 2/3 x [80 average life span of a person barring disease, etc., minus 30age of deceased]. In this case, 2/3 x 50 equals 33.33 yearsthe life expectancy of the deceased. And as to the fixed loss of the
beneficiaries, the High Court ruled that this pertained to net earnings of the deceased (gross minus necessary expenses) through the years of life expectancy, plus certain items set forth in the decision. It rejected the ruling in Alcantara vs. Surro, supra, wherein damages were computed on a fixed four (4)-year basis.
e) Davila vs. PAL, 49 SCRA 497 (1973)
As in other cases decided thereafter, the Supreme Court applied the Villa Rey computation in Davila vs. PAL, 49 SCRA 497 (1973). In 1960, a young lawyer took a Phil. Airlines plane from Iloilo City bound for Manila. The plane crashed at Mt. Baco, a mountain in Mindoro Island killing the victims or a total of 32 persons including crew. In a suit filed by Davilas parents, the trial court awarded damages for which both parties appealed.
Held: Decision affirmed with modification as to awards. The High Court found the airline company at fault as the plane was 32 miles off-course when tragedy struck. It modified the award by applying the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial American Expectancy Table of Mortality with adjustment owing to the health of the deceased. The computed life expectancy of the deceased of about 25 years was multiplied with his net yearly income. Thus the High Court awarded the following: P195,000 for expected earnings for 25 years, actual losses from the crash; and
567
567
P10,000 for moral damages; and P10,000 for attorneys fees. P10,000 for exemplary damages previously awarded was eliminated as there was no wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent actuation on the part of the airline.
f) BLTBCO, et al., vs. CA, et al., 64 SCRA 427 (1975)
However, in BLTBCO, et al. vs. CA, et al., 64 SCRA 427 (1975) the Villa Rey formula was not applied in computing the benefits for the heirs of a victim of an accident. Sometime in February, 1963, a passenger bus overtook a vehicle along the South Superhighway resulting in a head-on collision with an oncoming vehicle. The heirs of the deceased and a survivor sued for and were awarded damages by the trial court for this accident. This decision was appealed by the bus company, particularly the reasonableness of the awards.
Held: Decision affirmed. The award of P4,988.84 for hospitalization, P8,000 for loss of earnings of the daughter who died (the Villa Rey formula was not applied), doctors fees of P3,000, reduction of earnings of P3,000; moral damages of P4,000 and attorneys fee of P1,000 were either found reasonable or moderate.
g) Del Castillo vs. Jaymalin, 112 SCRA 637 (1982)
In Del Castillo vs. Jaymalin, 112 SCRA 637 (1982) the High Court increased the payment for wrongful death pursuant to law but saw no reason to uphold the award for expected loss of earnings. A father sued a bus company operating in the Bicol Region for the death of his son, a deaf mute who fell because he was not assisted while alighting from a bus of latter. A few days thereafter, he died in June, 1960. The suit for damages dragged for years after the lower court awarded P6,000 for damages for the death of the son, P35,000 for lost of earning capacity and P5,000 attorneys fees.
Held: Decision affirmed. The case had actually pended for 22 years. The High Court increased the death payment from P6,000 to P12,000 in line with the prevailing rate at the time, and attorneys fees of P2,000. The award for loss of earning capacity was eliminated for lack of proof.
568
568
g) Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 121 SCRA 769 (1983)
Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 121 SCRA 769 (1983) showed how our courts are somewhat sparing in awarding damages in other forms of breach of contract of carriage which do not result in death or physical injuries to passengers. A vessel named M/V Sweet Grace was advertised as bound for Catbalogan, Western Samar in July 1972. Passengers bound for Catbalogan boarded it. Its departure was delayed due to engine trouble and when it finally left it decided to skip Catbalogan and proceeded directly to Tacloban City so that it can return to Manila on schedule. Thus, passengers bound for Catbalogan had no recourse but to alight at Tacloban City and get a ferry for Catbalogan. Four of the Catbalogan-bound passengers sued for damages which action was sustained by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Breach of contract was found and the following awards were decreed by the courts: P75,000 moral damages for the 4 plaintiffs, P30,000 exemplary damages and P5,000 attorneys fees. The shipping company appealed.
Held: Decision affirmed with modification. The finding of bad faith was upheld by the High Court. It cited Art. 614 of the Code of Commerce as to the liability of a captain who fails to fulfill his undertaking and Art. 2220 of the Civil Code awarding moral damages in case of bad faith in a breach of contract of carriage. However, it modified the decision by reducing the award of moral damages to only P3,000 for each of the four (4) plaintiffs. The award of exemplary damages was eliminated because it cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the Court decides whether or not they should be adjudicated.
h) Dee Hua Long Electrical Equipment Corp. vs. Reyes, 145 SCRA 713 (1986)
The case of Dee Hua Long Electrical Equipment Corp. vs. Reyes, 145 SCRA 713 (1986) does not involve breach of contract of carriage but fraudulent sale of defective products. In American courts, this will bring in a hefty amount of punitive
569
569
