Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter to PNR to ask indemnity for the death of her daughter, but
PNR did not respond. As a result, she and Garcia filed a complaint in the RTC Manila (later tried
by Br. 20, Manila RTC). They alleged that it was PNRs failure to provide necessary equipment
at the railroad crossing in Brgy. Rizal, Moncada. Tarlac which was proximate and direct cause of
Garcias injuries and the death of Rhonda. Meanwhile, contrary to Brunty and Garcias
allegations, PNR stated that it was not negligent in selection and supervision of its employees
(using the diligence of a good father doctrine) and it was Mercelitas negligence which was the
immediate and proximate of the accident. It also stated that it had the right of way, and has no
legal duty to put a bar or red light signal at the crossing. Moreover, it had adequate, visible, and
clear warning signs strategically posted on the sides of the road before the railroad crossing.
The Manila RTC granted via its decision on 21 May 1990 what Brunty and Garcia asked and as
stated in the decisions fallo, PNR was to pay:
1. Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) Philippine Currency, for the death of Rhonda
Brunty formerly a resident of 1595 Ashland Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, U.S.A.;
2. One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) Philippine Currency for moral and actual damages
due the heirs of Rhonda Brunty;
3. Seventy-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Pesos (P72,760.00) Philippine Currency
for damages sustained by the Mercedes Benz;
4. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) Philippine Currency as and for attorney's fees, and;
5. Costs of suit.
PNR appealed the Manila RTCs decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the CA affirmed
with modification the decision of the lower trial court, but did not consider Mercelita guilty of
contributory negligence:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
PARTIAL MODIFICATIONS, increasing the death indemnity award from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00, and deleting the award for damages sustained by the Mercedes Benz.
Issue: Who was guilty of negligence between the people involved which resulted in the
unfortunate accident?
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the findings of the Manila RTC and Court
of Appeals. It held that PNR was indeed negligent by not providing adequate, visible, clear
warnings and safety equipment: (1) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars; (2) inadequacy of
the installed warning signals; and (3) lack of proper lighting within the area.
Actual damages were not awarded to respondents Brunty and Garcia, as they failed to produce
evidence for such. But moral damages were awarded to Rhondas heirs:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August
15, 2005 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of actual damages is
deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of
Rhonda Brunty. The award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000.00.