1/24/2015

G.R.No.L25499

TodayisSaturday,January24,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC

G.R.No.L25499February18,1970
VILLAREYTRANSIT,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
THECOURTOFAPPEALS,TRINIDADA.QUINTOS,PRIMAA.QUINTOS,ANDJULITAA.QUINTOS,
respondents.
LaureaandPisonforpetitioner.
BonifacioM.Abad,Jr.forrespondents.

CONCEPCION,C.J.:
Petitioner,VillaReyTransit,Inc.,seeksthereviewbycertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthat
oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofPangasinan.ThebasicfactsaresetforthinsaiddecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,
fromwhichWequote:
At about 1:30 in the morning of March 17, 1960, an Izuzu First Class passenger bus owned and
operated by the defendant, bearing Plate No. TPU14871Bulacan and driven by Laureano Casim,
left Lingayen, Pangasinan, for Manila. Among its paying passengers was the deceased, Policronio
Quintos, Jr. who sat on the first seat, second row, right side of the bus. At about 4:55 o'clock a.m.
whenthevehiclewasnearingthenorthernapproachoftheSadsaranBridgeonthenationalhighway
in barrio Sto. Domingo, municipality of Minalin, Pampanga, it frontally hit the rear side of a bullcart
filledwithhay.Asaresulttheendofabamboopoleplacedontopofthehayloadandtiedtothecart
toholditinplace,hittherightsideofthewindshieldofthebus.Theprotrudingendofthebamboo
pole, about 8 feet long from the rear of the bullcart, penetrated through the glass windshield and
landedonthefaceofPolicronioQuintos,Jr.who,becauseoftheimpact,fellfromhisseatandwas
sprawledonthefloor.Thepolelandedonhislefteyeandtheboneoftheleftsideofhisfacewas
fractured. He suffered other multiple wounds and was rendered unconscious due, among other
causestoseverecerebralconcussion.ALaMallorcapassengerbusgoingintheoppositedirection
towards San Fernando, Pampanga, reached the scene of the mishap and it was stopped by
PatrolmanFelinoBacaniofthemunicipalpoliceforceofMinalinwho,inthemeantime,hadgoneto
thescenetoinvestigate.PatrolmanBacaniplacedPolicronioQuintos,Jr.andthreeotherinjuredmen
whorodeonthebullcartaboardtheLaMallorcabusandbroughtthemtotheprovincialhospitalof
Pampanga at San Fernando for medical assistance. Notwithstanding such assistance, Policronio
Quintos, Jr. died at 3:15 p.m. on the same day, March 17, 1960, due to traumatic shock due to
cerebralinjuries.
Theprivaterespondents,Trinidad,PrimaandJulita,allsurnamedQuintos,arethesistersandonlysurvivingheirs
of Policronio Quintos Jr., who died single, leaving no descendants nor ascendants. Said respondents herein
broughtthisactionagainsthereinpetitioner,VillaReyTransit,Inc.,asownerandoperatorofsaidpassengerbus,
bearing Plate No. TPU14871Bulacan, for breach of the contract of carriage between said petitioner and the
deceasedPolicronioQuintos,Jr.,torecovertheaggregatesumofP63,750.00asdamages,includingattorney's
fees. Said petitioner defendant in the court of first instance contended that the mishap was due to a
fortuitousevent,butthispretensewasrejectedbythetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals,bothofwhichfound
that the accident and the death of Policronio had been due to the negligence of the bus driver, for whom
petitioner was liable under its contract of carriage with the deceased. In the language of His Honor, the trial
Judge:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/feb1970/gr_25499_1970.html

1/4

1/24/2015

G.R.No.L25499

Themishapwasnottheresultofanyunforeseeablefortuitouseventoremergencybutwasthedirect
result of the negligence of the driver of the defendant. The defendant must, therefore, respond for
damagesresultingfromitsbreachofcontractforcarriage.Asthecomplaintallegedatotaldamage
of only P63,750.00 although as elsewhere shown in this decision the damages for wake and burial
expenses,lossofincome,deathofthevictim,andattorneysfeereachtheaggregateofP79,615.95,
this Court finds it just that said damages be assessed at total of only P63,750.00 as prayed for in
plaintiffs'amendedcomplaint.
ThedespositivepartofthedecisionofthetrialCourtreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the
amount of P63,750.00 as damages for breach of contract of carriage resulting from the death of
PolicronioQuintos,Jr.
which, as above indicated, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the present petition for review on
certiorari,filedbyVillaReyTransit,Inc.
The only issue raised in this appeal is the amount of damages recoverable by private respondents herein. The
determination of such amount depends, mainly upon two (2) factors, namely: (1) the number of years on the
basisofwhichthedamagesshallbecomputedand(2)therateatwhichthelossessustainedbysaidrespondents
shouldbefixed.
ThefirstfactorwasbasedbythetrialcourttheviewofwhichwasconcurredinbytheCourtofAppealsupon
thelifeexpectancyofPolicronioQuintos,Jr.,whichwasplacedat331/3yearshebeingover29yearsofage
(oraround30yearsforpurposesofcomputation)atthetimeofhisdemisebyapplyingtheformula(2/3x[80
301 = life expectancy) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the actuarial of Combined
Experience Table of Mortality. Upon the other hand, petitioner maintains that the lower courts had erred in
adoptingsaidformulaandinnotactinginaccordancewithAlcantarav.Surro1inwhichthedamageswerecomputed
on a four (4) year basis, despite the fact that the victim therein was 39 years old, at the time of his death, and had a life
expectancyof28.90years.

