[G.R. No. 139875.

December 4, 2000]
GREGORIO PESTAO and METRO CEBU AUTOBUS
CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. Spouses TEOTIMO
SUMAYANG and PAZ C. SUMAYANG, respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, affirming those
of the trial judge, are binding on this Court. In quasidelicts, such findings are crucial because negligence is
largely a matter of evidence. In computing an award for
lost earning capacity, the life expectancy of the
deceased, not that of the heir, is used as basis.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the April 21, 1999
Decision and the August 6, 1999 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals[1](CA) in CA-GR CV No. 30289. The questioned
Decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision of the lower court
is hereby AFFIRMED with the aforesaid modification
regarding the award of death penalty.
The Resolution of August 6, 1999 denied reconsideration.
[2]

The Facts
The events leading to this Petition were summarized by
the Court of Appeals as follows:
It appears from the records that at around 2:00 oclock
[o]n the afternoon of August 9, 1986, Ananias Sumayang
was riding a motorcycle along the national highway in
Ilihan, Tabagon, Cebu. Riding with him was his friend
Manuel Romagos. As they came upon a junction where
the highway connected with the road leading to Tabagon,
they were hit by a passenger bus driven by [Petitioner]
Gregorio Pestao and owned by [Petitioner] Metro Cebu
Autobus Corporation (Metro Cebu, for brevity), which had
tried to overtake them, sending the motorcycle and its
passengers hurtling upon the pavement. Both Ananias
Sumayang and Manuel Romagos were rushed to the
hospital in Sogod, where Sumayang was pronounced
dead on arrival.Romagos was transferred to the Cebu
Doctors Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries the
day after.
Apart from the institution of criminal charges against
Gregorio Pestao, [Respondents] Teotimo and Paz
Sumayang, as heirs of Ananias Sumayang, filed this civil
action for damages against Gregorio Pestao, as driver of
the passenger bus that rammed the deceaseds
motorcycle, Metro Cebu, as owner and operator of the
said bus, and Perla Compania de Seguros, as insurer of
Metro Cebu. The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
CEB-6108.
On November 9, 1987, upon motion of [Petitioner]
Pestao, Judge Pedro C. Son ordered the consolidation of
the said case with Criminal Case No. 10624, pending in
Branch 16 of the same Court, involving the criminal
prosecution of Gregorio Pestao for [d]ouble [h]omicide
thru [r]eckless [i]mprudence. Joint trial of the two cases
thereafter ensued, where the following assertions were
made:

[Respondents] rely mainly on the testimonies of Ignacio

Neis, Pat. Aquilino Dinoy and Teotimo Sumayang, father
of the deceased. Neis declared that he saw the incident
while he was sitting on a bench beside the highway; that
both vehicles c[a]me from the North; that as the
motorcycle approached the junction to Tab[a]gon, the
driver Ananias Sumayang signalled with his left arm to
indicate that he was taking the Tab[a]gon Road; that the
motorcycle did turn left but as it did so, it was bumped
by an overspeeding bus; that the force of the impact
threw Ananias Sumayang and his companion Manuel
Romagos about 14 meters away. The motorcycle, Neis
continued, was badly damaged as it was dragged by the
bus.
On the other hand, Pat. Dinoy testified that he was in the
nearby house of Ruben Tiu [when] he heard the sound or
noise caused by the collision; that he immediately went
to the scene where he found Ananias Sumayang and
Manuel Romagos lying on the road bleeding and badly
injured; that he requested the driver of a PU vehicle to
take them to a hospital; that he took note of the various
distances which he included in his sketch (Exh. J) that the
probable point of impact was at the left lane of the
highway and right at the junction to Tab[a]gon (Exh J-11);
that he based his conclusion on the scratches caused by
the motorcycles footrest on the asphalt pavement; that
he described the damage caused to the motorcycle in his
sketch (Exh J); that on the part of the bus, the right end
of its front bumper was bent and the right portion of the
radiator grill was dented. Pat. Dinoy acknowledged that
he met at the scene Ignacio Neis who informed him that
he saw the incident.
On the contrary, Pestao blamed Sumayang for the
accident. He testified that when he first blew the horn
the motorcycle which was about 15 or 20 meters ahead
went to the right side of the highway that he again blew
the horn and accelerated in order to overtake the
motorcycle; that when he was just one meter behind, the
motorcycle suddenly turned left towards the Tab[a]gon
[R]oad and was bumped by his bus; that he was able to
apply his break only after the impact. Pestaos testimony
was corroborated by Ireneo Casilia who declared that he
was one of the passengers of the bus; that the
motorcycle suddenly turned left towards Tab[a]gon
[R]oad without giving any signal to indicate its
maneuver; that the bus was going at 40 kph when the
accident occurred.
To
substantiate
its
defense
of bonos
pater
familias [petitioner] [c]orporation recalled to the witness
box Gregorio Pestao who explained how his driving
experience and ability were tested by the company
before he was hired. He further declared that the
management gave regular lectures to drivers and
conductors touching on various topics like speeding,
parking, loading and treatment of passengers, and that
before he took to the road at 2:30 AM of that day he
checked together with the mechanic the tires, brake,
signal lights as well as the tools to be brought along. He
did the same thing before commencing his return trip
from Hagnaya, San Remegio later in the day.
The corporation also presented its maintenance
supervisor, Agustin Pugeda, Jr., and its manager, Alfonso
Corominas, Jr. who corroborated Pestaos testimony that
his driving ability was thoroughly tested, and that all
drivers underwent periodic lecture on various aspects of

