04 Davila v PAL (CHUA GIRL) DOCTRINE: For earning capacity the court said that the amount recoverable is

February 28, 1973 | MAKALINTAL, J | Damages
PETITIONER: PEDRO R. DAVILA and PRECIOSA C. TIRO
RESPONDENTS: PHILIPPINE AIR LINES
not loss of the entire earnings, but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings
which the beneficiary would have received. . In other words, only net earnings,
not gross earnings, are to be considered, that is, the total of the earnings less
expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and
other incidental expenses

SUMMARY: In this appeal the Davila seeks an increase in said amounts, and
the PAL, complete exoneration from, or at least mitigation of, liability. The case
arose from the tragic crash of a passenger plane of the defendant which took the
lives of all its crew and passengers. Despite its age, however, it had been
certified as airworthy by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. On November
23, 1960, at 5:30 in the afternoon, it took off from the Manduriao Airport, Iloilo,
on its way to Manila, with 33 people on board, including the plane's
complement. It did not reach its destination, but crashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro.
The fact was that the plane had deviated from the prescribed route by 32 miles to
the west when it crashed at Mt. Baco. PAL suggested that the pilot did not notice
the drift of his plane because of poor visibility due to thick clouds, which
prevented him from making the corresponding correction on the basis of visual
references to the terrain outside. However, the suggestion that the pilot was
practically glying blind and consequently failed to notice the drift of the aircraft
is not justified by the evidence. What is undisputed therefore is that the pilot
did not follow the route prescribed for his flight, at least between Romblon
and Manila. It was a violation of air-traffic rules to which, under the
circumstances, the accident may be directly attributable.
Damages were adjusted accordingly. Pursuant to current jurisprudence on the
point indemnity for death should be increased to P12,000. For earning capacity
the court said that the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earnings, but
rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have
received. In other words, only net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be
considered, that is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary in the
creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses
(amounted to 195,000) Actual loss for the Rolex watch, pistol and burial
expenses and the cost for mausoleum amounted to P5,000 SC awarded moral
damages of P10,000 but eliminated the P10,000 exemplary damages because the
failure of the defendant here to exercise extraordinary diligence, as required by
law, does not amount to the defendant acting in a wanton, careless manner that
would justify awarding of exemplary damages. SC also awarded attorney’s fees
of P10,000. [TABLE IN RULING]
According to Article 2232 of the Civil Code, in contracts and quasi-contracts the
court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
FACTS:
1. In Civil Case No. 5728 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Pedro R.
Davila and Preciosa C. Tirol, plaintiffs, vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.,
defendant) judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiffs various sums of money, as follows:
a. For the death of Pedro T. Davila, Jr. the amount of P6,000.00;
b. For the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased at the rate of
P12,000.00 per annum for five (5) years in the amount P60,000.00
c. For moral damages in favor of the plaintiffs P10,000
d. For exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000
e. For actual damages the amount of P5,000 broken down as follows:
rolex watch valued at P600, for the lot and mausoleum P3,500
f. For attorney’s fees the amount of P10,000 or a total of P101,000
2. Both parties appealed directly to this Court in view of the aggregate of the
amounts awarded, the judgment having been rendered before the effectivity
of Rep. Act No. 5440. In this appeal the plaintiffs seek an increase in said
amounts, and the defendant, complete exoneration from, or at least
mitigation of, liability.
3. The case arose from the tragic crash of a passenger plane of the defendant
which took the lives of all its crew and passengers.
4. It had flown almost 18,000 hours at the time of its ill-fated flight. Despite
its age, however, it had been certified as airworthy by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration. On November 23, 1960, at 5:30 in the afternoon, it took off
from the Manduriao Airport, Iloilo, on its way to Manila, with 33 people on
board, including the plane’s complement. It did not reach its destination, but
crashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro, one hour and fifteen minutes after take-off.
5. The plaintiffs, parents of Pedro T. Davila, Jr., who was one of the
passengers, had no definite news of what had happened to their son, getting
what information they could only from confiicting newspaper reports, until
they received, on December 19, 1960, a letter of condolence from the
defendant’s president Andres Soriano, informing them that their son had
died in the crash. And it was only on December 29 that his body was
recovered and taken back to Iloilo.