damages. An electronic repair shop owner sued for damages an electronic parts supplier for parts sold to the former. Plaintiffs received complaints for inadequate repairs of TV and stereo sets which they traced to defective capacitors bought from defendant. Defendant defaulted after the filing of the complaint. The lower court awarded the following: P50,000 actual damages; P50,000 as moral damages; P50,000 as exemplary damages; and P10,000 as attorneys fees. After several attempts of defendant to reinstate its standing in court failed, it appealed to the High Court.
Held: Order of default affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court eliminated all damages and merely granted P5,000 by way of nominal damages.
It explained that actual damages cannot be awarded because no proof of actual loss except the mere sworn declarations of private respondents about the allegedly defective or low quality capacitors. It must be struck for want of adequate
foundation. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved. As to moral damages, to be justified, the claimant must satisfactory prove the existence of the factual basis of the damages. Then too, exemplary damages cannot be recovered since plaintiff is not entitled to moral or compensatory damages, and again because the petitioner is not shown to have acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless or oppressive manner. And finally, attorneys fee was not awarded because there was no proof of refusal in gross and evident bad faith to satisfy the claim of plaintiff.
i) De Lima vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., 160 SCRA 70 (1988)
De Lima vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., 160 SCRA 70 (1988) showed how for 30 years the wheels of justice grinned ever so slow. Since the case was overtaken by events, the High Court made liberal adjustments on the award of damages in keeping with the latest level of awards for damages. A vehicular accident involved a passenger bus and a delivery truck of a soft drinks company sometime in June, 1958. This resulted in death of a passenger and serious physical injuries to 2 others.
570
570
The relative of the deceased and the 2 injured passengers brought separate civil actions for damages which were jointly heard and decided.
The trial court awarded damages which when appealed to the Court of Appeals the latter fixed the civil indemnity for the death of the passenger to only P3,000. The
defendant appealed. The heir of the deceased passenger asked for the increase of the P3,000 to P12,000.
Held: Although the heir of the deceased did not appeal from the lower court the award on the amount of moral damages, the High Court still increased the amount not only to the P12,000 asked for but to the prevailing rate under existing jurisprudence to P30,000 as the case had pending in court for about 30 years from the date of the accident in 1958. It declared:
x x x this Court is inclined to adopt a liberal stance in this case as We have done in previous decision where we have held that litigations should as much as possible be decided on their merits and not on technicality.
x x x x civil indemnity for the death of Petra de la Cruz was properly awarded by virtue of Art. 1764 in relation to Art. 2206 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which allows a minimum indemnity of P3,000.00 for the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence the indemnity of P3,000 should be increased to P30,000.00 and not P12,000.00 as prayed for by petitioner.
j) Kapalaran Bus Line vs. Coronado, et al., 176 SCRA 792 (1989)
In Kapalaran Bus Line vs. Coronado, et al., 176 SCRA 792 (1989) the High Court imposed not only the usual damages, but also exemplary damages to warn common carriers to observe utmost diligence in transporting their passengers. Sometime in August 1982, a passenger bus overtook vehicles in an intersection in Laguna, for which it hit a jeepney head-on. After trial in a complaint even initiated by this bus company, trial court found the bus company at fault and directed it to pay compensatory damages, exemplary damages and
571
571
attorneys fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but eliminated the award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees and cost of litigation.
Held: The High Court restored and increased the exemplary damages (from P10,000 to P25,000). It also restored the award of attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The Court imposed exemplary damages because it found that the driver of the bus company was grossly and very probably criminally negligent in his reckless disregard of the rights of other vehicles and their passengers and of pedestrians as well. It thus concluded:
x x x The law seeks to stop and prevent the slaughter and maiming of people (whether passengers or not) and the destruction of property (whether freight or not) on our highways by buses, the very size and power of which seem often to inflame the minds of drivers. Article 2231 of the Civil Code explicitly authorizes the imposition of exemplary damages in cases of quasi-delicts if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Thus, we believe that the award of exemplary damages by the trial court was quite proper x x x.
k) People vs. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 (1992)
People vs. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 (1992) does not pertain to breach of contract of carriage, nevertheless it demonstrates the more recent adjustments by the High Court in the computation of damages arising from wrongful deaths. This is a criminal prosecution of an accused who stabbed to death his officer-in-charge in a government office. After trial, he was found guilty and was sentenced to years in prison with monetary damages for the death of the offended party. Accused appealed.