safety driving including pertinent traffic regulations. They

also confirmed the thorough checkup of every vehicle
before it would depart and that the performance of the
drivers was being monitored by several inspectors
posted at random places along the route.
In judgment, the lower court found [petitioners] liable to
the [respondents], in the amounts of P30,000.00 for
death indemnity, P829,079 for loss of earning capacity of
the deceased Ananias Sumayang, and P36,000.00 for
necessary interment expenses. The liability of defendant
Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., however, was limited
only to the amount stipulated in the insurance policy,
which [was] P12,000 for death indemnity and P4,500.00
for burial expenses.
In so ruling, the lower court found [Petitioner] Pestao to
have been negligent in driving the passenger bus that hit
the deceased. It was shown that Pestao negligently
attempted to overtake the motorcycle at a dangerous
speed as they were coming upon a junction in the road,
and as the motorcycle was about to turn left towards
Tabagon. The court likewise found Metro Cebu directly
and primarily liable, along with Pestao, the latters
employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as
[Petitioner] Metro Cebu failed to present evidence to
prove that it had observed x x x [the] diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage. Nor has Metro
Cebu proven that it had exercised due diligence in the
supervision of its employees and in the maintenance of
vehicles.[3]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed respondents liability for the accident and
for Sumayangs death. Pestao was negligent when he
tried to overtake the victims motorcycle at the Tabagon
junction. As a professional driver operating a public
transport vehicle, he should have taken extra precaution
to avoid accidents, knowing that it was perilous to
overtake at a junction, where adjoining roads had
brought about merging and diverging traffic.
The appellate court opined that Metro Cebu had shown
laxity in the conduct of its operations and in the
supervision of its employees. By allowing the bus to ply
its route despite the defective speedometer, said
petitioner showed its indifference towards the proper
maintenance of its vehicles. Having failed to observe the
extraordinary diligence required of public transportation
companies, it was held vicariously liable to the victims of
the vehicular accident.
In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the CA
raised to P50,000 the granted indemnity for the death of
the victim. It also affirmed the award of loss of earning
capacity based on his life expectancy. Such liability was
assessed, not as a pension for the claiming heirs, but as
a penalty and an indemnity for the drivers negligent act.
Hence, this Petition.[4]
Petitioners submit
consideration:

Issues
the following

issues[5] for

our

1. The Court of Appeals misapplied facts of weight and

substance affecting the result of the case.
2. The Court of Appeals misapplied R.A. 4136 as regards
the behavior of the deceased at the time of the accident.

3. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the award of

damages representing income that deceased could have
earned be considered a penalty.
4. The Court of Appeals, contrary to Article 2204, Civil
Code, raised the award of P30,000.00 damages
representing indemnity for death to P50,000.00.
5. The Court of Appeals used as basis for the loss of
earning capacity, the life expectancy of the [d]eceased
instead of that of the respondents which was shorter. [6]
In short, they raise these questions: whether the CA
erred (1) in applying Section 45 of RA 4136 when it ruled
that negligence in driving was the proximate cause of the
accident; (2) in increasing the civil indemnity from
P30,000 to P50,000; and (3) in using the life expectancy
of the deceased instead of the life expectancies of
respondents.
The Courts Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
First Issue: Negligence
Petitioners contend that Pestao was not under any
obligation to slow down when he overtook the
motorcycle, because the deceased had given way to him
upon hearing the bus horn.Seeing that the left side of the
road was clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic,
Pestao
accelerated
his
speed
to
pass
the
motorcycle. Having given way to the bus, the motorcycle
driver should have slowed down until he had been
overtaken.
They further contend that the motorcycle was not in the
middle of the road nearest to the junction as found by
the trial and the appellate courts, but was on the inner
lane. This explains why the damage on the bus were all
on the right side the right end of the bumper and the
right portion of the radiator grill were bent and
dented. Hence, they insist that it was the victim who was
negligent.
We disagree. Petitioners are raising a question of fact
based on Pestaos testimony contradicting that of
Eyewitness Ignacio Neis and on the location of the dents
on the bumper and the grill. Neis testified that as the two
vehicles approached the junction, the victim raised his
left arm to signal that he was turning left to Tabagon, but
that the latter and his companion were thrown off the
motorcycle after it was bumped by the overspeeding bus.
These contentions have already been passed upon by
the trial and the appellate courts. We find no cogent
reason to reverse or modify their factual findings. The CA
agreed with the trial court that the vehicular collision was
caused by Pestaos negligence when he attempted to
overtake the motorcycle. As a professional driver
operating a public transport bus, he should have
anticipated that overtaking at a junction was a perilous
maneuver and should thus have exercised extreme
caution.
Factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial
court
are
conclusive
and
binding
on
this
Court. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this case
falls under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule.
[7]
Indeed, the issue of negligence is basically factual and,
in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of damages.