 4. The fact was that the plane had deviated from the prescribed route by 32
ISSUE: miles to the west when it crashed at Mt. Baco
1. WON the defendant is liable for violation of its contract of carriage and if 5. There is a suggestion that in the course of the flight between Romblon and
so, for how much. YES—for P232,000 Mindoro the aircraft was drifted westward by the cross-winds then blowing
in the region. The defendant, however, has not given a definite explanation
RULING as to why, if such was the case, the pilot failed to make the necessary
RTC SC correction in his flight to compensate for the drift.
Death 6000 12,000 6. According to PAL’s witness Maj. Mijares (Chief of Aviation Safety
Loss of earning 60,000 195,000 Division of the Civil Aeronautics Administration)
capacity (Gross earnings – deduction) x a. There was a navigational error, to which several factors
life expectancy age contributed: “the weather observation at that time from the
Moral damages 10,000 10,000 Weather Bureau was not so good between Mt. Baco and Romblon
Exemplary 10,000 X and the wind aloft was quite strong, which would be also one of
damages the causes for the drifting of the aircraft; and the other strong
Actual damages 5,000 5,000 probability, I would say, would be the malfunction of the aircraft’s
Attorney’s fee 10,000 10,000 navigational instrument.”
TOTAL P101,000 P232,000 b. “a cross-wind can drift the plane if the pilot will not make the
necessary correction, if his navigational instrument is
RATIO: malfunctioning and the visual reference outside the aircraft could
1. The provisions of the Civil Code on this substantive question of liability are not make the necessary corrections.”
clear and explicit. 7. There is nothing in the testimony of Maj. Mijares to show just how strong
a. Article 1733 binds common carriers, “from the nature of their the cross-winds were in the region at the time, although in the investigation
business and by reasons of public policy, . . . to observe of the accident by the Senate Committee on transportation there was
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance.. for the safety of the testimony that the cross-winds had a velocity of either 20 to 25 knots or 25
passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances to 35 knots an hour. Considering the relatively short distance from Romblon
of each case.” to Mt. Baco and the brief span of time it would take to fly that distance,
b. Article 1755 establishes the standard of care required of a common cross-winds with the velocity stated could not have possibly deviated the
carrier, which is, “to carry the passengers safely as far as human plane by as much as 32 miles.
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very 8. The defendant points out that the navigational instrument on board the plane
cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.” consisted of two (2) sets of automatic direction finders (ADF) which, when
c. Article 1756 fixes the burden of proof by providing that “in case found after the crash, showed a reading that the aircraft was heading north,
of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are which was the proper flight direction. This point, however, is of no vital
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless significance in this case since it does not explain why the aircraft was 32
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed miles off its prescribed route in the first place.
in Articles 1733 and 1755.” 9. It is suggested that the pilot did not notice the drift of his plane because of
d. Article 1757 states that “the responsibility of a common carrier for poor visibility due to thick clouds, which prevented him from making the
the safety of passengers . . . cannot be dispensed with or lessened corresponding correction on the basis of visual references to the terrain
by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, outside.
or otherwise.” 10. However, the suggestion that the pilot was practically glying blind and
2. The route prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration for the flight consequently failed to notice the drift of the aircraft is not justified by the
of plane PI-C113 in the afternoon of November 23, 1960 was Iloilo- evidence.
Romblon-Manila 11. Indeed even the investigating team of the defendant under the chairmanship
3. The plane reported its position after take-off and again when it was abeam of Capt. Jaime Manzano concluded in its report that “based on the limited
the Roxas homer. However, it did not intercept airway “Amber I” over evidences available, the board is of the opinion that the probable cause was
Romblon as it was supposed to do, and the pilot did not give his position the inability of the pilot to intersect airway ‘Amber I’ over Romblon and to
then although Romblon was a compulsory checking point maintain track within its designated airway lane for reasons unknown
 12. What is undisputed therefore is that the pilot did not follow the route
prescribed for his flight, at least between Romblon and Manila. Since
up to that point over Romblon, where he was supposed to intersect
airway “Amber I,” the weather was clear, the most reasonable
conclusion is that his failure to do so was intentional, and that he
probably wanted to fly on a straight line to Manila. It was a violation of
air-traffic rules to which, under the circumstances, the accident may be
directly attributable.
