Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

IRENEO JUGUETA amount for the award cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can
April 5, 2016 G.R. No. 202124 be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.
The second type of damages the Court awards are moral damages, which are also
Facts: compensatory in nature. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals expounded on the nature and purpose
Appellant along with was charged with Double Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of moral damages, viz.:
for attacking and shooting, with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel, the house (one-room Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries
nipa hut) occupied by the family of Norberto Divina, his brother-in-law causing injury and killing such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
the children of the Norberto, Mary Grace and Claudine. In answer to questions of what could feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be understood to be in the concept of
have prompted such an attack from appellant, Norberto replied that he had a previous grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury
altercation with appellant who was angered by the fact that Norberto filed a case against suffered. Although incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order
appellant's two other brothers for molesting his daughter. Accused was found guilty of 2 counts that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the
of murder (Art. 248) and Multiple Attempted Murder(Art. 248 in relation to Article 51) with the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and
aggravating circumstance of dwelling. (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to address the matter in detail as 2220 of the Civil Code. x x x.
regards criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Generally, in Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as "compensatory damages
these types of criminal cases, there are three kinds of damages awarded by the Court; namely: awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong." They may also
civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. Likewise, actual damages may be awarded or be considered and allowed "for resulting pain and suffering, and for humiliation, indignity, and
temperate damages in some instances. vexation suffered by the plaintiff as result of his or her assailant's conduct, as well as the factors
Issue: Whether or not it is proper for the Court to modify civil indemnity. of provocation, the reasonableness of the force used, the attendant humiliating circumstances,
Held: Yes. Civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it can be increased by the sex of the victim, [and] mental distress."
the Court when appropriate. The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Rey
First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the offended Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of
party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart from other proven the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted."
actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. This Corollarily, moral damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code also does not fix the amount of
award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which states, "Every person criminally liable for a damages that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon the court, depending on the mental
felony is also civilly liable." anguish or the suffering of the private offended party. The amount of moral damages can, in
It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it can be relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does not exceed the award of civil indemnity.
increased by the Court when appropriate. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides: Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary damages, thus:
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for
three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such
case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended
the time of his death; to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous
291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law,
testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to
death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
court; injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant –
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or
the deceased. recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud – that intensifies the injury. The terms
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be
restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to the latter awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these
by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
Thus, in a crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed to the conduct in the future.
offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as restitution. Also, it is The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified
apparent from Article 2206 that the law only imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has
indemnity, which is ₱3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the
private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to damages. Subsequently, the amount was increased to ₱75,000.00 in People v. Soriano and
the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation P100,000.00 in People v. Gambao.
of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed because of RA 9346, the
its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those found in RA 7569,
damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers must be used as the basis for awarding damages and not the actual penalty imposed.
thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view of the attendance of an ordinary
offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the death penalty, the actual
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence pegs the amount of
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱100,0000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying
the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances present, the
whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary amount of ₱100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages aside from civil indemnity and
damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. moral damages. Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating circumstance,
The reason is fairly obvious as to why the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the exemplary damages shall be fixed at ₱100,000.00. "[T]his is not only a reaction to the
aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to be stated in the complaint or apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, but also an
information. It is in order not to trample on the constitutional right of an accused to be informed expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes x x x."
