Philippine National Railways vs Brunty

FACTS: Rhonda Brunty, daughter of herein respondent, an American Citizen went to Ph for a visit. Together with her
host Garcia traveled to Baguio using mercedez benz driven by Mercelita. Around 2am as they were already approaching
the railroad crossing located in Tarlac driving at 70km/hr collided with the PNR train which killed Mercelita instantly.
Rhonda and Garcia were brought to hospital but Rhonda was pronounced death later on.
Ethel Brunty then send a demand letter to PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory and moral damages as a
result of her daughter’s death. PNR did not respond to this letter so she filed a complaint for damages against PNR before
the RTC of Manila. The complaint alleged that the death of Mercelita and Rhonda was due to the reckless negligence of
PNR in not providing necessary equipments. PNR, in its answer that it exercise diligence of a good father of a family in
selection and supervision of employees and that it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light signal and insisted that the
warning signs placed in the railroad were clear, visible and adequate. Further contend that the proximate cause is
Mercelita’s negligence because he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
RTC: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Awarded damages for the death of Rhonda, moral and damages, damages sustained by
the mercedez benz, attorney’s fees..
Both parties appealed to CA: Affirmed the decision of RTC but modified the award of damages as the death indemnity
was increased by CA and removed the award for damages sustained by the car.
ISSUE: WN PNR is liable.
HELD: Yes. Railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to
persons and property at railroad crossing. The court held that every corporation constructing or operating a railway shall
make and construct at all points where such railway crosses any public road, good, sufficient, and safe crossings and erect
at such points, at a sufficient revelation from such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of every kind, a sign with
large and distinct letters placed thereon to give notice of the proximity of the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of
looking out for trains.
As to damages, the court modified the award particularly to the award of actual and moral damages. Actual damages are
those damages awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. To be recoverable, they must be
duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty and the court cannot rely on mere speculation but must depend upon
competent proof that they have suffered, and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. Respondents failed to present such
evidence and the award of actual damages cannot be sustained. The court found it proper to award temperate damages in
the amount of 25,000 for the wake and burial of Rhona in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. The court also
sustained the award of moral damages. Moral damages are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
suffering, mental, anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings unjustly caused a person. Moral damages must
nevertheless be somehow proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Award of 500,000 as moral
damages. Award of death indemnity and attorney’s fees are also proper.
MANZANARES VS MORETA
FACTS: The case was about the recovery of damages resulting from the death of the Child Salvador Bona about 8 or 9
years old who had been run over an automobile driven by the defendant. A judgment was rendered where the defendant
was ordered to pay of P1,000 as indemnity to the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased child and to pay costs. Appeal was
taken by defendant and the case is now before this court by bill of exception.
ISSUE: WN the defendant is liable.
HELD: Yes. The SC find no reason for disturbing the findings made by the trial judge wherein the defendant was found
liable for the accident which occurred to the said child on Solana street. As the one who caused the accident, the defendant
is bound to indemnify the mother of the deceased child in the amount of P1,000 which was deemed by the trial judge to be
proper to the mother for the loss and death of a member of her family.
FAR EASTERN SURETY INSURANCE Co VS CA
FACTS: On December 1947, petitioner posted a P3,000 surety bond in favor the commissioner of immigration for the
temporary stay in the Philippines of a Chinese alien name Co Too subject to several conditions, one of that is the Far
Eastern undertakes to make Co Too all times available to and to present him within 24hrs after receipt of notice to
produce before the Immigration Authorities for investigation of his right to further stay in the Philippines. On Feb 1950,
Commissioner of Immigration wrote a letter to the petitioner requiring Co Too to appear for an investigation with a
warning that in case of failure to produce him, the surety bond will be forfeited, without releasing the petitioner from the
obligation to produce Co Too. The commissioner sent another notice and granted two extensions but the petitioner failed
to comply with the demand of Commissioner. Then the commissioner filed a complain for recovery of P3,000 from the
petitioner. Co Too was apprehended without the help of petitioner and was ordered deported but due to the lack of transpo
facilities and of a definite place to deport him, he continued his stay here by giving a cash bond and surety bond posted by
another Surety Company. Meanwhile, the bond of petitioner was declared forfeited.
The commissioner sent a list to petitioner containing the its cancelled bonds, including the name of Co Too, but the
commissioner sent another letter explaining that the inclusion of Co Too’s name in the list of cancelled bonds was due to
mistake or inadvertence. In this appeal, pet alleged that the resp did not suffer damage because Co Too did not illegally
overstay in the Philippines claiming that his stay here was allowed by the Immigration. Pet further agues that it was error
for the lower court to hold that the cancellation of bond is null and void and still hold it liable inspite of cancellation. The
CA in treating the cancellation as null and void, reasoned that the ground for which the bond was cancelled is not one of
those provided by law, prior to the arrest, the bond had already been forfeited and cancellation was made through mistake
or ignorance of the truth.
ISSUE: WN the trial court erred in holding that the amount stated in the bond is the measure of damage, inspite of the
failure of the resp to prove actual damages.
HELD: The action of RTC should be sustained. In demanding the payment of P3,000 as the amount of the undertaking
stated in the bond, the resp based his action on the failure of the petitioner to comply with its obligation to produce Co
Too before the commissioner. Such failure on the part of pet to produce Co Too constitutes a breach of one of the
principal conditions, entitling the Government to forfeit the same to the full amount, without proving actual damages
suffered by it.
QUEMEL VS CA
FACTS: Pet was convicted of the crime libel and appealed before CA which affirmed the conviction but instead of
penalty of imprisonment, imposed a fine of P500 and added P2,000 as indemnity to the offended party wt subsidiary
imprisonment incase of insolvency.
Petitioner filed the petition and maintains that the CA erred when it awarded the said indemnity, despite of the fact that
the offended had not appealed from the decision of the trial court, which made no award of such nature. That the
assessment of damages in a criminal case in which the civil action is impliedly vested on trial courts and there is no proof
that damages had been sustained by the offended party.
ISSUE: WN CA erred.
HELD: No. The appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the penalty, which may be
increased and the indemnity is part of the penalty.
SC ruled that Although the authority to assess damages or indemnity in criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is so only
in the first instance. On appeal, such authority passes to the appellate court. Thus, this Court has, in many cases, increased
the damages awarded by the trial court, although the offended party had not appealed from said
award, and the only party who sought a review of the decision of said Court was the accused.
As regards the alleged absence of proof that the offended has suffered mental anguish, lost sleep, or could not look his
neighbor straight in the eye, suffice it to stress that, by its very nature, libel causes dishonor. disrepute and discredit; that
injury to the reputation of the offended party is a natural and probable consequence of the defamatory words in libel cases;
that "where the article is libelous per se" — as it is in the case at bar — "the law implies damages;" and that the
complainant in libel cases is not "required to introduce evidence of actual damages," at least, when the amount of the
award is more or less nominal, as it is in the case at bar.
TALISAY SILAY MILLING CO vs ASOCIATION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY SILAY INC
FACTS: Petitioner filed an action for damages against the defendants, Ramon Nolan, PNB and NIDC for which the RTC
ruled in favor of the defendants. Appeal was made by the defendants and the CA affirmed the decision with modification.
More specifically CA absolved Ramon Nolan, PNB, and NIDC and reduced the amount of damages due to plaintiffs from
15M to 1M. Defendants file an MR arguing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any award of damages since their
amended and supplemental complaint which had superseded their original complaint failed to specify the amount of
damages being prayed for. On the other hand, petitioners filed this petition essentially to seek a review of the decision of
the CA of reducing the award of the damages.
ISSUE: WN not defendants are liable to petitioners. WN CA erred in reducing the damages. Assuming error on part of
CA, WN amount of damages awarded by the trial court was supported by evidence.