Damages to be awarded to the parents of the deceased
1. The trial court fixed the indemnity for his death in the amount of P6,000.00.
Pursuant to current jurisprudence on the point it should be increased
to P12,000
2. According to Article 2206, paragraph (1), of the Civil Code, “the defendant
shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter.” This Article, while
referring to “damages for death caused by crime or quasi-delict,” is
expressly made applicable by Article 1764 “to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.”
a. Deceased employed as manager of a radio station, from which he
was earning P8,400.00 a year, consisting of a monthly salary of
P600.00 and allowance of P100.00. As a lawyer and junior partner
of his father in the law office, he had an annual income of
P3,600.00. From farming he was getting an average of P3,000.00.
All in all therefore the deceased had gross earnings of P15,000.00
a year.
b. The deceased, Pedro Davila, Jr., was single and 30 years of age
when he died. At that age one’s normal life expectancy is 33-1/3
years, according to the formula (2/3 x [80 — 30]) adopted by this
Court in the case of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals on
the basis of the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality. However,
although the deceased was in relatively good health, his medical
history shows that he had complained of and been treated for
such ailments as backaches, chest pains and occasional feelings
of tiredness. It is reasonable to make an allowance for these
circumstances and consider, for purposes of this case, a
reduction of his life expectancy to 25 years.
c. “. . .earning capacity, as an element of damages to one’s estate for
his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or
his capacity to acquire money, less the necessary expense for his
own living. Stated otherwise, the amount recoverable is not loss
of the entire earnings, but rather the loss of that portion of the
earnings which the beneficiary would have received. In other
words, only net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered,
that is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary in the
creation of such earnings or income and less living and other
incidental expenses.”
d. Considering the fact that the deceased was getting his income from
three (3) different sources, namely, from managing a radio station,
from law practice and from farming, the expenses incidental to the
generation of such income were necessarily more than if he had
only one source. Together with his living expenses, a deduction of
P600.00 a month, or P7,200.00 a year, seems to Us reasonable,
leaving a net yearly income of P7,800.00. This amount, multiplied
by 25 years, or P195,000.00 is the amount which should be
awarded to the plaintiffs in this particular respect.
3. Actual losses sustained consist of the following, as found by the trial court:
“Rolex Watch — P600.00; pistol — P300.00; Burial Expenses — P600.00;
and cost of cemetery lot and mausoleum — P3,500.00.” for a total of
P5,000
4. Under Article 2206, in relation to Article 1764, of the Civil Code, the
parents of the deceased are entitled to moral damages for their mental
anguish. The trial court awarded P10,000.00 in this concept, and We find no
justification to change the award, considering the long period of uncertainty
and suffering the plaintiffs underwent
5. With respect to the award of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, it is Our
opinion that the same should be eliminated. According to Article 2232 of
the Civil Code, in contracts and quasi-contracts the court may award
exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
a. The failure of the defendant here to exercise extraordinary
diligence, as required by law, does not amount to anyone of the
circumstances contemplated in the said provision.
6. The trial court has awarded attorney’s fees of P10,000.00. We do not find
this award groundless or the amount thereof unreasonable.
7. The total of the different items above enumerated is P232,000.00.
 05 PAL v. CA (Justin)
May 8, 1990 | Grino-Aquino, J. | Life expectancy as basis for damages
PETITIONER: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
RESPONDENTS: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NATIVIDAD VDA. DE
PADILLA, substituted by her legal heirs, namely: AUGUSTO A. PADILLA,
ALBERTO A. PADILLA, CRESENCIO R. ABES (representing the deceased
Isabel Padilla Abes), MIGUEL, A. PADILLA and RAMON A. PADILLA
SUMMARY: One of PAL’s aircraft crashed on Mt. Baco. One of the deceased
passengers was Nicanor Padilla. His mother, Natividad, sued PAL and asked from
damages. After multiple stipulations of facts, the Trial Court awarded 477k of
damages to Natividad computed on the basis of Nicanor’s life expectancy. The
CA affirmed in toto.