of the nature of the alleged offense that he or she has committed. A criminal complaint or When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only,
information should basically contain the elements of the crime, as well as its qualifying and there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts
ordinary aggravating circumstances, for the court to effectively determine the proper penalty it should be ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and ₱75,000.00
should impose. This, however, is not similar in the recovery of civil liability. In the civil aspect, the exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
presence of an aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged in the information but proven When it comes to compound and complex crimes, although the single act done by the offender
during trial would entitle the victim to an award of exemplary damages. caused several crimes, the fact that those were the result of a single design, the amount of civil
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only due to the indemnity and moral damages will depend on the penalty and the number of victims. For each of
presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the victims, the heirs should be properly compensated. If it is multiple murder without any
the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article ordinary aggravating circumstance but merely a qualifying aggravating circumstance, but the
2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main penalty imposed is death because of Art. 48 of the RPC wherein the maximum penalty shall be
provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Thus, in People v. Matrimonio, the Court imposed, then, for every victim who dies, the heirs shall be indemnified with ₱100,000.00 as civil
imposed exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal, the Court In case of a special complex crime, which is different from a complex crime under Article 48 of
awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption, perversity and wickedness of the RPC, the following doctrines are noteworthy:
the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman. In People v. Cañada, People v. In People of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog, this Court ruled that special complex crime, or
Neverio61 and People v. Layco, Sr., the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public more properly, a composite crime, has its own definition and special penalty in the Revised
example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the Penal Code, as amended. Justice Regalado, in his Separate Opinion in the case of People v.
latter from sexual abuse. Barros,94 explained that composite crimes are "neither of the same legal basis as nor subject to
If, however, the penalty for the crime committed is death, which cannot be imposed because of the rules on complex crimes in Article 48 [of the Revised Penal Code], since they do not consist
the provisions of R.A. No. 9346, prevailing jurisprudence sets the amount of ₱100,000.00 as of a single act giving rise to two or more grave or less grave felonies [compound crimes] nor do
exemplary damages. they involve an offense being a necessary means to commit another [complex crime proper].
Before awarding any of the above mentioned damages, the Court, however, must first consider However, just like the regular complex crimes and the present case of aggravated illegal
the penalty imposed by law. possession of firearms, only a single penalty is imposed for each of such composite crimes
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the death penalty although composed of two or more offenses."
were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in People v. In People v. De Leon, we expounded on the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, as
Victor, that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when punishable by death follows:
should be ₱75,000.00 We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the
chastity." Such reasoning also applies to all heinous crimes found in RA 7659. The amount was robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances,
later increased to ₱100,000.00. causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into
In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v. consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
Arizapa, ₱50,000.00 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading or proving simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery with homicide, must
them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and be consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed, or that aside from the are present; and it is frustrated when an offender performs all the acts of execution which would
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
felony of robbery with homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, As discussed earlier, when the crime proven is consummated and the penalty imposed is death
thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity and moral damages
In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be understood in its that should be awarded will each be ₱100,000.00 and another ₱100,000.00 for exemplary
generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on damages or when the circumstances of the crime call for the imposition of reclusion
occasion of the rape. Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of perpetua only, the civil indemnity and moral damages should be ₱75,000.00 each, as well as
superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly exemplary damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00. If, however, the crime proven is in its
established by the prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime frustrated stage, the civil indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded will each be
committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the ₱50,000.00, and an award of ₱25,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱25,000.00 moral damages when
aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating the crime proven is in its attempted stage. The difference in the amounts awarded for the stages
circumstance only. Thus we ruled in People v. Macabales: is mainly due to the disparity in the outcome of the crime committed, in the same way that the
Finally, appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the aggravating imposable penalty varies for each stage of the crime. The said amounts of civil indemnity and
circumstance of treachery is present. They aver that treachery applies to crimes against moral damages awarded in cases of felonies in their frustrated or attempted stages shall be the
persons and not to crimes against property. However, we find that the trial court in this bases when the crimes committed constitute complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC. For
case correctly characterized treachery as a generic aggravating, rather than qualifying, example, in a crime of murder with attempted murder, the amount of civil indemnity, moral
circumstance. Miguel was rendered helpless by appellants in defending himself when his damages and exemplary damages is ₱100,000.00 each, while in the attempted murder, the civil
arms were held by two of the attackers before he was stabbed with a knife by appellant indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is ₱25,000.00 each.