Petitioners aver that the CA was wrong in attributing the

accident to a faulty speedometer and in implying that
the accident could have been avoided had this
instrument been properly functioning.
This contention has no factual basis. Under Articles 2180
and 2176 of the Civil Code, owners and managers are
responsible
for
damages
caused
by
their
employees. When an injury is caused by the negligence
of a servant or an employee, the master or employer is
presumed to be negligent either in the selection or in the
supervision of that employee. This presumption may be
overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the
employer exercised the care and the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and the supervision of
its employee.[8]
The CA said that allowing Pestao to ply his route with a
defective speedometer showed laxity on the part of
Metro Cebu in the operation of its business and in the
supervision of its employees. The negligence alluded to
here is in its supervision over its driver, not in that which
directly caused the accident. The fact that Pestao was
able to use a bus with a faulty speedometer shows that
Metro Cebu was remiss in the supervision of its
employees and in the proper care of its vehicles. It had
thus failed to conduct its business with the diligence
required by law.
Second Issue: Life Indemnity
Petitioners aver that the CA erred in increasing the award
for life indemnity from P30,000 to P50,000, without
specifying any aggravating circumstance to justify the
increment as provided in the Civil Code.[9]
This contention is untenable. The indemnity for death
caused by a quasi-delict used to be pegged at P3,000,
based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code. However, the
amount has been gradually increased through the years
because of the declining value of our currency. At
present, prevailing jurisprudence fixes the amount
at P50,000.[10]
Third Issue: Loss of Earning Capacity
Petitioners cite Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
[11]
which held:
The determination of the indemnity to be awarded to the
heirs of a deceased person has therefore no fixed basis. x
x x The life expectancy of the deceased or of the
beneficiary, whichever is shorter, is an important
factor. x x x.
They contend that the CA used the wrong basis for its
computation of earning capacity.
We disagree. The Court has consistently computed the
loss of earning capacity based on the life expectancy of
the deceased,[12] and not on that of the heir. [13] Even Villa
Rey Transit did likewise.
The award for loss of earning capacity is based on two
factors: (1) the number of years on which the
computation of damages is based and (2) the rate at
which the loss sustained by the heirs is fixed. [14] The first
factor refers to the life expectancy, which takes into
consideration the nature of the victims work, lifestyle,
age and state of health prior to the accident. The second
refers to the victims earning capacity minus the
necessary living expenses. Stated otherwise, the amount

recoverable is that portion of the earnings of the

deceased which the beneficiary would have received -the net earnings of the deceased.[15]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision
and
Resolution AFFIRMED. Cost
against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 128607. January 31, 2000]

