Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

THIRD DIVISION 1764 in conjunction with Article 2206 of the Civil Code,

the factors to be considered are: (a) life expectancy


G.R. No. 143008 June 10, 2002 (considering the health of the victim and the mortality
table which is deemed conclusive) and loss of earning
SMITH BELL DODWELL SHIPPING AGENCY capacity; (b) pecuniary loss, loss of support and service;
CORPORATION, petitioner, and (c) moral and mental sufferings. The loss of earning
vs. capacity is based mainly on the number of years
CATALINO BORJA and INTERNATIONAL TO WAGE remaining in the person’s expected life span. In turn,
AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, respondents. this number is the basis of the damages that shall be
computed and the rate at which the loss sustained by
the heirs shall be fixed. The formula for the
Common Carriers; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Negligence;
computation of loss of earning capacity is as follows:
Words and Phrases; Negligence is conduct that
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual
creates undue risk of harm to another, the failure to
Income - Living Expenses (50% of gross annual
observe that degree of care, precaution and
income)], where life expectancy = 2/3 (80 - the age of
vigilance that the circumstances justly demand,
the deceased).
whereby that other person suffers injury.—
Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm
to another. It is the failure to observe that degree of Same; Same; Loss of Income; It is net income (or
care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances gross income less living expenses which is the one
justly demand, whereby that other person suffers used in the computation of the award for loss of
injury. Petitioner’s vessel was carrying chemical cargo— income; When there is no showing that the living
alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer. expenses constituted a smaller percentage of the gross
While knowing that their vessel was carrying income, the Court fixes the living expenses at half of
dangerous inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew the gross income—to hold that one would have used
failed to take all the necessary precautions to prevent only a small part of the income, with the larger part
an accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent. going to the support of one’s children, would be
conjectural and unreasonable.—Petitioner is correct in
arguing that it is net income (or gross income less living
Same; Same; Same; Same; Three Elements of Quasi-
expenses) which is to be used in the computation of
Delicts.—The three elements of quasi delict are: (a)
the award for loss of income. Villa Rey Transit v. Court
damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or
of Appeals explained that “the amount recoverable is
negligence of the defendant, and (c) the connection of
not the loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary
defendant and the damages inflicted on the plaintiff.
would have received.” Hence, in fixing the amount of
All these elements were established in this case.
the said damages, the necessary expenses of the
Knowing fully well that it was carrying dangerous
deceased should be deducted from his earnings. In
chemicals, petitioner was negligent in not taking all the
other words, only net earnings, not gross earnings, are
necessary precautions in transporting the cargo.
to be considered; that is, the total of the earnings less
expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or
Same; Same; Same; Same; The owner or the person income, less living and other incidental expenses.
in possession and control of a vessel and the vessel When there is no showing that the living expenses
are liable for all natural and proximate damage constituted a smaller percentage of the gross income,
caused to persons and property by reason of we fix the living expenses at half of the gross income.
negligent management or navigation.—The owner To hold that one would have used only a small part of
or the person in possession and control of a vessel and the income, with the larger part going to the support
the vessel are liable for all natural and proximate of one’s children, would be conjectural and
damage caused to persons and property by reason of unreasonable.
negligent management or navigation.
Same; Same; Same; Retirement; Life expectancy
Damages; Life Expectancy; Factors in determining should not be based on the retirement age of
reasonableness of damages awarded under Article government employees, which is pegged at 65; In
1764 in conjunction with Article 2206 of the Civil calculating the life expectancy of an individual for
Code.—Both parties have a point. In determining the the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity
reasonableness of the damages awarded under Article
under Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, it is this case -- and that person's probable life
assumed that the deceased would have earned expectancy.1âwphi1.nêt
income even after retirement from a particular
job.—Counsel for Respondent Borja is also correct in The Case
saying that life expectancy should not be based on the
retirement age of government employees, which is Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
pegged at 65. In Negros Navigation Co, Inc. v. CA, the Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the March 6,
Court resolved that in calculating the life expectancy of 2000 Decision1 and the April 25, 2000 Resolution2 of
an individual for the purpose of determining loss of the Court of Appeals3 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 57470. The
earning capacity under Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, assailed Decision disposed as follows:
it is assumed that the deceased would have earned
income even after retirement from a particular job.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Respondent Borja should not be situated differently
instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The
just because he was a government employee. Private
questioned decision of the lower court is
employees, given the retirement packages provided by
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement
their companies, usually retire earlier than government
as to costs."4
employees; yet, the life expectancy of the former is not
pegged at 65 years.
Reconsideration was denied in the assailed Resolution.
Same; Same; Same; A person’s demise earlier than
the estimated life span is of no moment for The Facts
purposes of determining loss of earning capacity,
life expectancy remains at 80.—Petitioner avers that The facts of the case are set forth by the CA as follows:
Respondent Borja died nine years after the incident
and, hence, his life expectancy of 80 years should yield "It appears that on September 23, 1987, Smith
to the reality that he was only 59 when he actually died. Bell [herein petitioner] filed a written request
We disagree. The Court uses the American with the Bureau of Customs for the
Experience/Expectancy Table of Mortality or the attendance of the latter's inspection team on
Actuarial or Combined Experience Table of Mortality, vessel M/T King Family which was due to
which consistently pegs the life span of the average arrive at the port of Manila on September 24,
Filipino at 80 years, from which it extrapolates the 1987.
estimated income to be earned by the deceased had
he or she not been killed. Respondent Borja’s demise "Said vessel contained 750 metric tons of alkyl
earlier than the estimated life span is of no moment. benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer.
For purposes of determining loss of earning capacity,
life expectancy remains at 80. Otherwise, the "On the same day, Supervising Customs
computation of loss of earning capacity will never Inspector Manuel Ma. D. Nalgan instructed
become final, being always subject to the eventuality [Respondent Catalino Borja] to board said
of the victim’s death. The computation should not vessel and perform his duties as inspector
change even if Borja lived beyond 80 years. Fair is fair. upon the vessel's arrival until its departure. At
Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation vs. that time, [Borja] was a customs inspector of
Borja, 383 SCRA 341, G.R. No. 143008 June 10, 2002 the Bureau of Customs receiving a salary of
P31,188.25 per annum.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"At about 11 o'clock in the morning on
The owner or the person in possession and control of September 24, 1987, while M/T King Family
a vessel is liable for all natural and proximate damages was unloading chemicals unto two (2) barges
caused to persons and property by reason of [--] ITTC 101 and CLC-1002 [--] owned by
negligence in its management or navigation. The [Respondent] ITTC, a sudden explosion
liability for the loss of the earning capacity of the occurred setting the vessels afire. Upon
deceased is fixed by taking into account the net income hearing the explosion, [Borja], who was at that
of the victim at the time of death -- of the incident in time inside the cabin preparing reports, ran
outside to check what happened. Again, petitioner that no physical evidence was shown to
another explosion was heard. prove that the explosion had originated from its vessel,
the CA held that the fire had originated from M/T King
"Seeing the fire and fearing for his life, [Borja] Family. This conclusion was amply supported by the
hurriedly jumped over board to save himself. testimonies of Borja and Eulogio Laurente (the
However, the [water] [was] likewise on fire due eyewitness of International Towage and Transport
mainly to the spilled chemicals. Despite the Corporation or ITTC) as well as by the investigation
tremendous heat, [Borja] swam his way for conducted by the Special Board of Marine Inquiry and
one (1) hour until he was rescued by the affirmed by the secretary of the Department of
people living in the squatters' area and sent National Defense. On the other hand, the RTC, which
to San Juan De Dios Hospital. the CA sustained, had not given probative value to the
evidence of petitioner, whose sole eyewitness had not
"After weeks of intensive care at the hospital, shown up for cross-examination.
his attending physician diagnosed [Borja] to
be permanently disabled due to the incident. Hence, this Petition.8
[Borja] made demands against Smith Bell and
ITTC for the damages caused by the The Issues
explosion. However, both denied liabilities
and attributed to each other negligence."5 In its Memorandum,9 petitioner raises the following
issues:
The trial court6 (RTC) ruled in favor of Respondent Borja
and held petitioner liable for damages and loss of "1. Whether petitioner should be held liable
income. The RTC disposed as follows: for the injuries of Respondent Catalino Borja.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, "2. Whether Respondent ITTC should be held