Macabales, as their other companions surrounded them. In People v. Salvatierra, we ruled In a special complex crime, like robbery with homicide, if, aside from homicide, several victims
that when alevosia (treachery) obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with (except the robbers) sustained injuries, they shall likewise be indemnified. It must be
homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance. remembered that in a special complex crime, unlike in a complex crime, the component crimes
Robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the have no attempted or frustrated stages because the intention of the offender/s is to commit the
Revised Penal Code. There is no special complex crime of robbery with murder under the principal crime which is to rob but in the process of committing the said crime, another crime is
Revised Penal Code. Here, treachery forms part of the circumstances proven concerning the committed. For example, if on the occasion of a robbery with homicide, other victims sustained
actual commission of the complex crime. Logically it could not qualify the homicide to murder injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still robbery with homicide as the
but, as generic aggravating circumstance, it helps determine the penalty to be imposed. injuries become part of the crime, "Homicide", in the special complex crime of robbery with
Applying the above discussion on special complex crimes, if the penalty is death but it cannot be homicide, is understood in its generic sense and now forms part of the essential element of
imposed due to RA 9346 and what is actually imposed is the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the robbery, which is the use of violence or the use of force upon anything. Hence, the nature and
civil indemnity and moral damages will be ₱100,000.00 each, and another ₱100,000.00 as severity of the injuries sustained by the victims must still be determined for the purpose of
exemplary damages in view of the heinousness of the crime and to set an example. If there is awarding civil indemnity and damages. If a victim suffered mortal wounds and could have died if
another composite crime included in a special complex crime and the penalty imposed is death, not for a timely medical intervention, the victim should be awarded civil indemnity, moral
an additional ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱100,000.00 moral damages and ₱100,000.00 damages, and exemplary damages equivalent to the damages awarded in a frustrated stage,
exemplary damages shall be awarded for each composite crime committed. and if a victim suffered injuries that are not fatal, an award of civil indemnity, moral damages and
For example, in case of Robbery with Homicide101 wherein three (3) people died as a exemplary damages should likewise be awarded equivalent to the damages awarded in an
consequence of the crime, the heirs of the victims shall be entitled to the award of damages as attempted stage.
discussed earlier. This is true, however, only if those who were killed were the victims of the In other crimes that resulted in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible
robbery or mere bystanders and not when those who died were the perpetrators or robbers penalties, like homicide, death under tumultuous affray, reckless imprudence resulting to
themselves because the crime of robbery with homicide may still be committed even if one of the homicide, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim shall be ₱50,000.00 and
robbers dies. This is also applicable in robbery with rape where there is more than one victim of ₱50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary damages being awarded. However, an award of
rape. ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages in a crime of homicide shall be added if there is an aggravating
In awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is also important to determine the circumstance present that has been proven but not alleged in the information.
stage in which the crime was committed and proven during the trial. Article 6 of the RPC Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards temperate damages in certain
provides: cases. The award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as well as proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial
those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it
cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss although the exact c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
amount was not proved. In this case, the Court now increases the amount to be awarded 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-
as temperate damages to ₱50,000.00. mentioned:
In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders committed a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
were further made atrocious by the fact that the victims are innocent, defenseless minors b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
– one is a mere 3½-year-old toddler, and the other a 13-year-old girl. The increase in the c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
amount of awards for damages is befitting to show not only the Court's, but all of 2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely
society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives. attempted:
In summary: a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
penalties: III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death,
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
perpetua because of RA 9346: damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00 number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00 perpetua because of RA 9346:
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated: a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
a. Frustrated: b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
i. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 mentioned:
b. Attempted: a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than committed. In other complex crimes where death does not result, like in
the above-mentioned: Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 case may be.
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated: Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with
a. Frustrated: Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with
ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty consists
b. Attempted: of indivisible penalties:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion
ii. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00 perpetua because of RA 9346:
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00 a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape: b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
perpetua because of RA 9346: In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00 as the above if the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 perpetua although death did not occur.
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00 1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
attempted: a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated; ₱30,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 for frustrated; and ₱20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded.