Held: Decision affirmed. What is pertinent is the modified award of damages by the High Court: P50,000 indemnity for death citing prevailing jurisprudence (People vs. Bartulay, 192 SCRA 621 (1990); P26,445.00 as actual damages/burial expenses was not altered; P114,000 by way of loss of earnings after deducting approximate earnings during the years deceased was expected to live and earn income (1980 updated Mortality Table after the 1970 table from the Villa Rey case
572
572
due to advances in medicine life expectancy has become longer); P10,000 educational assistance to the heirs; and P20,000 as moral damages. These are actually empty awards since the accused could not pay them. But these are set forth as moral gesture and as guide for the courts.
l) People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995)
Finally, the High Court came up with damages awards which are somewhat in tune with the times in People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995). This is not again a breach of contract of carriage case, but the fairly large amount of damages decreed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is worth mentioning. This was a sensational case that hug the headlines in the early 1990s when the son and namesake of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shot to death 2 teenagers and wounded another inside Forbes Park, Makati City, for no apparent reason in the early morning of July, 1991. The dead were Maureen Hultman, a 17 year old girl and
a Roland Chapman, a foreigner. The accused was tried for murders and frustrated murder and found guilty. He was sentenced to 2 Reclusion Perpetua for the 2 murders and prison term for frustrated murder. The lower court awarded considerable amounts of damages which award was basically upheld by the High Court: For the death of Roland Chapman, P50,000 as civil indemnity and P1,000,000 for moral damages; for the death of Maureen Hultman, P50,000 as civil indemnity for her death, P2,350, 461.83 as actual damages, P564,042.57 for loss of earning capacity of the deceased, P1,000,000 for moral damages, and P2,000,000 for exemplary damages; For the Frustrated Murder of Jussi Olavi Leino, P30,000 for his injuries, P118,369.84 for actual damages, P1,000,000 for moral damages and P2,000,000 for exemplary damages. VIII. The Long and Hard Road to Decent Damages Awards
It is pathetic that our laws are a little unhurried in giving due recognition to the value of human life and limbs as well as human pain and sufferings. Indeed, how much is the value
573
573
of human life? A legal system that hardly accords appropriate importance to the value of human life is misdirected or bereft of noble purpose. After all law pertains to people and to the protection of human worth and dignity. If law ignores the basic value of a person it becomes ultimately a sham and a sophisticated pursuit of emptiness. There is something even lopsided about the emphasis we place upon safeguards to human rights mainly of the accused in crimes. There are so many of them which the Constitution sets forth with eloquence and emphatic grace. Many have asked, how about the rights of the victims? Yes, the rights of the victims of
crime, breach of contract and tort which are not as well-defined. This lackadaisical attitude is reflected in the way the courts have placed a value upon human life and limb.
Let us retrace the long and arduous road to a more decent rate for wrongful death. Before the war, the courts awarded the measly amount of P1,000 for wrongful death. Then a ceiling for the value of human life was fixed in a law passed also before the war, Com. Act No. 284. This law allowed the court to fix civil liability for the death of a person at a reasonable sum taking into consideration the financial standing of the person liable and related circumstances but the amount should not exceed P2,000. Thus courts had followed these guidelines and ceiling until after Liberation when the new Civil Code came into effect in 1950. The Code increased somewhat the value of human life in Art. 2206, wherein it provides:
The amount of death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least Three Thousand pesos even though there may have been mitigating circumstance.
Then, deaths arising from crime had been increased to P6,000 without necessity of proof as decided in People vs. Amansec, 80 Phil. 424. (Alcantara vs. Surro & Meralco, supra) This award of P6,000 for wrongful death was also sustained in M. Ruiz Highway Transit vs. Court of Appeals, 11 SCRA 98.
574
574
Thereafter, owing to inflation and increase in the standards of living, P6,000 was doubled to P12,000 in the case of People vs. Pantoja, 25 SCRA 468. Then again this amount was raised to P30,000 in De Lima vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., supra, decided in 1988 which should reflect the living standards of the 1980s. And finally, this amount was increased to P50,000 in People vs. Quilaton, supra and People vs. Teehankee, supra, cases decided in the 1990s. This award of P50,000 in the form of compensatory damages was again upheld in the case under annotation, wherein heirs of the 3 passengers who died in the sinking of the vessel were awarded a total of P150,000 or P50,000 for each.
This amount of P50,000 or perhaps more seems never sufficient since we can never really peg a value to human life. IX. Significance of Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