judgment is hereby rendered ordering liable for the injuries of Respondent Catalino
[Petitioner] Smith Bell Dodwell [S]hipping Borja.
Agency Corporation to pay [Borja]:
"3. Assuming without admitting that
1. The amount of P495,360.00 as Respondent Catalino Borja is entitled to
actual damages for loss of earning damages, whether Respondent Borja is
capacity: entitled to the amount of damages awarded
to him by the trial court."10
2. The amount of P100,000.00 for
moral damages; and Simply put, these issues can be summed up in these
two questions: (1) Who, if any, is liable for Borja's
3. The amount of P50,000.00 for and injuries? (2) What is the proper amount of liability?
as reasonable attorney's fees.
This Court's Ruling
"The cross-claim of [Petitioner] Smith Bell
Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation The Petition is partly meritorious.
against co-defendant International Towage
and Transport Corporation and the latter's First Issue:
counterclaim against [Borja] and cross-claim Responsibility for Injuries
with compulsory counterclaim against Smith
Bell are hereby ordered dismissed."7
Petitioner avers that both lower courts labored under a
misapprehension of the facts. It claims that the
Ruling of the Court of Appeals documents adduced in the RTC conclusively revealed
that the explosion that caused the fire on M/T King
Affirming the trial court, the CA rejected the plea of Family had originated from the barge ITTC-101, a
petitioner that it be exonerated from liability for conclusion based on three grounds. First, the Survey
Respondent Borja's injuries. Contrary to the claim of Report (Exh. "10") dated October 21, 1987 submitted
by the Admiral Surveyors and Adjusters, Inc., showed Court of Appeals when these are supported by
that no part of M/T King Family sustained any sharp or substantial evidence and are not under any of the
violent damage that would otherwise be observed if exceptions in Fuentes v. Court of Appeals;12 more so,
indeed an explosion had occurred on it. On the other when such findings affirm those of the trial
hand, the fact that the vessel sustained cracks on its court.13 Verily, this Court reviews only issues of law.
shell plating was noted in two Survey Reports from
Greutzman Divers Underwater Specialist, dated Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm
October 6, 1987 (Exh. "11"), and during the underwater to another. It is the failure to observe that degree of
inspection on the sunken barge ITTC-101. care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances
justly demand, whereby that other person suffers
Second, external fire damage on the hull of M/T King injury.14Petitioner's vessel was carrying chemical cargo
Family indicated that the fire had started from outside -- alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate
the vessel and from ITTC-101. The port side of the monomer.15 While knowing that their vessel was
vessel to which the ITTC barge was tied was completely carrying dangerous inflammable chemicals, its officers
gutted by fire, while the starboard side to which the and crew failed to take all the necessary precautions to
barge CLC-1002 was tied sustained only slight fire prevent an accident. Petitioner was, therefore,
damage. negligent.

Third, testimonial evidence proved that the explosion The three elements of quasi delict are: (a) damages
came from the barge of the ITTC and not from its suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the
vessel. Security Guard Vivencio Estrella testified that he defendant, and (c) the connection of cause and effect
had seen the sudden explosion of monomer on the between the fault or negligence of the defendant and
barge with fire that went up to about 60 meters. Third the damages inflicted on the plaintiff.16 All these
Mate Choi Seong Hwan and Second Mate Nam Bang elements were established in this case. Knowing fully
Choun of M/T King Family narrated that while they well that it was carrying dangerous chemicals,
were discharging the chemicals, they saw and heard an petitioner was negligent in not taking all the necessary
explosion from the barge ITTC-101. Chief Security precautions in transporting the cargo.
Guard Reynaldo Patron, in turn, testified that he was 7
to 10 meters away from the barge when he heard the As a result of the fire and the explosion during the
explosion from the port side of M/T King Family and unloading of the chemicals from petitioner's vessel,
saw the barge already on fire. Respondent Borja suffered the following damage: and
injuries: "(1) chemical burns of the face and arms; (2)
We are not persuaded. Both the RTC and the CA ruled inhalation of fumes from burning chemicals; (3)
that the fire and the explosion had originated from exposure to the elements [while] floating in sea water
petitioner's vessel. Said the trial court: for about three (3) hours; (4)
homonymous hemianopsia or blurring of the right eye
"The attempts of [Petitioner] Smith Bell to [which was of] possible toxic origin; and (5) [c]erebral
shift the blame on x x x ITTC were all for infract with neo-vascularization, left occipital region
naught. First, the testimony of its alleged with right sided headache and the blurring of vision of
eyewitness was stricken off the record for his right eye."17
failure to appear for cross-examination (p.
361, Record). Second, the documents offered Hence, the owner or the person in possession and
to prove that the fire originated from barge control of a vessel and the vessel are liable for all
ITTC-101 were all denied admission by the natural and proximate damage caused to persons and
[c]ourt for being, in effect, hearsay (pp. 335 property by reason of negligent management or
and 362). x x x Thus, there is nothing in the navigation.18
record to support [petitioner's] contention
that the fire and explosion originated from Second Issue:
barge ITTC-101."11 Amount of Liability