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above- the following:
mentioned: a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same rebellion and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the
as the above if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. following shall be awarded:
2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00 a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00 VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00 expenses is presented in court, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages
In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall likewise be shall be awarded.
dependent on the nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the minimum amount for awards of civil
non-fatal. indemnity is P3,000.00, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount
The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified
robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.
incident.1âwphi1 Prescinding from the foregoing, for the two (2) counts of murder, attended by the ordinary
Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, aggravating circumstance of dwelling, appellant should be ordered to pay the heirs of the victims
and that for every additional rape committed, whether against the same the following damages: (1) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the two children who died;
victim or other victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages (2) ₱100,000.00 as moral damages for each of the two victims; (3) another ₱100,000.00 as
unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which exemplary damages for each of the two victims; and (4) temperate damages in the amount of
case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply. ₱50,000.00 for each of the two deceased. For the four (4) counts of Attempted Murder, appellant
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of should pay ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as
divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to exemplary damages for each of the four victims. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral damages,
conceal the dishonour of the offender, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, exemplary damages and temperate damages payable by the appellant are subject to interest at
Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.: the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
1.1 Where the crime was consummated: Lastly, this Court echoes the concern of the trial court regarding the dismissal of the charges
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 against Gilberto Estores and Roger San Miguel who had been identified by Norberto Divina as
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 the companions of appellant on the night the shooting occurred. Norberto had been very
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes straightforward and unwavering in his identification of Estores and San Miguel as the two other
where there are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under people who fired the gunshots at his family. More significantly, as noted by the prosecutor, the
tumultuous affray: testimonies of Estores and San Miguel, who insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to
a. Frustrated: conflict with the sworn statement of Danilo Fajarillo, which was the basis for the Provincial
i. Civil indemnity – ₱30,000.00 Prosecutor's ruling that he finds no probable cause against the two. Danilo Fajarillo's sworn
ii. Moral damages – ₱30,000.00 statement said that on June 6, 2002, he saw appellant with a certain "Hapon" and Gilbert
b. Attempted: Estores at the crime scene, but it was only appellant who was carrying a firearm and the two
i. Civil indemnity – ₱20,000.00 other people with him had no participation in the shooting incident. Said circumstances bolster
ii. Moral damages – ₱20,000.00 the credibility of Norberto Divina's testimony that Estores and San Miguel may have been
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if involved in the killing of his two young daughters.
not alleged in the Information, in addition to the above mentioned WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.
amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the amount of
(1) In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY that the defendant brings (sic) this ruling to the Supreme Court by certiorari or other appropriate
beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of murder defined under Article 248 of remedy, to review the ruling of the court". 9
the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and hereby On June 17, 1975, petitioner filed in this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
sentences him to suffer two (2) terms of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under mandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992, 10 assailing the aforesaid order of the
R.A. 9346. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina the trial court. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of July 23, 1975,
following amounts for each of the two victims: (a) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) and a motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of
₱100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) ₱50,000.00 October 28, 1975. 11
as temperate damages. After trial, the court below rendered judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private
(2) In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay the former the sum of P 6,920.00 for
beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of attempted murder defined and hospitalization, medicines and so forth, P2,000.00 for other actual expenses, P25,000.00 for
penalized under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the moral damages, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, and costs. 12
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of On July 29, 1987, the respondent Court of Appeals 13 affirmed the decision of the lower court
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) except as to the award for moral damages which it reduced from P25,000.00 to P18,000.00. A
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for each of the four (4) counts of motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent court on September 18, 1987. 14
attempted murder. He is ORDERED to PAY moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, civil The main issue for resolution by Us in the present recourse is whether the private respondent,
indemnity of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of PS0,000.00 to each of the four victims, who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence
namely, Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. and who participated in the prosecution thereof without reserving the civil action arising from the
(3) Accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six act or omission complained of, can file a separate action for civil liability arising from the same
percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on act or omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable
the civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages. doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal.
