CASE DIGEST:

PHILTRANCO V CA

G.R. NO. 120553 (JUNE 17, 1997)

FACTS:
On March 24, 1990, about 6:00 oclock in the morning, Ramon A. Acuesta was riding in his easy
rider bicycle along Gomez Street in Calbayog City. In a perpendicular street Magsaysay Boulevard,
Rogaciones Manilhig y Dolira was a driving a bus (no.4025) of Philtranco. The bus was being pushed by
some persons in order to start its engine.
As the engine of the Philtranco bus started abruptly and suddenly, its running motion was
enhanced by the functioning engine and resulted to Ramon A. Acuesta to be ran over. P/Sgt. Yabao was
jogging thru Gomez Street and was heading to meet the victim Ramon Acuesta when he saw the
Philtranco bus being pushed, its engine starting and the bus bumping and running over the victim. He
jumped into the bus to order the driver to stop but it still ran a distance of about 15 meters from the
scene of the accident.
Petitioners alleged that Philtranco exercised due diligence of a good father of a family including
the selection and supervision of its employee Manilhig who had an excellent record as a driver,
religiously observing traffic rules and regulations. They further claimed that it was negligence of the
victim in overtaking two tricycles, without taking precautions such as seeing first that the road was clear
that had caused the death of the victim.
The trial court handed down a decision ordering the petitioners to jointly and severally pay the
private respondent P55, 615.75 as actual damages, P200,000 as death indemnity for the death of the
victim, P1M as moral damages, P500,000 as exemplary damages and P50,000 as attorneys fees.
The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the petitioners was not denied due
process. The Doctrine of Last Chance theorized is inapplicable because under the premises because the
victim, who was bumped from behind, obviously, did not of course anticipate a Philtranco bus being
pushed from a perpendicular street. The respondent court sustained the awards of moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees under Articles 2206, 2231 and 2208 of the Civil Code.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the petitioners waived their right to present their
evidences, and that the petitioners were not denied due process.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in applying Articles 2194 instead of 2180 of the Civil Code, and in
holding that Petitioner Philtranco cannot invoke the defense of a good father of a family.
3. Whether or not the CA erred in awarding damages to respondents and/or in not finding the trial
courts award of damages excessive.

HELD:
1. The first imputed error is without merit. The petitioners were duly notified in open court of
the order of the trial court. On both dates set neither petitioners nor their counsel
appeared. There is an absence of any claim that the petitioners have meritorious defenses.
2. The second imputed error is also without merit. The liability of the registered owner of a
public service vehicle, like petitioner Philtranco, for damages arising from the tortious acts of
the driver is primary, direct, and joint and several or solidary with the driver. Article 2144
provides that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is
solidary.
3. There is, however, merit in the third imputed error. The trial intended the award of P200,000
as death indemnity not as compensation loss of earning capacity. There is no evidence on
the victims earning capacity and life expectancy. The moral damages of P1M for moral
damages has no sufficient basis and is excessive and unreasonable based solely on the
testimony of one of the heirs. The award of P500,000 for exemplary damages is also
excessive. In quasi0delicts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the party at fault acted
with gross negligence.
Petition is partially granted and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED. Death indemnity
P50,000; moral damages P50,000; exemplary damages P50,000; attorneys fees P25,000.