It would seem that the Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. CA, supra is just one of those uneventful decisions of the High Court. Considering its reliance upon the Mecenas case in the matter of negligence of the common carrier, the impression is that nothing new has been added in our jurisprudence by this decision. But then, as what we learned in law school, very rarely are there two (2) cases that are exactly on all fours, in a manner of speaking. The Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. CA supra, pertains to one of those suits filed by the heirs of some of the victims of that illfated ship named M/V Don Juan that plied the ManilaBacolod run. After many years of litigation and appeals, the plaintiffs (Atty. Ramon Mirandawho sued for his wife and 2 children and his brother-in-law and sisterwho sued for their daughter) were finally awarded damages for the deaths of their relatives: P23,075 for actual damages; P109,038.96 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity of wife; P150,000 compensatory damage for wrongful death of the 3 victims; P300,000, as moral damages; P300,000 as exemplary damages, all in the total amount of P882,113.96; and P40,000 as attorneys fees. Similar awards were declared for the other plaintiffs.
575
575
What is noteworthy about the awards is that the High Court sustained moral damages of P100,000 for each of the victims, compensatory damages of P50,000 for each of the victims, and attorneys fees of P40,000. On the other hand, it increased exemplary damages to P100,000 for each of the victims. Compared to what the plaintiffs would be getting for these deaths in American courts, these amounts as well as previous awards with the exception of the awards in the Teehankee case, may be considered as measly and fleabite. But this is a marked improvement from previous years.
There are other significant holdings, but they do not pertain to the field of damages. There was this holding of the Court about the suggestion from the defense that the plaintiffs could have concocted the death of their relatives because their bodies were not found, just to collect damages. It bristled thus: it is improper for petitioner to even suggest that private respondents relatives did not board the ill-fated vessel and perish in the accident simply because their bodies were not recovered. Then there is also this slight deviation from the principle of stare decisis. The common carrier argued that since the Court of Appeals relied upon the Mecenas case, the amount awarded in that case of only P43,857.14 for each victim should be followed in this case. But the High Court was not persuaded. It explained thus:
Here is where the principle of stare decisis does not apply in view of differences in the personal circumstances of the victims. For that matter, differentiation would be justified even if private respondents had joined the private respondents in the Mecenas case. The doctrine of stare decisis works as a bar only against issues litigated to the court and not passed upon by the court in the previous case, the decision in the previous case is not stare decisis of the question presently presented. The decision I the Mecenas case relates to damages for which petitioner was liable to the claimants in that case. X. Conclusion
It is hoped that with the Negros Navigation case on deaths from breach of contract of carriage and the Teehankee case on
576
576
deaths from crime, our courts will reexamine and reassess the value they put upon human life.
This is not to say that courts can accurately fix the precise amount in pesos and centavos as price for the life of a human being. There is a sacred assumption that human life is beyond value. What the law has done is to provide the next best thing compensation (which is never adequate) for those left behind who are forever deprived of the moral and physical presence of the deceased, to help him move along without the latter or as punitive imposition for the public good.
Indeed, it is high time that our courts should be attuned to the present economic realities. The law to be an effective instrument of justice should be responsive to the felt necessities of the times, to use the language of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Fleabite awards of damages, especially exemplary damages against erring parties, especially, common carriers and other corporate defendants do not send the strong signal needed for them to show more concern and respect towards human lives and limbs. Yes, our courts are light-years behind American courts in the area of damages awards. Contrast this with a $150 million verdict against Chevrolet in favor of a certain Alex Hardy and his wife when he was paralyzed after being thrown out of his Chevrolet Blazer in an accident due also to a defective door latch (ABA Journal, September, 1996, p. 14). Even a claim which we would probably find silly is awarded with millions of dollars. A Brooklyn, New York jury awarded the unbelievable amount of $5.6 million to 3 plaintiffs who sued a computer keyboard manufacturer (Digital Equipment Corp.) for repetitive stress injuries suffered by
office workers. It was reported that: The injured women had experienced wrist and spinal ailments after using the product (ABA Journal, February, 1997, p. 22).
It may be a journey of a thousand miles, but let us begin with the first step. [Fleabite: Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction, 281 SCRA 552(1997)]

Fleabite - Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fleabite - Damages Awards in Philippine Jurisdiction

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ANNOTATION FLEABITE: DAMAGES AWARDS IN PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION

I. Introduction, p. 552 II. Damages Defined, p. 554

1) In Philippine Jurisdiction, p. 554 2) In American Jurisdiction, p. 555

VI. Rationale of Damages, p. 562

* A.B 62 (UP) & LL.B 66 (UP).

VOL. 281, NOVEMBER 7, 1997