The case cited is not, however, controlling in the one at bar. In the Alcantara case, none of the parties had
questionedtheproprietyofthefouryearbasisadoptedbythetrialcourtinmakingitsawardofdamages.Both
parties appealed, but only as regards the amount thereof. The plaintiffs assailed the noninclusion, in its
computation, of the bonus that the corporation, which was the victim's employer, had awarded to deserving
officersandemployees,basedupontheprofitsearnedlessthantwo(2)monthsbeforetheaccidentthatresulted
inhisdeath.Thedefendants,inturn,objectedtothesumawardedforthefourthyear,whichwastreblethatofthe
previousyears,basedupontheincreasesgiven,inthatfourthyear,tootheremployeesofthesamecorporation.
NeitherthisobjectionnorsaidclaimforinclusionofthebonuswassustainedbythisCourt.Accordingly,thesame
had not thereby laid down any rule on the length of time to be used in the computation of damages. On the
contrary,itdeclared:
Thedeterminationoftheindemnitytobeawardedtotheheirsofadeceasedpersonhastherefore
nofixedbasis.Muchislefttothediscretionofthecourtconsideringthemoralandmaterialdamages
involved, and so it has been said that "(t)here can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the
value of a human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculation,buttheamountrecoverabledependsontheparticularfactsandcircumstancesofeach
case.Thelifeexpectancyofthedeceasedorofthebeneficiary,whicheverisshorter,isanimportant
factor.'(25C.J.S.1241.)Otherfactorsthatareusuallyconsideredare:(1)pecuniarylosstoplaintiff
orbeneficiary(25C.J.S.12431250)(2)lossofsupport(25C.J.S.,12501251)(3)lossofservice
(25C.J.S.12511254)(4)lossofsociety(25C.J.S.12541255)(5)mentalsufferingofbeneficiaries
(25C.J.S.,12581259)and(6)medicalandfuneralexpenses(26C.J.S.,12541260)."2
Thus, life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an importantelement in fixing the amount recoverable by
privaterespondentsherein.Althoughitisnotthesole element determinative of said amount, no cogent reason
hasbeengiventowarrantitsdisregardandtheadoption,inthecaseatbar,ofapurelyarbitrarystandard,such
asafouryearrule.Inshort,theCourtofAppealshasnoterredinbasingthecomputationofpetitioner'sliability
uponthelifeexpectancyofPolicronioQuintos,Jr.
Withrespecttotherateatwhichthedamagesshallbecomputed,petitionerimpugnsthedecisionappealedfrom
uponthegroundthatthedamagesawardedthereinwillhavetobepaidnow,whereasmostofthosesoughttobe
indemnifiedwillbesufferedyearslater.Thisargumentisbasicallytrue,andthisis,perhaps,oneofthereasons
why the Alcantara case points out the absence of a "fixed basis" for the ascertainment of the damages
recoverableinlitigationsliketheoneatbar.Justthesame,theforceofthesaidargumentofpetitionerhereinis
offsetbythefactthat,althoughpaymentoftheawardinthecaseatbarwillhavetotakeplaceuponthefinalityof
thedecisiontherein,theliabilityofpetitionerhereinhadbeenfixedattherateonlyofP2,184.00ayear,whichis
theannualsalaryofPolicronioQuintos,Jr.atthetimeofhisdeath,asayoung"trainingassistant"intheBacnotan
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/feb1970/gr_25499_1970.html

