Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
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.