G.R. No. 80194 March 21, 1989 Prefatorily, We note that petitioner raises a collateral issue by faulting the respondent court for
EDGAR JARANTILLA, petitioner, refusing to resolve an assignment of error in his appeal therein, said respondent court holding
vs. that the main issue had been passed upon by this Court in G.R. No. L-40992 hereinbefore
COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE KUAN SING, respondents. mentioned. It is petitioner's position that the aforesaid two resolutions of the Court in said case,
Corazon Miraflores and Vicente P. Billena for petitioner. the first dismissing the petition and the second denying the motion for reconsideration, do not
Manuel S. Gemarino for private respondent. constitute the "law of the case' which would control the subsequent proceed ings in this
controversy.
REGALADO, J.: 1. We incline favorably to petitioner's submission on this score.
The records show that private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the The "doctrine of the law of the case" has no application at the aforesaid posture of the
evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart Street, Iloilo City" 1 The respondent Court of Appeals concurred proceedings when the two resolutions were handed down. While it may be true that G.R. No. L-
in the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a Volkswagen 40992 may have involved some of the issues which were thereafter submitted for resolution on
(Beetle type) car, was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the the merits by the two lower courts, the proceedings involved there was one for certiorari,
direction of the provincial capitol, and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a prohibition and mandamus assailing an interlocutory order of the court a quo, specifically, its
consequence. 2 order denying therein defendants motion to dismiss. This Court, without rendering a specific
Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical opinion or explanation as to the legal and factual bases on which its two resolutions were
injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207 thereof. 3 Private respondent, as predicated, simply dismissed the special civil action on that incident for lack of merit. It may very
the complaining witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action and well be that such resolution was premised on the fact that the Court, at that stage and on the
he intervened in the prosecution of said criminal case through a private prosecutor. 4 Petitioner basis of the facts then presented, did not consider that the denial order of the court a quo was
was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt".5 tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 15 To repeat, no rationale for such resolutions having
On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former been expounded on the merits of that action, no law of the case may be said to have been laid
Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, 6 docketed therein as Civil Case No. 9976, and which down in G.R. No. L-40992 to justify the respondent court's refusal to consider petitioner's claim
civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal Case No. that his former acquittal barred the separate action.
47027. 7 In his answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses 'Law of the case' has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More
that the private respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latter's cause of specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established, as the controlling legal rule
action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as when of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
said criminal case was instituted the civil liability was also deemed instituted since therein whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the criminal case. 8 predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court (21 C.J.S. 330). (Emphasis
Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant, the trial court issued on April 3, supplied). 16
1975 an order of denial, with the suggestion that "(t)o enrich our jurisprudence, it is suggested
It need not be stated that the Supreme Court being the court of last resort, is the final arbiter of No. 74041, July 29, 1987; Filomeno Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964,
all legal questions properly brought before it and that its decision in any given case constitutes January 7, 1988). The ruling is based on Article 29 of the Civil Code which provides:
the law of that particular case . . . (Emphasis supplied). 17 When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
It is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of the been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission
case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence ... 26
trial and the appellate courts, and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal Another consideration in favor of private respondent is the doctrine that the failure of the court to
will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts and make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused
issues are substantially the same as those on which the first question rested and, according to amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a
some authorities, provided the decision is on the merits . . . 18 separate action. The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it
2. With the foregoing ancillary issue out of the way, We now consider the principal plaint of becomes no longer enforceable. 27
petitioner. Furthermore, in the present case the civil liability sought to be recovered through the application
Apropos to such resolution is the settled rule that the same act or omission (in this case, the of Article 29 is no longer that based on or arising from the criminal offense. There is persuasive
negligent sideswiping of private respondent) can create two kinds of liability on the part of the logic in the view that, under such circumstances, the acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil
offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto and civil liability ex quasi delicto. Since the same liability based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code which presupposes the existence of
negligence can give rise either to a delict or crime or to a quasi-delict or tort, either of these two criminal liability or requires a conviction of the offense charged. Divested of its penal element by
types of civil liability may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 such acquittal, the causative act or omission becomes in effect a quasi-delict, hence only a civil
of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages under both types of liability. 19 action based thereon may be instituted or prosecuted thereafter, which action can be proved by
We also note the reminder of petitioner that in Roa vs. De la Cruz, et al., 20 it was held that mere preponderance of evidence. 28 Complementary to such considerations, Article 29
where the offended party elected to claim damages arising from the offense charged in the enunciates the rule, as already stated, that a civil action for damages is not precluded by an
criminal case through her intervention as a private prosecutor, the final judgment rendered acquittal on reasonable doubt for the same criminal act or omission.