2/4

1/24/2015

G.R.No.L25499

CementIndustries,Inc.Inotherwords,unliketheAlcantaracase,onwhichpetitionerrelies,thelowercourtsdid
not consider, in the present case, Policronio's potentiality and capacity to increase his future income. Indeed,
upontheconclusionofhistrainingperiod,hewassupposedtohaveabetterjobandbepromotedfromtimeto
time, and, hence, to earn more, if not considering the growing importance of trade, commerce and industry
andtheconcomitantriseintheincomelevelofofficersandemployees
thereinmuchmore.
At this juncture, it should be noted, also, that We are mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or
damagessustainedbytheprivaterespondents,asdependentsandintestateheirsofthedeceased,andthatsaid
damagesconsist,notofthefullamountofhisearnings,butofthesupport,theyreceivedorwouldhavereceived
from him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount of that
support, We must reckon with the "necessary expenses of his own living", which should be deducted from his
earnings.Thus,ithasbeenconsistentlyheldthatearningcapacity,asanelementofdamagestoone'sestatefor
his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or his capacity to acquire money, "less the
necessaryexpenseforhisownliving.3 Stated otherwise, the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning, but
ratherthelossofthatportionoftheearningswhichthebeneficiarywouldhavereceived.4Inotherwords,onlynetearnings,
notgrossearning,aretobeconsidered5thatis,thetotaloftheearningsless expenses necessary in the creation of such
earningsorincome6andlesslivingandotherincidentalexpenses.7

All things considered, We are of the opinion that it is fair and reasonable to fix the deductible living and other
expensesofthedeceasedatthesumofP1,184.00ayear,oraboutP100.00amonth,andthat,consequently,
thelosssustainedbyhissistersmayberoughlyestimatedatP1,000.00ayearorP33,333.33forthe331/3years
ofhislifeexpectancy.TothissumofP33,333.33,thefollowingshouldbeadded:(a)P12,000.00,pursuanttoArts.
104and107oftheRevisedPenalCode,inrelationtoArticle2206ofourCivilCode,asconstruedandappliedby
thisCourt8 (b) P1,727.95, actually spent by private respondents for medical and burial expenses and (c) attorney's fee,
whichwasfixedbythetrialcourt,atP500.00,butwhich,inviewoftheappealtakenbypetitionerherein,firsttotheCourtof
Appeals and later to this Supreme Court, should be increased to P2,500.00. In other words, the amount adjudged in the
decisionappealedfromshouldbereducedtotheaggregatesumofP49,561.28,withinterestthereon,atthelegalrate,from
December29,1961,dateofthepromulgationofthedecisionofthetrialcourt.

Thusmodified,saiddecisionandthatoftheCourtofAppealsareherebyaffirmed,inallotherrespects,withcosts
againstpetitioner,VillaReyTransit,Inc.Itissoordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes
193Phil.472.
2Emphasissupplied.
3Pitmanv.Merriman,117A.18,19,80N.H.295.
4Lynchv.Lynch,195A.799Lockermanv.Hurlock,126A.482,2W.W.Harr.479Lemmonv.
Broadwater,108A.273,7Boyce472Louisville&N.R.R.Co.v.Reverman'sAdm'x,15S.W.2d300
Heppnerv.AtchisonT.&S.F.Ry.Co.,297S.W.2d497Darnellv.PanhandleCoop.Ass'n120N.
W.2d278175Neb.40.
5MeehanY.CentralR.Co,ofNewJersey,D.C.N.Y.181,F.Supp.594.
6Frasierv.PublicServiceInterstateTransp.Co.,C.A.N.Y.,244F.2d.668.
7Hanksv.Norfolk&WesternRy.Co.,52S.E.2d717,230N.C.179Gardnerv.NationalBulk
Carriers,Inc.,D.C.Va.221F.Supp.243,affirmed,C.A.,333F.2d676Meehanv.CentralR.Co.of
NewJersey,D.C.N.Y.,181F.Supp.594Frazierv.EwellEngineering&ContractingCo.,62So.2d
51.See,also,2CooleyonTorts,168169.
8Peoplev.PantojaL18793,Oct.11,1968Peoplev.Sangaran,L21757,Nov.26,1968Peoplev.
Gutierrez,L25372,Nov.29,1968Peoplev.Buenbrazo,L27852,Nov.29,1968Peoplev.Bakang,
L20908,Jan.31,1969Peoplev.LabutinL23513,Jan.31,1969Peoplev.AcabadoL26104,Jan.
31,1969Peoplev.Vacal,L20913,Feb.27,1969,Peoplev.Gonzales,L2330304,May20,1969
Peoplev.Tapac,L26491,May20,1969Peoplev.Aranas,L27851,Oct.28,1969.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/feb1970/gr_25499_1970.html

3/4

1/24/2015

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/feb1970/gr_25499_1970.html

G.R.No.L25499

4/4