WoN the CA erred in computing the damages on the basis of life expectancy of
Nicanor, the deceased, instead of Natividad, the beneficiary? – NO, but the
damages were reduced to 417k.
SC used the computation in the case of Davila v. PAL. This case is similar to the
Davila case. The Court in the Davila case used the deceased life expectancy as
basis for the damages not the beneficiary’s life expectancy. In the Davila case, the
court used this formula (12/3 x [80-30]) to compute the life expectancy of Davila
the proceeded to compute the damages this way: Life expectancy x (Total annual
income – Total annual expenses). By applying the formulas in the Davila case, the
court deemed the total annual income of Nicanor to be 23,100 based off of the
testimonies of Mate and Reyes. Because he was single, the court deducted 9,200
as yealy living expenses. Because he was in good health, the TC allowed him a
life expectancy of 30 years. So his net annual income of 13,900 (23,100-9,200)
multiplied by 30 years = 417,000 as the amount of death indemnity.
DOCTRINE: The manner of computing the damages due to the plaintiff is that
which is based on the life expectancy of the deceased, not the life expectancy of
the beneficiary.
FACTS:
1. On Nov 23, 1960, at 5:30PM, Starlight Flight No. 26 of Philippine Air Lines
(PAL) took off from the Manduriao Airport in Iloilo, on its way to Manila.
a. The plane crashed on Mt. Baco, Mindoro, 1hr and 15mins after take-
off.
b. The plane had flown for almost 18k hourse at the time of its demise
and had been certified as airworthy by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA).
2. Among the fatalities was Nicanor Padilla, 29 years old, single. His mother,
Natividad A. Vda. de Padilla, was his only legal heir.
3. Natividad filed a complaint against PAL demanding 600k as actual and
compensatory damages, plus exemplary damages and 60k as attorney’s fees.
4. PAL denied that the accident was caused by its negligence and that the
damages were excessive and speculative.
5. Trial Court issued a pre-trial order requiring the parties to file a stipulation of
facts.
6. On June 8, 1965, the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts: (I’ll just
include the important parts for all the different stipulations of facts because
they’re so long. If you want to read everything, just check the origs but its
proly not worth it.)
a. Nicanor graduated elementary, high school, Bachelor of Literature
and Bachelor of Laws, all in Ateneo de Manila.
b. He practiced law with the law offices of Senator Padilla, brother of
his father, Alberto Padilla.
c. He was the President and Gen Manager of Padilla Shipping Co., Inc
and the VP and treasurer of the Allied Overseas Trading Co., Inc.
d. Aircraft had total flying hours of 17,996:33 hours.
e. Aircraft was issued a certificate of airworthiness by the CAA on Sep
13, 1960 which is set to expire on Sep 12, 1961.
7. On Jan 15, 1966, parties submitted another stipulation of facts:
a. In the book written by Salvador Salvosa, entitled: “Filipino
Experience Mortality Table”, the life expectancy of Filipinos appear
on page 3 thereof.
b. According to the book, a person aged 29 has a life expectancy of
42.60 years.
c. That the table inside the book is being used by a lot of insurance
companies and approved by the Insurance Commissioner.
8. On March 19, 1970, a 3rd joint partial stipulation of facts was submitted:
(proly useless to the case)
a. PAL was authorized and rated to repair aircrafts and holds multiple
certifications.
b. PAL maintained and repaired aircrafts
c. Quality control division holds all worksheets for checks performed
under PI-CAA regulations
d. Listed different forms used and accomplished for the various checks.
e. Parties reserve their rights to agree to additional stipulation of facts.
9. Durint the hearing, parties stipulated that they were reproducing testimonial
and documentary evidence presented in Civil Cases Nos. 5728 and 2790
arising out of the same accident.
10. 4th partial stipulation of facts:
a. Basically listing down the witnesses they intend to reproduce as per
Fact#9 and that they will not anymore be presented because they
will just say the same thing.
11. Natividad testified that her son, Nicanor, was 29 years old, single, in good
health, President and General Manager of Padilla Shipping Company and a
legal assistant of the Padilla Law Office; that upon learning of his death, she
suffered mental anguish and shock.
