Bf Metal v Lomotan and Francisco v Ferrer

7/17/2019 Bf Metal v Lomotan and Francisco v Ferrer

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bf-metal-v-lomotan-and-francisco-v-ferrer 1/4

B.F. METAL vs. SPOUSES LOMOTAN and RICO UMUYON

FACTS:1. Respondent Rico Umuyon was driving the owner-type jeep

owned by Spouses Lomotan.a. The jeep was cruising at a moderate speed of 2 to !

"mph.b. Sudden#y$ at the opposite #ane$ the speeding ten-whee#er

truc" driven by %nofre Rivera overtoo" a car by invading

the #ane being traversed by the jeep and rammed intothe jeep.

c. The jeep was a tota# wrec"d. Umuyon suffered an injury which entai #ed his

hospita#i&ation for 1' days.e. (ue to the injuries he sustained$ Umuyon cou#d no

#onger drive$ reducing his dai#y income from)1*to )1

2. *RTC: Respondents instituted a separate and independent civi#action for damages against +, eta# orporation and Rivera.

a. The comp#aint a##eged that Rivera/s gross neg#igenceand rec"#essness was the immediate and pro0imate

cause of the vehicu#ar accident and that petitioner fai#edto e0ercise the reuired di#igence in the se#ection andsupervision of Rivera.

b. The comp#aint prayed for the award of actua#$ e0emp#aryand mora# damages and attorney/s fees in favor of respondents.

!. +, eta# and Rivera averred thata. Respondents were not the proper parties-in-interest to

prosecute the action since they were not the registeredowner of the jeep.

b. the so#e and pro0imate cause of the accident was thefau#t and neg#igence of Umuyon.

c. )etitioner e0ercised due di#igence in the se#ection andsupervision of its emp#oyees.

3. (uring the tria#$ respondents presenteda. The testimonies of Umuyon$ S)%1 Rico anaria$ S)%3

Theodore adaweg and 4icanor ,ajardo$ the auto-repair shop owner who gave a cost estimate for the repair of the wrec"ed jeep.

b. (ocument showing the cost estimate of )agawaanotors$ 5nc. which pegged the repair cost of the jeepat )'6$$ and the cost estimate of ,ajardo otor 7or"s done which ref#ected an increased repair costat )1!$6**.

c. 8 copy of the (ecision in rimina# ase 4o. 3932 findingRivera gui#ty of rec"#ess imprudence resu#ting in damageto property with physica# injuries.

*. The court dec#ared Rivera neg#igenta. 7hen he fai#ed to determine with certainty that the

opposite #ane was c#ear before overta"ing the vehic#e infront of the truc" he was driving.

b. 8#so neg#igent in the se#ection and supervision of its

emp#oyees when it fai#ed to prove the proper dissemination of safety driving instructions to its drivers.6. *CA: )etitioner and Rivera appea#ed the decision

a. The court affirmed the RT/s finding that Rivera/sneg#igence was the pro0imate cause of the accident andthat petitioner was #iab#e under 8rtic#e 21: of the ivi#ode for its neg#igence in the se#ection and supervisionof its emp#oyees.

b. ;owever$ it modified the amount of damages awarded torespondents.

9. otion for reconsideration denied by 8.:. *SC: %n#y petitioner fi#ed the instant petition$ e0press#y stating

that it is assai#ing on#y the damages awarded by the appe##atecourt

ISSUE#1: 7<4 the amount of actua# damages based on#y on a job estimateshou#d be #owered

HELD: =>S

>0cept as provided by #aw or by stipu#ation$ one is eni!ed o an ade"ae$o%&ensaion on!' (o) s$ &e$nia)' !oss s((e)ed +' i% as e asd!' &)o,ed. Such compensation is referred to as actua# or compensatorydamages. 8ctua# damages are such compensation or damages for an injurythat wi## put the injured party in the position in which he had been before hewas injured. They pertain to such injuries or #osses that are actua##y

sustained and susceptib#e of measurement. To justify an award of actua#damages$ there must be competent proof of the actua# amount of #oss.redence can be given on#y to c#aims which are du#y supported by receipts.

5n the instant case$ no evidence was submitted to show the amount actua##yspent for the repair or rep#acement of the wrec"ed jeep. Spouses Lomotanpresented two different cost estimates to prove the a##eged actua# damage of the wrec"ed jeep. >0hibit ?+$? is a job estimate by )agawaan otors$ 5nc.$which pegged the repair cost of the jeep at )'6$.$ whi#e >0hibit ?$?estimated the cost of repair at )1!$6**.. 8n estimate is competent toprove actua# damages. ourts cannot simp#y re#y on specu#ation$ conjectureor guesswor" in determining the fact and amount of damages.



