Respondent OMC Carriers owned a truck that crashed into the home of the Tan family when its brakes failed, killing the father Celedonio Tan. The RTC found OMC liable for negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reduced some damages for being insufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Temperate damages should have been awarded for the loss of property even without exact valuation, as the damage was undisputed; 2) Temperate damages should also have been awarded for loss of earning capacity, even without documents, as the damage was undisputed; 3) The reduction of exemplary damages was proper, as such damages are not meant to enrich or impoverish parties. Interest on all awards should be
Original Description:
1. Tan vs. OMC Carriers Digest
G.R. No. 190521: January 12, 2011
Original Title
1. Tan vs. OMC Carriers Digest G.R. No. 190521: January 12, 2011
Respondent OMC Carriers owned a truck that crashed into the home of the Tan family when its brakes failed, killing the father Celedonio Tan. The RTC found OMC liable for negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reduced some damages for being insufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Temperate damages should have been awarded for the loss of property even without exact valuation, as the damage was undisputed; 2) Temperate damages should also have been awarded for loss of earning capacity, even without documents, as the damage was undisputed; 3) The reduction of exemplary damages was proper, as such damages are not meant to enrich or impoverish parties. Interest on all awards should be
Respondent OMC Carriers owned a truck that crashed into the home of the Tan family when its brakes failed, killing the father Celedonio Tan. The RTC found OMC liable for negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reduced some damages for being insufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Temperate damages should have been awarded for the loss of property even without exact valuation, as the damage was undisputed; 2) Temperate damages should also have been awarded for loss of earning capacity, even without documents, as the damage was undisputed; 3) The reduction of exemplary damages was proper, as such damages are not meant to enrich or impoverish parties. Interest on all awards should be
G.R. No. 190521: January 12, 2011 LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER, ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN, CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY OY TAN, and MARK ALLAN AN, represented herein by their mother, LETICIA TAN,Petitioners vs. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO ARAMBALA, Respondents. FACTS: Respondent OMC Carriers owned a truck, driven by respondent Arambala, which crashed into the home of petitioners Tan when its braking mechanism failed. This caused the death of the head of the family, Celedonio Tan. The Tans went to court to demand damages due to the negligence of OMC. OMC counters that the truck went out of control because of motor oil spilled on the road. The RTC found OMC to be liable, that the brake of the truck malfunctioned, and that there was no motor oil which caused the accident. The driver, Aramballa, abandoned the truck when the brakes did not work which caused the truck to slam into the home of the Tans. The RTC awarded actual damages, both on the loss of property and earning capacity of Celedonio. Exemplary damages were also awarded. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the actual damages for loss of property was reduced as they were insufficiently substantiated. The damages for loss of earning capacity was deleted for being totally unsubstantiated. The Tans were unable to present documents to ascertain the amount of earning capacity lost. Exemplary damages were also reduced. ISSUES: Whether or not: a) the reduction of actual damages for loss of property was proper; b) the removal of actual damages for loss of earning capacity was proper; and c) whether or not the reduction of exemplary damages was proper. HELD: The petition is partly meritorious. Civil Law: Temperate damages are awarded when the exact amount of damages is unknown. The petitioners clearly suffered damages. Their home and property were damaged. The provider of the family passed away. It is clear and undisputed that they did suffer losses. However, since the value of the properties damaged could not be determined with certainty because of the nature of the property, temperate damages are in order. Also, even if there are no documents supporting the earning capacity of the deceased, the damage caused is still undisputed. Temperate damages must be awarded. The
reduction of exemplary damages are proper as exemplary damages are not
meant to enrich or reduce another party to poverty. Consistent with pertinent jurisprudence, the interest on these awards must be computed from the date when the RTC rendered its decision in the civil case, or on June 17, 2008, as it was at this time that a quantification of the damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained.