CASE DIGEST: Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez

 

MARIANO C. MENDOZA and ELVIRA LIM, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ and GABRIEL V. GOMEZ, respondents

G.R. No. 160110. June 18, 2014

 

DOCTRINE:

Moral Damages; Moral damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person.— Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. To be entitled to such an award, the claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has suffered damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant.

FACTS:

On 7 March 1997, an Isuzu Elf truck owned by respondent Leonora J. Gomez and driven by Antenojenes Perez was hit by a Mayamy bus registered under the name of petitioner Elvira Lim and driven by petitioner Mariano C. Mendoza.

Owing to the incident, an Information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against Mendoza. Mendoza, however, eluded arrest, thus, respondents filed a separate complaint for damages against Mendoza and Lim, seeking actual damages, compensation for lost income, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.

According to PO1 Rosales, investigating officer of the case, at around 5:30 a.m., the Isuzu truck, coming from Katipunan Road and heading towards E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, was travelling along the downward portion of Boni Serrano Avenue when, upon reaching the corner of Riviera Street, fronting St. Ignatius Village, its left front portion was hit by the Mayamy bus. According to PO1 Rosales, the Mayamy bus, while traversing the opposite lane, intruded on the lane occupied by the Isuzu truck.

As a result of the incident, Perez, as well as the helpers on board the Isuzu truck sustained injuries necessitating medical treatment amounting to P11,267.35, which amount was shouldered by respondents. Moreover, the Isuzu truck sustained extensive damages on its cowl, chassis, lights and steering wheel, amounting to P142,757.40.

Additionally, respondents averred that the mishap deprived them of a daily income of P1,000.00. Engaged in the business of buying plastic scraps and delivering them to recycling plants, respondents claimed that the Isuzu truck was vital in the furtherance of their business.

For their part, petitioners capitalized on the issue of ownership of the bus in question. Respondents argued that although the registered owner was Lim, the actual owner of the bus was SPO1 Cirilo Enriquez, who had the bus attached with Mayamy Transport under the so-called “kabit system.” Respondents then impleaded both Lim and Enriquez.

After weighing the evidence, the RTC found Mendoza liable for direct personal negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and it also found Lim vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the same Code.

As regards Lim, the RTC relied on the Certificate of Registration issued by the LTO in concluding that she is the registered owner of the bus in question. Although actually owned by Enriquez, following the established principle in transportation law, Lim, as the registered owner, is the one who can be held liable.

Displeased, petitioners appealed to the CA. After evaluating the damages awarded by the RTC, such were affirmed by the CA with the exception of the award of unrealized income which the CA ordered deleted.

Unsatisfied with the CA’s ruling, petitioners filed an appeal by certiorari before the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to moral damages

RULING:

First resolve whether Mendoza was negligent in driving…

As found by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, Mendoza was negligent in driving the subject Mayamy bus, as demonstrated by the fact that, at the time of the collision, the bus intruded on the lane intended for the Isuzu truck. Having encroached on the opposite lane, Mendoza was clearly in violation of traffic laws. Article 2185 of the Civil Code provides that unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. In the case at bar, Mendoza’s violation of traffic laws was the proximate cause of the harm.

The evidence on record shows that before the collision, the Isuzu truck was in its rightful lane, and was even at a stop, having been flagged down by a security guard of St. Ignatius Village. The mishap occurred when the Mayamy bus, travelling at a fast speed as shown by the impact of the collision, and going in the opposite direction as that of the Isuzu truck, encroached on the lane rightfully occupied by said Isuzu truck, and caused the latter to spin, injuring Perez, Anla, Banca, and Repisada, and considerably damaging the Isuzu truck.

Having settled the fact of Mendoza’s negligence, then, the next question that confronts us is who may be held liable.

According to Manresa, liability for personal acts and omissions is founded on that indisputable principle of justice recognized by all legislations that when a person by his act or omission causes damage or prejudice to another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of which the injured person acquires a right to be indemnified and the person causing the damage is charged with the corresponding duty of repairing the damage. The reason for this is found in the obvious truth that man should subordinate his acts to the precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe them and causes damage to another, he must repair the damage. His negligence having caused the damage, Mendoza is certainly liable to repair said damage.

Additionally, Mendoza’s employer may also be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed negligence. Under such doctrine, a person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances. In our jurisdiction, vicarious liability or imputed negligence is embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code and the basis for damages in the action under said article is the direct and primary negligence of the employer in the selection or supervision, or both, of his employee.

Who is deemed as Medoza’s employer?

In Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, the Court held that the registered owner is deemed the employer of the negligent driver, and is thus vicariously liable under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code. Citing Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, the Court ruled that insofar as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways.

Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both. The presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure; consequently, it may be rebutted. Accordingly, the general rule is that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and supervision of his employee he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved of liability. However, with the enactment of the motor vehicle registration law, the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code — that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage — are no longer available to the registered owner of the motor vehicle, because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180. As such, there can be no other conclusion but to hold Lim vicariously liable with Mendoza.

What may be awarded?

Actual or Compensatory Damages. Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.

Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Article 2199 of the same Code, however, sets the limitation that, 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. As such, to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages, the claimant must prove that the damage sustained is the natural and probable consequences of the negligent act and, moreover, the claimant must adequately prove the amount of such damage.

In the case at bar, the RTC, basing on the receipts submitted by respondents and which receipts petitioners had the opportunity to examine, found that the total repairs on the Isuzu truck amounted to P142,757.40, and that the full hospitalization and medical expenses of Perez, Anla, Banca, and Repisada amounted to P11,267.35. As such, these are the amounts that respondents are entitled to as actual and compensatory damages.

Although respondents alleged in their complaint that the damage to their Isuzu truck caused them the loss of a daily income of P1,000.00, such claim was not duly substantiated by any evidence on record, and thus cannot be awarded in their favor.

May moral damages be awarded?

Moral Damages. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant’s culpable action.

In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. To be entitled to such an award, the claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has suffered damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant.

In fine, an award of moral damages calls for the presentation of 1) evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; 2) a culpable act or omission factually established; 3) proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

A review of the complaint and the transcript of stenographic notes yields the pronouncement that respondents neither alleged nor offered any evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering incurred by them.

In Kierulf v. CA, we observed that this Court cannot remind the bench and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. Citing Francisco v. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded.

Moreover, respondents were not able to show that their claim properly falls under Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Respondents cannot rely on Article 2219(2) of the Civil Code which allows moral damages in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries because in physical injuries, moral damages are recoverable only by the injured party, and in the case at bar, herein respondents were not the ones who were actually injured.

Neither can respondents rely on Article 21 of the Civil Code as the RTC erroneously did. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; (3) and it is done with intent to injure. In the present case, it can hardly be said that Mendoza’s negligent driving and violation of traffic laws are legal acts. Moreover, it was not proven that Mendoza intended to injure Perez, et al. Thus, Article 21 finds no application to the case at bar.

All in all, we find that the RTC and the CA erred in granting moral damages to respondents.