HELD: The transfer of export sugar quota by defendants and certain individual from petitioners to another was illegal and
invalid for having ben effected despite the absence of the condition imposed by law. The defendants had no legal basis for
transferring its sugar allotment to FFMCI since TSMC never refused and in fact was complying with the participation
scheme required by law. The transferring of sugar allotments, defendants as well as the individual sugar planters similarly
situated became liable to petitioners.
CA erred. As to the reduction by CA, the CA reasoned that the reduction was due to the failure of the petitioner to amend
their complaint to conform to the evidence presented during trial. The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to
the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude an adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may
embody new issues not raised in the pleadings, or serve as a basis for a higher award of damages. Although the pleading
may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered,
not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the basis of issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in
the course of trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had
not been actually so amended. Put a little differently, so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as where
litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's
evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to
adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it.
Petitioner failed to clearly prove unrealized profits and the RTC failed in awarding the same. The rule in damages
consisting of unrealized profits are not to be granted on the basis of mere speculation, but rather by reference to some
reasonably definite standard such as market value, established experience or direct inference from known circumstances.
Where, however, it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected prots
had been incurred, uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award
of damages. The problem then would be the ascertainment of the amount of such unrealized profits. SC believe that
figures and computations by the trial court in its award of damages need further examination and refinement. Need of
recalculation in the interest of substantial and impartial justice. Remand the case to CA.