8s correct#y pointed out by petitioner$ the best evidence to prove the va#ue of the wrec"ed jeep is ref#ected in >0hibit ?5$? the (eed of Sa#e showing the

jeep/s acuisition cost at )92$.. ;owever$ the depreciation va#ue of euiva#ent to 1@ of the acuisition cost cannot be deducted from it in theabsence of proof in support thereof.

ISSUE#-: 7<4 respondents a#so entit#ed to mora# and e0emp#ary damages

HELD: %n#y Spouses Lomotan are not entit#ed to mora# damages

)etitioner argues that the award of mora# damages was premised on theresu#ting physica# injuries arising from the quasi-delict A since on#y respondentUmuyon suffered physica# injuries$ the award shou#d pertain so#e#y to him.orresponding#y$ the award of e0emp#ary damages shou#d pertain on#y torespondent Umuyon since on#y him was entit#ed to mora# damages.

5n the case of mora# damages$ recovery is more an e0ception rather than theru#e. ora# damages are not punitive in nature but are designed tocompensate and a##eviate the physica# suffering$ menta# anguish$ fright$serious an0iety$ besmirched reputation$ wounded fee#ings$ mora# shoc"$socia# humi#iation$ and simi#ar harm unjust#y caused to a person. 5n order thatan award of mora# damages can be apt#y justified$ the c#aimant must be ab#eto satisfactori#y prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injurycausing it has sprung from any of the cases #isted in 8rtic#es 221' and222 of the ivi# ode. Then$ too$ the damages must be shown to be thepro0imate resu#t of a wrongfu# act or omission. The c#aimant must estab#ishthe factua# basis of the damages and its causa# tie with the acts of thedefendant. 5n fine$ an award of mora# damages wou#d reuire$ first#y$evidence of besmirched reputation or physica#$ menta# or psycho#ogica#suffering sustained by the c#aimantA second#y$ a cu#pab#e act or omissionfactua##y estab#ishedA third#y$ proof that the wrongfu# act or omission of thedefendant is the pro0imate cause of the damages sustained by the c#aimantAand fourth#y$ that the case is predicated on any of the instances e0pressed or envisioned by 8rtic#e 221' and 8rtic#e 222 of the ivi# ode.5n culpa aquiliana$ or quasi-delict $ BaC when an act or omission causesphysica# injuries$ or BbC where the defendant is gui#ty of intentiona# tort$ mora#damages may apt#y be recovered. This ru#e a#so app#ies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudu#ent#y or in bad faith. 5n culpacriminal $ mora# damages cou#d be #awfu##y due when the accused is foundgui#ty of physica# injuries$ #ascivious acts$ adu#tery or concubinage$ i##ega# or arbitrary detention$ i##ega# arrest$ i##ega# search$ or defamation.

Undoubted#y$ petitioner is #iab#e for the mora# damages suffered byrespondent Umuyon. 5ts #iabi#ity is based on a quasi-delict or on itsneg#igence in the supervision and se#ection of its driver$ causing the vehicu#ar accident and physica# injuries to respondent Umuyon. Rivera is a#so #iab#e for

mora# damages to respondent Umuyon based on either culpa

criminal or quasi-delict . Since the decision in the crimina# case$ which foundRivera gui#ty of crimina# neg#igence$ did not award mora# damages$ the samemay be awarded in the instant civi# action for damages.

Durisprudence show that in crimina# offenses resu#ting to the death of thevictim$ an award within the range of)*$. to )1$. as mora#damages has become the trend. Under the circumstances$ becauserespondent Umuyon did not die but had become permanent#y incapacitated

to drive as a resu#t of the accident$ the award of )!$. for mora#damages in his favor is justified.;owever$ there is no #ega# basis in awarding mora# damages to SpousesLomotan whether arising from the crimina# neg#igence committed by Riveraor based on the neg#igence of petitioner under 8rtic#e 21:. 8rtic#e221' spea"s of recovery of mora# damages in case of a crimina# offenseresu#ting in physica# injuries or quasi-delicts causing physica# injuries$ the twoinstances where Rivera and petitioner are #iab#e for mora# damages torespondent Umuyon. 8rtic#e 222 does spea" of awarding mora# damageswhere there is injury to property$ but the injury must be wi##fu# and thecircumstances show that such damages are just#y due. There being no proof that the accident was wi##fu#$ 8rtic#e 222 does not app#y.

