Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

TORTS

CASE TITLE: Eustaquio Mayo Y Agpaoa v. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 91201
December 5, 1991
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
PRINCIPLE: MORAL DAMAGES
FACTS: Petitioner Mayo was charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Property with Multiple Serious, Less Serious, and Slight Physical Injuries. This charge arose from an
Information which states that sometime in August of 1982 at 4pm, Mayo was driving a Philippine Rabbit
bus along the McArthur Hway in Mabalacat, Pampanga. Private respondent (PR) Linda Navarette, on the
other hand, was aboard a Mitsubishi Lancer along with several others including two children. The
Lancer was driven by June Navarette and was cruising steadily at the right lane of the road while the
Rabbit bus was trailing closely behind the Lancer. Behind the bus is a Tamaraw jeep. At first, the
Tamaraw jeep was ahead, followed by the Lancer, and behind it is the Rabbit bus, all travelling towards
Manila. The Lancer as well as the Rabbit bus following one after the other overtook the Tamaraw jeep.
As the vehicles approached the Mabalacat Institute, the Rabbit bus, picked up speed and swerved to
the left lane to overtake the Lancer however an oncoming vehicle from the opposite lane appeared and
flashed its headlights to warn the Rabbit bus to give way. The Rabbit bus then suddenly swerved to the
right in an effort to return to the correct lane and avoid collision with the oncoming vehicle. In the
process however, it hit and bumped the left rear side of the Lancer causing its driver to lose control of
the wheel and it swerved across the left lane and hit a bystander then crashed against a concrete fence
of another person. The Lancer was heavily damaged and the passengers including the driver sustained
physical injuries in varying degrees.
RTC RULING: Mayo was convicted and charged and the civil aspect of the case was heard in the
criminal case. The complainants therein including PR Navarette were awarded damages wherein the
amount of moral damages awarded to her was Php700,000.00 (while to others ranged from 5k to 60k).
CA RULING: Mayo appealed with the CA which affirmed the RTC Decision with the modification only
with respect to the imprisonment aspect. Mayos MR denied, hence, the Petition.
Mayos contention was that the CA did not discuss the specific factual circumstances which would
justify the award of arbitrary and exorbitant amount of moral damages and instead stated only general
terms.
The CA, on the other hand, cited the provisions of the NCC, specifically Arts. 2217 and 2219 to justify
the legal basis of moral damages and based thereon concluded that the amount is not excessive and is
in accord with the law and the facts of the case.
ISSUE/s: The sole issue in this case is whether or not the findings of the lower court justify the award of
Php700k as moral damages in favor of PR Navarette.
SC RULING: To arrive at its Decision, the SC examined the records of the case and established that
prior to the accident, PR Navarette was an Economist by profession and a graduate of BS Home
Economics at UP. She was an Asst VP and Resident Manager of Club Solviento in QC as well as a Food
consultant receiving a gross income of Php17k. As a result of the accident, she suffered from a
permanent partial facial disfigurement and total loss of vision of her right eye which was replaced by a
false eye.
According to the doctor, PR Navarettes right eye could not be saved since the right eyeball needed to
be removed as it was heavily lacerated and there was a necessity of an artificial eye placement in the
socket. Upon advice of her doctor in Makati Med, she had to go to San Francisco, USA for further
treatment. She went twice to San Francisco and incurred expenses around Php60k to 80k.
Furthermore, PR Navarette declared that she had a boyfriend whom she lost after the accident. She
broke down over the misfortune and placed a value of her mental, psychological, and moral sufferings

in the amount of Php500k as moral damages and asked the lower court to double the amount making it
Php1M stating as reason that her boyfriend would have been her lifetime partner and her guide of her
eye forever had she not lost him.
The foregoing findings form the only basis for the award of moral damages in favor of PR Navarette by
the RTC and the CA.
RATIO PART: According to the SC, there is no question that moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. Moreover, Art.
2219 of the NCC provides that:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries.


Quasi-delicto causing physical injuries.
Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts.
Adultery or concubinage.
Illegal search.
Libel, slander or any other form of defamation.
Malicious prosecution.
Acts mentioned in article 309.
Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

SC agrees that PR Navarette is entitled to moral damages. She suffered injuries as a result of the
criminal offense by Mayo. Moreover, her injuries resulting in a permanent scar at her forehead and the
loss of her right eye undoubtedly gave her mental anguish, wounded feelings and shock. The
psychological effect on her as regards the scar and her false eye must have devastated her considering
that women in general are fastidious on how they look. More importantly, the loss of her eyesight
resulted to her giving up her job not only because of her prolonged absences but because of the
physical handicap she suffered.
Nevertheless, the SC finds no justification to award moral damages to PR Navarette for the loss of her
boyfriend. No doubt, the loss of her boyfriend after the accident added to her mental and emotional
sufferings and psychologically affected and disturbed her. However, there is no clear evidence on
record to show that her boyfriend left her after the accident due to her physical injuries. He may have
left her even if she did not suffer the slightest injury. The reasons for the break-up of a courtship are too
many and too complicated such that they should not form the basis of damages arising from a
vehicular accident. Moreover, granting that her boyfriend left her due to her physical injuries, we still
find no legal basis for the award of moral damages in her favor because of the loss of a boyfriend. Art.
2219 quoted above enumerates cases wherein moral damages may be granted. Loss of a boyfriend as
a result of physical injuries after an accident is not one of them. Neither can it be categorized as an
analogous case.
Heading on to the propriety of the amount of Php700k as moral damages, the SC ruled that the wellentrenched principle is that moral damages depend upon the discretion of the trial courts based on the
facts and circumstances of each case. This discretion is, however, conditioned in that the amount
awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive so as to indicate that it was the result of
prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. In determining the amount of moral damages, the
actual losses sustained by the aggrieved party and the gravity of the injuries must be considered.
Finally, moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the
defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the
defendants culpable action.
Applying these principles in the instant case, the SC finds that the award of Php700k as moral damages
in favor of PR Navarette is unconscionable and excessive. SC further rejects Navarettes claim for

Php1M for the loss of her boyfriend. The SC notes that she asked for the amount of Php500k as moral
damages for her physical injuries and therefore, the award for moral damages should not exceed such
amount. The SC rules that under the circumstances of the instant case, the amount of Php200k as
moral damages in favor of PR Navarette is reasonable, just and fair.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED. The questioned decision
of the CA is MODIFIED in that the amount of Php700k as moral damages granted to complainant
Navarette is reduced to Php200k.

Вам также может понравиться