VILLA REY TRANSIT INC VS CA.

FACTS: Bus owned by the defendant was involved in an accident which resulted to the death by one of its passengers,
Policronio Quintos. The private respondents, who are the sisters and only surviving heirs of Quintos brought an action
against the herein petitioner for breach of contract of carriage between Quintos and to recover damages including
attorney’s fees. Petitioner contended that the accident was due to a fortuitous event, but both RTC and CA rejected the
defense and held that the death of Quinto was due to the negligence of the bus driver.
ISSUE: What is the amount of damages recoverable by private respondents.
HELD: Based on 2 factors, the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and the rate at
which the losses sustained by said respondents should be fixed. The life expectancy of Quintos followed by RTC and CA
is 33 and 1/3 yrs following the formula of life expectancy= (2/3x(80-30).
Where, however, it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits
had been incurred, uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award
of damages. The problem then would be the ascertainment of the amount of such unrealized profits. In the present case,
Policronio's potentiality and capacity to increase his future income. Indeed, upon the conclusion of his training period, he
was supposed to have a better job and be promoted from time to time, and, hence, to earn more, if not — considering the
growing importance of trade, commerce and industry and the concomitant rise in the income level of officers and
employees therein — much more. At this juncture, it should be noted, also, that We are mainly concerned with the
determination of the losses or damages sustained by the Private respondents, as dependents and intestate heirs of the
deceased and that said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support they received or would
have received from him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioner's agent. Stated otherwise, the
amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the
beneficiary would have received. In other words, only net earnings, not gross earning, are to be considered that is, the total
of the earnings less expenses necessary in creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental
expenses.

PEOPLE VS GALVEZ Y ESTANISLAO

Galvez was convicted of the crime murder and ordered to pay the legal heirs of the victim of indemnity, actual damages,
moral damages and exemplary damages as well as the costs.

Comsavings Bank vs. Sps. Danilo and Estrella Capistrano, G.R. No. 170942, August 28, 2013

People vs. Dianos, G.R. No. 119311, October 7, 1998

Lasam vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-19495, February 2, 1924

Phil. National Railways vs. Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel Garcia, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006

Manzares vs. Moreta, G.R. No. L-12306, October 22, 1918

Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Company, Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-12019, October 16, 1958

Quemel vs. CA, G.R. No. L-22794, January 16, 1968

Talisay-Silay Milling Co. vs. Asociacion de Agrucultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc., G.R. No. 91852, August 15, 1995

Villa Rey Transit vs. CA, G.R. No. L-25499, February 18, 1970

People vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001

People vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. 143819, January 29, 2002

Roberta De Jose vs. Celerina Angeles, G.R. No. 187899, October 23, 2013

Benedicto vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 185020, October 6, 2010

Construction Development Corp. vs. Estrella, G.R. No. 147791, September 8, 2006

Brigido Simon, Jr. vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 156025, January 31, 2007