ALFREDO MALLARI SR. and ALFREDO MALLARI
JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
BULLETIN
PUBLISHING
CORPORATION, respondents.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
ALFREDO MALLARI SR. and ALFREDO MALLARI JR. in this
petition for review on certiorari seek to set aside the
Decision of the Court of Appeals [1] which reversed the
court a quo and adjudged petitioners to be liable for
damages due to negligence as a common carrier
resulting in the death of a passenger.
On 14 October 1987, at about 5:00 o'clock in the
morning, the passenger jeepney driven by petitioner
Alfredo Mallari Jr. and owned by his co-petitioner Alfredo
Mallari Sr. collided with the delivery van of respondent
Bulletin Publishing Corp. (BULLETIN, for brevity) along the
National Highway in Barangay San Pablo, Dinalupihan,
Bataan. Petitioner Mallari Jr. testified that he went to the
left lane of the highway and overtook a Fiera which had
stopped on the right lane. Before he passed by the Fiera,
he saw the van of respondent BULLETIN coming from the
opposite direction. It was driven by one Felix Angeles.
The sketch of the accident showed that the collision
occurred after Mallari Jr. overtook the Fiera while
negotiating a curve in the highway. The points of collision
were the left rear portion of the passenger jeepney and
the left front side of the delivery van of BULLETIN. The
two (2) right wheels of the delivery van were on the right
shoulder of the road and pieces of debris from the
accident were found scattered along the shoulder of the
road up to a certain portion of the lane travelled by the
passenger jeepney. The impact caused the jeepney to
turn around and fall on its left side resulting in injuries to
its passengers one of whom was Israel Reyes who
eventually died due to the gravity of his injuries.
On 16 December 1987 Claudia G. Reyes, the widow of
Israel M. Reyes, filed a complaint for damages with the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City against Alfredo
Mallari Sr. and Alfredo Mallari Jr., and also against
BULLETIN, its driver Felix Angeles, and the N.V.
Netherlands Insurance Company. The complaint alleged
that the collision which resulted in the death of Israel
Reyes was caused by the fault and negligence of both
drivers of the passenger jeepney and the Bulletin Isuzu
delivery van. The complaint also prayed that the
defendants be ordered jointly and severally to pay
plaintiff P1,006,777.40
in
compensatory
damages, P40,000.00
for
hospital
and
medical
expenses, P18,270.00 for burial expenses plus such

amounts as may be fixed by the trial court for exemplary

damages and attorneys fees.
The trial court found that the proximate cause of the
collision was the negligence of Felix Angeles, driver of
the Bulletin delivery van, considering the fact that the
left front portion of the delivery truck driven by Felix
Angeles hit and bumped the left rear portion of the
passenger jeepney driven by Alfredo Mallari Jr. Hence,
the trial court ordered BULLETIN and Felix Angeles to pay
jointly and severally Claudia G. Reyes, widow of the
deceased victim, the sums of P42,106.93 for medical
expenses; P8,600.00
for
funeral
and
burial
expenses; P1,006,777.40
for
loss
of
earning
capacity; P5,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00
for attorneys fees. The trial court also ordered N.V.
Netherlands Insurance Company to indemnify Claudia G.
Reyes P12,000.00 as death indemnity and P2,500.00 for
funeral expenses which when paid should be deducted
from the liabilities of respondent BULLETIN and its driver
Felix Angeles to the plaintiff. It also dismissed the
complaint against the other defendants Alfredo Mallari Sr.
and Alfredo Mallari Jr.
On appeal the Court of Appeals modified the decision of
the trial court and found no negligence on the part of
Angeles and consequently of his employer, respondent
BULLETIN. Instead, the appellate court ruled that the
collision was caused by the sole negligence of petitioner
Alfredo Mallari Jr. who admitted that immediately before
the collision and after he rounded a curve on the
highway, he overtook a Fiera which had stopped on his
lane and that he had seen the van driven by Angeles
before overtaking the Fiera. The Court of Appeals ordered
petitioners Mallari Jr. and Mallari Sr. to compensate
Claudia G. Reyes P1,006,777.50 for loss of earning
capacity, P50,000.00
as
indemnity
for
death
and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees. It absolved from any
liability respondent BULLETIN, Felix Angeles and N.V.
Netherlands Insurance Company. Hence this petition.
Petitioners contend that there is no evidence to show
that petitioner Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle at a curve on
the road at the time of the accident and that the
testimony of Angeles on the overtaking made by Mallari
Jr. was not credible and unreliable. Petitioner also submits
that the trial court was in a better position than the Court
of Appeals to assess the evidence and observe the
witnesses as well as determine their credibility; hence,
its finding that the proximate cause of the collision was
the negligence of respondent Angeles, driver of the
delivery van owned by respondent BULLETIN, should be
given more weight and consideration.
We cannot sustain petitioners. Contrary to their
allegation that there was no evidence whatsoever that
petitioner Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle at a curve on the
road at the time of or before the accident, the same
petitioner himself testified that such fact indeed did
occur Q:.......And what was that accident all about?
A:.......Well, what happened, sir, is that at about that time
5:00 oclock in that morning of October 14 while I was
negotiating on the highway at San Pablo, Dinalupihan,
Bataan, I was then following a blue Ford Fierra and my
distance behind was about twenty (20) feet and then I
passed that blue Ford Fierra. I overtook and when I was
almost on the right lane of the highway towards