12. Eduardo Mate, manager of the Allied Overseas Trading Company, testified
that the deceased, Nicanor Padilla, was one of the incorporators of the
 company and also its vice-president and treasurer, receiving a monthly salary
of P455.
13. Isaac M. Reyes, auditor of the Padilla Shipping Company, declared that the
deceased was the President and General Manager of the firm and received a
salary of P1,500 monthly.
14. Trial Court ordered PAL to pay Natividad 477k as award for the expected
income of Nicanor, 10k as moral damages, 10k as attorney’s fees and to pay
the costs. CA affirmed in toto the Trial Court’s disposition.
ISSUE:
1. WoN the CA erred in computing the awarded indemnity on the basis of the
life expectancy of the late Nicanor rather than on the life expectancy of
Natividad, and thus erred in awarding what appears to the petitioner as the
excessive sum of 477k as indemnity for loss of earnings? – NO, but the
damages were adjusted because TC computation was a bit off.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The decision of the trial court is
affirmed with modification. The petitioner is ordered to pay the private respondent or
her heirs death indemnity in the sum of P417,000 (not P477,000), with legal rate of
interest of 6% per annum from the date of the judgment on August 31, 1973, until it is
fully paid. Costs against the petitioner.
RATIO:
1. PAL relies on “the principle of law generally recognized and applied by the
courts in the U.S.” that “the controlling element in determining loss of
earnings arising from death is, as established by authorities, the life
expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary, whichever is shorter”
2. However, resort ot foreign jurisprudence would only be proper if no law or
jurisprudence is available locally to settle a controversy. Even in the absence
of local statute and case law, foreign jurisprudence is only persuasive.
3. Under Art 1764 and Art 2206(1) of the CC, the award of damages for death
is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased, not of his
beneficiary. The articles provide:
a. ART. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be
awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning
Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier."
b. "ART. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime
or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though
there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
"(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity
of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded
by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at
the time of his death;
4. In the case of Davila v. PAL which involved the same tragic plane crash, this
court determined the manner of computing the damages due the plaintiff
therein whch it based on the life expectancy of the deceased, Pedro Davila Jr.
a. The guy was 30 years old.
b. At that age, one’s normal life expectancy is 33 and 1/3 years,
according to the formula (12/3 x [80-30]) adopted by the Court in
the case of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. CA on the basis of the American
Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined
Experience Table of Mortality.
c. Although the guy was in good health, his medical history that he had
complained of backaches, chest pains and occasional feelings og
tiredness. So, it is reasonable to account for these by lowering the
life expectancy to 25 years.
d. They used his net yearly income of 7,800 and then multiplied that
by 25 years = 195,000.
5. PAL’s recourse to Alcantara v. Surro is misplaced as the case also uses the
life expectancy of the deceased and not of his beneficiaries.
6. Witnesses Mate and Reyes were competent to testify on the the income and
salary of Nicanor. The payrolls and income tax returns constitute the best
evidence of his salaries,
7. Following the procedure used by the SC in Davila v. PAL, the TC determined
Nicanor’s annual income to be 23,100.
a. His yearly salaries of 18k from Padilla Shipping Company and
5,100 from Allied Overseas Trading.
8. Because he was single, the court deducted 9,200 as yearly living expenses,
resulting in a net income of 13,900.
9. Since Nicanor was only 29 years old and in good health, TC allowed him a
life expectancy of 30 years, 13,900 x 30 years = 417,000 (not 477k)
10. While as a general rule, an appellee who has not appealed is not entitled to
affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court
below, we nevertheless find merit in the private responent’s plea for relief for
the long delay this case has suffered on account of the petitioner’s multiple
appeals. Because of the 16-year delay in the disposition of the case, Natividad
has also already passed away. Considering how inflation has depleted the
value of the judgement in her favor, PAL should also pay the legal rate of
interest on the indemnity due her.
 06 DE CALISTON v. CA (BITOIN) b. credited him for the amount of P5,000.00 previously paid to De
June 24, 1983 | Plana, J. | Loss of Earning Capacity Caliston under a vehicular insurance policy obtained by the bus
PETITIONER: GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON owner.