>0emp#ary or corrective damages are imposed$ by way of e0amp#e or correction for the pub#ic good$ in addition to mora#$ temperate$ #iuidated or compensatory damages.

>0emp#ary damages cannot be recovered as amatter of rightA the court wi## decide whether or not they shou#d beadjudicated. 5n quasi-delicts$ e0emp#ary damages may be granted if thedefendant acted with gross neg#igence.7hi#e the amount of the e0emp#arydamages need not be proved$ the p#aintiff must show that he is entit#ed tomora#$ temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the uestion of whether or not e0emp#ary damages shou#d be awarded.

To serve as an e0amp#e for the pub#ic good$ the ourt affirms the award of e0emp#ary damages in the amount of )1$. to respondents. +ecausee0emp#ary damages are awarded$ attorney/s fees may a#so be awarded inconsonance with 8rtic#e 22: B1C. The ourt affirms the appe##ate court/saward of attorney/s fees in the amount of )2*$..

HEREFORE$ the instant petition for certiorari is PARTIALLY /RANTED.The (ecision of the ourt of 8ppea#s in 8-E.R. F 4o. *:6**is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of actua# damages for thecost of repairing the owner-type jeep is hereby REDUCED to )92$.whi#e the mora# damages of )!$. is awarded so#e#y to respondentUmuyon. 8## other awards of the ourt of 8ppea#s are AFFIRMED. fu##satisfaction.



ERLINDA FRANCISCO0 doing business in the name and sty#e of ebu,ountainhead +a"eshop and ULIANA PAMAON/0 petitioners$ vs.RICARDO FERRER0 R.0 ANNETTE FERRER0 ERNESTO LO ANDREBECCA LO0 respondents.2/.R. No. 13-4-5 Fe+)a)' -60 -441 PARDO0 J .:7TOPIC: No%ina! Da%a8es 9 en aa)dedFACTS:

1. rs. Rebecca Lo and her daughter 8nnette ,errer ordered a

three-#ayered ca"e from ,ountainhead +a"eshop$ ango 8venue+ranch.

a. 7edding ca"e sha## be de#ivered at * oGc#oc" in theafternoon at the ebu ountry #ub$ ebu ity

b. ,irst deposit was paid in the amount of )1$ on4ovember 1'$ 1''2

c. 2 wee"s after fu## payment was made2. 7edding day the fo##owing transpired

a. 6pm no ca"e was found by respondentsb. 9pm a fo##ow-up was made +a"eshop informed that it

was probab#y #ate due to traffic

c. :pm respondents were informed that no wedding ca"ewi## be de#ivered because the order s#ip got #ost.i. Respondents were then compe##ed to buy the on#y

avai#ab#e ca"e at the ebu ountry #ub whichwas a sans riva#.

1. >ven if a poor substitute$ the cutting of theca"e is a#ways a part of the ceremony.

d. 1pm wedding ca"e arrived but respondents refused toaccept

i. The ca"e de#ivered was a 2-#ayered ca"e ratherthan the ordered !-#ayer ca"e

!. >r#inda ,rancisco sent a #etter of apo#ogy accompanied with a

)*$. chec"a. Respondents refused fee#ing it was inadeuate

3. 2 wee"s after the wedding$ >r#inda ,rancisco ca##ed rs.Rebecca Lo and apo#ogi&ed.

a. Ricardo ,errer$ son-in-#aw of Rebecca Lo corroboratedthe #atterGs testimony Ramon ontino#a$ the son-in-#aw of>r#inda ,rancisco$ went to Rebecca LoGs residence andoffered the sum of )*$. to indemnify for the damagedone$ but it was rejected

*. Rebecca Lo fi#ed with the RT of ebu ity an action for breachof contract with damages against petitioners

6. T favored Lo and ordered for ,rancisco to pay the fo##owing?1. The cost of the wedding ca"e in the amount of )!$19*.A

?2. ora# damages in the amount of )!$.A?!. 8ttorneyGs fees in the amount of )1$.A and?3. ost of #i tigation.

9. 8 modified the decision.a. 5ncreased the award of mora# damages B!H2*HC

ISSUE: 7<4 the respondents are entit#ed with the damages awarded bythe 8.