We find no cogent reason to overturn these factual Petitioner insists that Borja is not entitled to the full
findings. Nothing is more settled in jurisprudence than amount of damages awarded by the lower courts. It
that this Court is bound by the factual findings of the disputes the use of his gross earning as basis for the
computation of the award for loss of earning capacity.
Loss of earning = [2 (80-50)] x [(P2,752x12)-
Both courts, in computing the value of such loss, used
capacity 16,512]
the remaining years of the victim as a government
3
employee and the amount he had been receiving per
annum at the time of the incident. = P330,240
earnings.
Counsel for Respondent Borja, on the other hand,
claims that petitioner had no cause to complain,
because the miscomputation had ironically been in its In other words, only net earnings, not gross earnings,
favor. The multiplier used in the computation was are to be considered; that is, the total of the earnings
erroneously based on the remaining years in less expenses necessary in the creation of such
government service, instead of the life expectancy, of earnings or income, less living and other incidental
the victim. Borja's counsel also points out that the expenses. When there is no showing that the living
award was based on the former's meager salary in expenses constituted a smaller percentage of the gross
1987, or about 23 years ago when the foreign exchange income, we fix the living expenses at half of the gross
was still P14 to $1. Hence, the questioned award is income. To hold that one would have used only a small
consistent with the primary purpose of giving what is part of the income, with the larger part going to the
just, moral and legally due the victim as the aggrieved support of one's children, would be conjectural and
party. unreasonable.24

Both parties have a point. In determining the Counsel for Respondent Borja is also correct in saying
reasonableness of the damages awarded under Article that life expectancy should not be based on the
1764 in conjunction with Article 2206 of the Civil Code, retirement age of government employees, which is
the factors to be considered are: (1) life expectancy pegged at 65. In Negros Navigation Co, Inc. v. CA,25 the
(considering the health of the victim and the mortality Court resolved that in calculating the life expectancy of
table which is deemed conclusive) and loss of earning an individual for the purpose of determining loss of
capacity; (b) pecuniary loss, loss of support and service; earning capacity under Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code,
and (c) moral and mental sufferings.19 The loss of it is assumed that the deceased would have earned
earning capacity is based mainly on the number of income even after retirement from a particular
years remaining in the person's expected life span. In job.1âwphi1.nêt
turn, this number is the basis of the damages that shall
be computed and the rate at which the loss sustained Respondent Borja should not be situated differently
by the heirs shall be fixed.20 just because he was a government employee. Private
employees, given the retirement packages provided by
The formula for the computation of loss of earning their companies, usually retire earlier than government
capacity is as follows:21 employees; yet, the life expectancy of the former is not
pegged at 65 years.
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy
x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses Petitioner avers that Respondent Borja died nine years
(50% of gross annual income)], where life after the incident and, hence, his life expectancy of 80
expectancy = 2/3 (80 - the age of the years should yield to the reality that he was only 59
deceased).22 when he actually died.