Olongapo City there was an oncoming delivery van of the

Bulletin Publishing Corporation which bumped the left
rear portion of the jeepney which I was driving and as a
result of which the jeepney x x x turned around and fell
on its left side and as a result of which some of my
passengers including me were injured, sir x x x x
Q:.......Before you overtook the Ford Fierra jeepney did
you look x x x whether there was any vehicle coming
towards you?
A:.......Yes, sir.
Q:.......Did you see the Bulletin van or the Press van
coming towards you?
A:.......Yes, sir.
Q:.......At the moment the Ford Fierra xxx stop(ped) and
in overtaking the Fierra, did you not have an option to
stop and not to overtake the Ford Fierra?
A:.......Well, at the time when the Ford Fierra stopped in
front of me I slowed down with the intention of applying
the brake, however, when I saw the oncoming vehicle
which is the Press van is very far x x x which is 100 feet
distance, x x x it is sufficient to overtake the Ford Fierra
so I overt(ook) it x x x x
Q:.......You said that you took into consideration the
speed of the oncoming Press van but you also could not
estimate the speed of the press van because it was dark
at that time, which of these statements are true?
A:.......What I wanted to say, I took into consideration the
speed of the oncoming vehicle, the Press van, although
at the moment I could not estimate the speed of the
oncoming vehicle x x x x[2]
The Court of Appeals correctly found, based on the
sketch and spot report of the police authorities which
were not disputed by petitioners, that the collision
occurred immediately after petitioner Mallari Jr. overtook
a vehicle in front of it while traversing a curve on the
highway.[3] This act of overtaking was in clear violation of
Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended,
otherwise known as The Land Transportation and Traffic
Code which provides:
Sec. 41. Restrictions on overtaking and passing. - (a) The
driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the
center line of a highway in overtaking or passing another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction, unless such left
side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a
sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking or
passing to be made in safety.
(b) The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake or pass
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction when
approaching the crest of a grade, nor upon a curve in the
highway, where the drivers view along the highway is
obstructed within a distance of five hundred feet ahead
except on a highway having two or more lanes for
movement of traffic in one direction where the driver of a
vehicle may overtake or pass another vehicle:
Provided That on a highway, within a business or
residential district, having two or more lanes for
movement of traffic in one direction, the driver of a
vehicle may overtake or pass another vehicle on the
right.

The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper

lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an
ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road
is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety.
[4]
When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a
curve, there is special necessity for keeping to the right
side of the road and the driver does not have the right to
drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to
turn to the right if a car approaching from the opposite
direction comes into view.[5]
In the instant case, by his own admission, petitioner
Mallari Jr. already saw that the BULLETIN delivery van
was coming from the opposite direction and failing to
consider the speed thereof since it was still dark at 5:00
o'clock in the morning mindlessly occupied the left lane
and overtook two (2) vehicles in front of it at a curve in
the highway. Clearly, the proximate cause of the collision
resulting in the death of Israel Reyes, a passenger of the
jeepney, was the sole negligence of the driver of the
passenger jeepney, petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr., who
recklessly operated and drove his jeepney in a lane
where overtaking was not allowed by traffic rules. Under
Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, 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 a traffic regulation. As found by the
appellate court, petitioners failed to present satisfactory
evidence to overcome this legal presumption.
The negligence and recklessness of the driver of the
passenger jeepney is binding against petitioner Mallari
Sr., who admittedly was the owner of the passenger
jeepney engaged as a common carrier, considering the
fact that in an action based on contract of carriage, the
court need not make an express finding of fault or
negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it
responsible for the payment of damages sought by the
passenger. Under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, a common
carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide using the utmost

diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all

the circumstances. Moreover, under Art. 1756 of the Civil
Code, in case of death or injuries to passengers, a
common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed
extraordinary diligence. Further, pursuant to Art. 1759 of
the same Code, it is liable for the death of or injuries to
passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the
formers employees. This liability of the common carrier
does not cease upon proof that it exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of
its employees. Clearly, by the contract of carriage, the
carrier jeepney owned by Mallari Sr. assumed the express
obligation to transport the passengers to their
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence
with due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury
or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right
away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.
The monetary award ordered by the appellate court to be
paid by petitioners to the widow of the deceased
passenger Israel M. Reyes of P1,006,777.50 for loss of
earning capacity, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death,
and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees, all of which were not
disputed by petitioners, is a factual matter binding and
conclusive upon this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated 20 September 1995 reversing
the decision of the trial court being in accord with law
and evidence is AFFIRMED. Consequently, petitioners are
ordered jointly and severally to pay Claudia G.
Reyes P1,006,777.50
for
loss
of
earning
capacity, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death,
and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., concur.