therein constituted a bar to the subsequent civil action based upon the same cause. It is meet, The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is constitutive of a
however, not to lose sight of the fact that the criminal action involved therein was for serious oral case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner, thus:
defamation which, while within the contemplation of an independent civil action under Article 33 3. That in the evening of July 7, 197l at about 7:00 o'clock, the plaintiff crossed Iznart Street from
of the Civil Code, constitutes only a penal omen and cannot otherwise be considered as a quasi- his restaurant situated at 220 lznart St., Iloilo City, Philippines, on his way to a meeting of the
delict or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. And while petitioner Cantonese Club at Aldeguer Street, Iloilo City and while he was standing on the middle of the
draws attention to the supposed reiteration of the Roa doctrine in the later case of Azucena vs. street as there were vehicles coming from the Provincial Building towards Plazoleta Gay, Iloilo
Potenciano, et al., 21 this time involving damage to property through negligence as to make out City, he was bumped and sideswiped by Volkswagen car with plate No. B-2508 W which was on
a case of quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, such secondary reliance is its way from Plazoleta Gay towards the Provincial Capitol, Iloilo City, which car was being driven
misplaced since the therein plaintiff Azucena did not intervene in the criminal action against by the defendant in a reckless and negligent manner, at an excessive rate of speed and in
defendant Potenciano. The citation of Roa in the later case of Azucena was, therefore, violation of the provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicle (sic) as amended, in relation to the Land
clearly obiter and affords no comfort to petitioner. Transportation and Traffic Code as well as in violation of existing city ordinances, and by reason
These are aside from the fact that there have been doctrinal, and even statutory, 22 changes on of his inexcusable lack of precaution and failure to act with due negligence and by failing to take
the matter of civil actions arising from criminal offenses and quasi-delicts. We will reserve our into consideration (sic) his degree of intelligence, the atmospheric conditions of the place as well
discussion on the statutory aspects for another case and time and, for the nonce, We will as the width, traffic, visibility and other conditions of lznart Street; 29
consider the doctrinal developments on this issue. Since this action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to
In the case under consideration, private respondent participated and intervened in the file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such
prosecution of the criminal suit against petitioner. Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where separate civil action for damages. 30 The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs.
the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt, it could very well make a pronounce Hill 31 that —
ment on the civil liability of the accused 23 and the complainant could file a petition for ... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally
mandamus to compel the trial court to include such civil liability in the judgment of acquittal. 24 prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is
Private respondent, as already stated, filed a separate civil aciton after such acquittal. This is also actually charged criminally, to recover damages on both scores; and would be entitled in
allowed under Article 29 of the Civil Code. We have ruled in the relatively recent case of Lontoc such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al. 25that: cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111,
In view of the fact that the defendant-appellee de la Cruz was acquitted on the ground that 'his refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt' the plaintiff-appellant has the right to institute a civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
separate civil action to recover damages from the defendants-appellants (See Mendoza vs. extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not
Arrieta, 91 SCRA 113). The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable may happened or has not been committed by the accused . . .