HELD: NO. Peiion 8)aned. SC o)de)ed e (o!!oin8:

1. The cost of the wedding ca"e in the amount of )!$19*.A2. 4omina# damages in the amount of )1$.A!. 8ttorneyGs fees in the amount of )1$.A and3. osts of #itigation.

1. MORAL DAMA/ES:a. )UR)%S> to compensate the c#aimant for actua# injury

suffered and not to impose a pena#ty on the wrongdoer.b. 5n breach of contract +)ea$ %s +e &a!&a+!' anon0

)e$;!ess0 %a!i$ios0 in +ad (ai0 o&&)essi,e o)

a+si,ei. may be recovered when the defendant acted in

bad faith or was gui#ty of gross neg#igenceBamounting to bad faithC or in wanton disregard ofhis contractua# ob#igation and$ e0ceptiona##y$ whenthe act of breach of contract itse#f is constitutive of tort resu#ting in physica# injuries

ii. Bad (ai does no si%&!' $onnoe +ad <d8%en o) ne8!i8en$e$ it imports a dishonestpurpose or some mora# ob#iuity and consciousdoing of a wrong$ a breach of "nown duty throughsome motive or interest or i## wi## that parta"es ofthe nature of fraud.?

c. 5n the case no fraud or bad faith.d. )R%%, person c#aiming mora# damages must prove the

e0istence of bad faith by c#ear and $on,in$in8 e,iden$e(o) e !a a!a's &)es%es 8ood (ai.

i. 5t is not enough that one mere#y suffereds#eep#ess nights$ menta# anguish$ serious an0ietyas the resu#t of the actuations of the other party.

ii. %s +e son a e &)o=i%ae $asee)eo( as e n!a(! a$ o) o%ission o(e 2&)i,ae )es&onden7 &eiione)s.

e. R>IU5R>>4TS



i. there must be an injury$ whether physica#$ menta#or psycho#ogica#$ c#ear#y sustained by thec#aimantA

ii. there must be cu#pab#e act or omission factua##yestab#ishedA

iii. the wrongfu# act or omission of the defendant isthe pro0imate cause of the injury sustained by thec#aimantA and

iv. the award of damages is predicated on any of thecases stated in 8rtic#e 221'? of the ivi# ode.

f. awarded$ mora# damages must not be pa#pab#y andscanda#ous#y e0cessive as to indicate that it was theresu#t of passion$ prejudice or corruption on the part of thetria# court judge or appe##ate court

2. E>EMPLARY DAMA/ES:a. )on8(! a$ %s +e a$$o%&anied +' +ad (ai0 and

an aa)d o( da%a8es o!d +e a!!oed on!' i( e8i!' &a)' a$ed in a anon0 ()ad!en0 )e$;!ess o)%a!e,o!en %anne).

b. RE?UIREMENTS:i. they may be imposed by way of e0amp#e in

addition to compensatory damages$ and on#y after the c#aimantGs right to them has been estab#ishedA

ii. that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right$their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded tothe c#aimantA

iii. the act must be accompanied by bad faith or donein a wanton$ fraudu#ent$ oppressive or ma#evo#entmanner

c. 54 T;> 8S>: en $on()oned i ei) (ai!)e o

de!i,e) on e eddin8 da' e eddin8 $a;e o)de)edand &aid (o)0 &eiione)s 8a,e e !a%e e=$se ade!i,e)' as &)o+a+!' de!a'ed +e$ase o( e )a((i$0en in )0 no $a;e $o!d +e de!i,e)ed +e$ase eo)de) s!i& 8o !os

!. NOMINAL DAMA/ES:a. Grecoverab#e where a #ega# right is technica##y vio#ated and

must be vindicated against an invasion that has producedno actua# present #oss of any "ind or where there hasbeen a breach of contract and no substantia# injury oractua# damages whatsoever have been or can be shown

b. may be awarded ?to a p#aintiff whose right has beenvio#ated or invaded by the defendant$ for the purpose of

vindicating or recogni&ing that right$ not for indemnifyingthe p#aintiff for any #oss suffered.

c. 54 T;> 8S> &eiione)s %s +e e!d !ia+!e (o)no%ina! da%a8es (o) insensii,i'0 inad,e)en$e o)inaenion o ei) $so%e)@s an=ie' and need o(e o).

Bf Metal v Lomotan and Francisco v Ferrer

Documents

Transcript of Bf Metal v Lomotan and Francisco v Ferrer