Petitioner is correct in arguing that it is net income (or We disagree. The Court uses the American
gross income less living expenses) which is to be used Experience/Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
in the computation of the award for loss of Actuarial or Combined Experience Table of Mortality,
income. Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals23 explained which consistently pegs the life span of the average
that "the amount recoverable is not the loss of the Filipino at 80 years, from which it extrapolates the
entire earning, but rather the loss of that portion of the estimated income to be earned by the deceased had
earnings which the beneficiary would have received." he or she not been killed.26
Hence, in fixing the amount of the said damages, the
necessary expenses of the deceased should be Respondent Borja's demise earlier than the estimated
deducted from his life span is of no moment. For purposes of determining
loss of earning capacity, life expectancy remains at 80. Jocson & Placido Law Offices. Instead of filing
Otherwise, the computation of loss of earning capacity a memorandum, Respondent ITTC merely
will never become final, being always subject to the adopted the arguments of Respondent Borja
eventuality of the victim's death. The computation "insofar as the same affirms the correctness of
should not change even if Borja lived beyond 80 years. the assailed Decision and Resolution" per its
Fair is fair. Manifestation and Motion dated April 26,
2001, signed by Attys. Manuel Joseph R.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the award for loss Bretaña III and Simonette E. Sibal of Castillo
of earning capacity should be computed as follows: and Poblador.

Having been duly proven, the moral damages and


9Signed by Atty. Charles Jay D. de la Cruz of
attorney's fees awarded are justified under the Civil Del Rosario and Del Rosario.
Code's Article 2219, paragraph 2; and Article 2208,
paragraph 11, respectively. 10 Page 8; rollo, p. 107.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The 11 CA Decision, pp. 5-6; rollo, pp. 43-44.
assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS: petitioner is ordered to 12268 SCRA 703, 708-709, February 26,
pay the heirs of the victim damages in the amount 1997; Baricuatro Jr. v. CA, supra, 325 SCRA
of P320,240 as loss of earning capacity, moral damages 137, 145, February 9, 2000.
in the amount of P100,000, plus another P50,000 as
attorney's fees. Costs against petitioner. 13Borromeo v. Sun, 317 SCRA 176, 182,
October 22, 1999; Compania Maritima, Inc. v.
SO ORDERED. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 169, 177,
November 16, 1999.
Footnote
14Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA
1 Rollo, pp. 39-45. 303, 320, February 7, 1996; Bulilan v.
Commission on Audit,300 SCRA 445, 452,
2 Ibid., p. 57. December 22, 1998; Jarco Marketing Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 375, 386,
3Written by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis December 21, 1999.
with the concurrence of Justices Eugenio S.
Labitoria (Division chairman) and Elvi John S.
15 Rollo, p. 27.
Asuncion (member).
16Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of
4 Assailed Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 45. Appeals, 269 SCRA 695, 702-703, March 14,
1997; FGU Insurance Corporation v. Court of
5 Ibid., pp. 1-4; ibid., pp. 39-42. Appeals, 287 SCRA 718, 720-721, March 23,
1998.
6
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
(Branch 81), docketed as Civil Case No. Q-88-
17 Rollo, p. 129.
800.
18Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
7 Rollo, p. 40. Appeals, 297 SCRA 30, 87, October 1, 1998.

8 The case was deemed submitted for


19Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 262
decision on May 9, 2001, when this Court SCRA 230, 235, September 20, 1996.
received Respondent Borja's Memorandum
signed by Attys. Amador Z. Tolentino Jr. and
20Ibid., People v. Arellano, 334 SCRA 775, 792-
Ronald Rex S. Recidoro of Manalo Puno 793, June 30, 2000; Pestaño v. Sumayang, 346
SCRA 870, 880, December 4, 2000.
21People v. Matignas, GR No. 126146, March
12, 2002, citing People v. Verde, 302 SCRA 690,
707, February 10, 1999.

22Ibid., citing People v. Sanchez, GR Nos.


121039-45, October 18, 2001.

2331 SCRA 511, 517, February 18,


1970; People v. Marollano, 276 SCRA 84, 115,
July 24, 1997.

24Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of


Appeals, 281 SCRA 534, 548, November 7,
1997.

25 Ibid., pp. 546-547.

26People v. Villanueva, 302 SCRA 380, 401,


January 29, 1999.

Вам также может понравиться