still be civilly liable. 'The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al. involved virtually the same
when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist'. factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared
(Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 558 cited in People vs. Rogelio Ligon y Tria, et al., G.R. that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal;
that his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for About 6am on August 28, 1979, Custodio boarded a jeepney driven by Calebag and
damages, especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was owned by Lamayo bound to Dynetics Inc(her workplace) in Taguig. While the jeepney
not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two different causes was travelling a fast clip along DBP Ave, Bicutan, another fast moving vehicle, Metro
of action, the criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code while
Manila Transit Corp.(MMTC) driven by Leonardo and was negotiating Honeydew Rd
the subsequent complaint for damages was based on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in
the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. Consequently, in Bicutan bound for its terminal at Bicutan. As both vehicles approached the
said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. intersection of DBP Avenue and Honeydew Road they failed to slow down and
Our initial adverse observation on a portion of the decision of respondent court aside, We hold slacken their speed; neither did they blow their horns to warn approaching vehicles.
that on the issues decisive of this case it did not err in sustaining the decision a quo. As a consequence, a collision between them occurred, the jeepney ramming the left
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is hereby DENIED and the decision of the respondent Court side portion of the MMTC bus. The collision impact caused Custodio to hit the front
of Appeals is AFFIRMED, without costs. windshield of the jeepney was thrown out therefrom, falling onto the pavement
SO ORDERED. unconscious with serious physical injuries. She was brought to the Medical City
Hospital where she regained consciousness only after one (1) week. Thereat, she
SSS vs. CA
was confined for 24 days, and as a consequence, she was unable to work for three
(120 SCRA 707)
and one half months.
FACTS: A complaint for damages was filed subsequently by the respondent who was a minor,
Spouses David and Socorro Cruz, applied and granted a real estate loan by the SSS assisted by her parents following their refusal to pay the expenses incurred by MMTC
with residential lot located at Pateros, Rizal as collateral. The spouses Cruz complied with their as a result of the collision.
monthly payments. When delayed were incurred in their monthly payments SSS filed a petition At the RTC, MMTC presented its training officer and its transport supervisor
for foreclosure of their real estate mortgage executed by the spouses Cruz on the ground that who respectively testified that it was not only careful and diligent in choosing and
the spouses Cruz defaulted in payment, Pursuant for these application for foreclosure notices screening applicants for job openings, but was also strict and diligent in supervising
were published on the second notice the counsel for spouses Cruz sent a letter to SSS its employees by seeing to it that its employees were in proper uniforms, briefed in
informing the latter that his clients are up to date in their payment of the monthly amortization
and the SSS should discontinued the publication of the notices of foreclosure. This request
traffic rules and regulations before the start of duty, and that it checked its employees
remain unheaded, this spouses Cruz filed an action for damages against SSS before RTC in to determine whether they were positive for alcohol and that they followed other rules
Rizal. SSS invoking its immunity from suit being an agency of the government performing and regulations of the Bureau of Land Transportation and of the company. RTC found
government function. The trial court and court of appeal nevertheless awarded damages in favor both drivers concurrently negligent. As joint tortfeasors, both drivers, as well
of spouses Cruz which was affirmed by court of appeal, Hence this petition. as Lamayo(owner of the jeepney) were held solidarily liable for damages sustained by
Custodio. MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised diligence of a good
ISSUE: Whether or not SSS is immune from suit. father of a family in selecting and supervising its employees.
The CA modified the RTC's decision by holding MMTC solidarily liable with the other
HELD:
Negative.. The SSS has a distinct legal personality and it can be sued for damages.
defendants for the damages awarded by the trial court because of their concurrent
The SSS does not enjoy immunity from suit by express statutory consent. negligence, concluding that while there is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes
sufficient evidence to prove that an employer has exercised the due diligence
It has corporated power separate and distinct from the government. SSS own organic required of it in the selection and supervision of its employees, based on the quantum
act specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in court. These words “sue and be sued” of evidence adduced the said appellate court was not disposed to say that MMTC had
embrace all civil process incident to a legal action. So that even assuming that the SSS, as it exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family in the selection and
claims, enjoys immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental function, by virtue of the supervision of its driver.
explicit provision of the aforecited enabling law, the government must be deemed to have
waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it does not thereby concede its liability that
statutory law has given to the private citizen a remedy for the enforcement and protection of his
ISSUE:
rights. The SSS thereby has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of the court; subject to its 1. WON MMTC exercise due diligence.
right to interpose any lawful defense. 2. Should it be held solidarily liable with the other defendants.

METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP V CA RULING:


1. No. Petitioner's attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris
FACTS: familias(diligence of a good father of the family) in the selection and
supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was
unable to buttress the same with any other evidence, object or Pacifico Mabasa owns a property behind the properties of spouses Cristino and
documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the Brigida Custodio and spouses Lito and Ma. Cristina Santos. The passageway leading
testimony. to Mabasa’s house passes through the properties of the Custodios and the Santoses.
2. Yes. It is within Article 2176 and 2177, in relation to Article 2180, of the Sometime in 1981, the spouses Lito and Ma. Cristina Santos built a fence around
Civil Code provisions on quasi-delicts as all the elements thereof are their property. This effectively deprived Mabasa passage to his house. Mabasa then
present, to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (2) fault or sued the Custodios and the Santoses to compel them to grant his right of way with
negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he damages. Mabasa claims that he lost tenants because of the blockade done by the
must respond, and (3) the connection of cause and effect between fault families in front. The trial court ruled in favor of Mabasa. It ordered the Custodios and
or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by plaintiff. the Santoses to give Mabasa a permanent easement and right of way and for
The basis of the employer's vicarious liability has been explained under this Mabasa to pay just compensation. The Santoses and the Custodios appealed. The
ratiocination: The responsibility imposed by this article arises by virtue of a Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. However, the CA modified the
presumption juris tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible ruling by awarding damages in favor of Mabasa (Actual damages: P65k, Moral
under the article, derived from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the damages: P30k, Exemplary damages: P10k).
acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage. Negligence is imputed to ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of damages by the CA is proper.
them by law, unless they prove the contrary. It is clear that it is the non-performance HELD: No. The award is not proper. This is an instance of damnum absque injuria.
of certain duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon the persons who become There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal
responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to them, which forms the foundation of such invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the
responsibility. injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage
The above rule is applicable only where there is an employer-employee relationship, suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the
although it is not necessary that the employer be engaged in business or industry. loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
Whether or not engaged in any business or industry, the employer under Article 2180 In this case, it is true that Mabasa may have incurred losses (damage) when his
is liable for torts committed by his employees within the scope of their assigned tasks. tenants left because of the fence made by the Santoses. However, when Santos built
But, it is necessary first to establish the employment relationship. Once this is done, the fence, he was well within his right. He built the fence inside his property. There
the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting was no existing easement agreement, either by contract or by operation of law, on his
within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is property. Hence, Santos has all the right to build the fence. It was only after the
only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the judgment in the trial court that the easement was created which was even conditioned
defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. The diligence on the payment of Mabasa of the just compensation. Santos did not commit a legal
of a good father of a family required to be observed by employers to prevent injury against Mabasa when he built the fence, therefore, there is no actionable wrong
damages under Article 2180 refers to due diligence in the selection and supervision of as basis for the award of damages. In this case, the damage has to be borne by
employees in order to protect the public. Mabasa.
With the allegation and subsequent proof of negligence against the defendant driver
and of an employer-employee relation between him and his co-defendant MMTC, it is
undoubtedly based on aquasi-delict under Article 2180. CA was then correct in ruling
that "due diligence in the selection and supervision of employee (is) not proved by
mere testimonies to the effect that its applicant has complied with all the company
requirements before one is admitted as an employee but without proof thereof."
Hence, MMTC fell short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly
and undoubtedly prove its diligence.

Custodio et al vs Court of Appeals

Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Damnum Absque Injuria – Actionable Wrong

S-ar putea să vă placă și