RESPONDENT: CA and GERONIMO DALMACIO 4. The above modifications are now assailed in this petition for review on which
Dalmacio has filed his comment.
SUMMARY: A passenger bus driven by Dalmacio ran over Juana Sonza Vda. de
Darrocha (a USVA pensioner). She died instantly. Dalmacio was convicted for ISSUE: W/N Dalmacio is liable to pay for damages constituting the loss of pension
homicide thru reckless imprudence by CFI and sentenced to imprisonment and of the deceased. (YES)
ordered to pay De Caliston (daughter of Juana) P10,000.00 for loss of pension
which the deceased had failed to receive, among others. CA modified the decision RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted partially in that the
by absolving Dalmacio from the payment of the P10,000.00 for loss of pension; P10,000.00 award for loss of pension deleted in the appealed Court of Appeals
and credited him for the amount of P5,000.00 previously paid to De Caliston under decision is hereby reinstated. Costs against private respondent.
a vehicular insurance policy obtained by the bus owner. The issue is W/N
Dalmacio is liable to pay for damages constituting the loss of pension of the RATIO:
deceased. (YES) The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut 1. The deletion of the P10,000.00 awarded for loss of pension is unjustified.
short by her death for which Dalmacio was responsible, the surviving heir of Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code —
the former is entitled to the award of P10,000.00 which is just equivalent to The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict
the pension the decedent would have received for one year if she did not die. As shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have
to the insurance proceeds, since it was deemed paid by the bus owner, then it been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
should be credited in favor of Dalmacio.
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
DOCTRINE: capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid
Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides: to the heirs of the latter. . .
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall 2. The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been death for which Dalmacio was responsible, the surviving heir of the former
mitigating circumstances. In addition: is entitled to the award of P10,000.00 which is just equivalent to the pension
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning the decedent would have received for one year if she did not die.
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the 3. On the other hand, the P5,000.00 paid to De Caliston by the insurer of the
heirs of the latter. . . passenger bus which figured in the accident may be deemed to have come
from the bus owner who procured the insurance. Since the civil liability (ex-
delicto) of the latter for the death caused by his driver is subsidiary and, at
FACTS:
bottom, arises from the same culpa, the insurance proceeds should be
1. While driving a passenger bus in Bacolod City, Geronimo Dalmacio (private
credited in favor of the errant driver.
respondent) ran over Juana Sonza Vda. de Darrocha (a USVA pensioner) who
died instantly, survived by her only child, Gloria Darrocha de Caliston
(petitioner).
2. Dalmacio was convicted for homicide thru reckless imprudence by the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental, sentenced to imprisonment and
ordered to pay De Caliston:
a. P15,000.00 for the death of the victim;
b. P5,000.00 as moral damages;
c. P5,000.00 for burial expenses; and
d. P10,000.00 for loss of pension which the deceased had failed to
receive.
3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the CFI decision by:
a. absolving Dalmacio from the payment of the P10,000.00 for loss of
pension; and
 (07) Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. CA (Barron)
July 14, 1995 | Quiason, J. | Award of damages in breach of contract of carriage
PETITIONER: Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, Tito Duran Tabuquilde, and Angelina De Paz
Tabulquilde
SUMMARY: Tito and his three-year old daughter Jennifer boarded the M/V Doña Marilyn
owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc. The vessel, while in transit, encountered inclement
weather which caused huge waves due to a typhoon. Notwithstanding the fact that PAG-ASA
raised a Storm Signal No. 3, the ship captain ordered the vessel to proceed to Tacloban. The
vessel capsized and threw Tito and Jennifer, along with other passengers, into the tumultuous
sea. Tito was separated from Jennifer. Few days after the tragedy, Jennifer’s corpse was
discovered and eventually buried. Aggrieved, Spouses Tabuquilde (Tito and Angelina) filed a
claim for damages against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for the death of their daughter and loss of
several personal belongings. The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Tabuquilde and ordered
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. to pay the following: (a) ₱27, 580 as actual damages for the value of the
loss personal effects; (b) ₱30,000 for Jennifer’s death; (c) ₱100,000 as moral damages; (d)
₱50,000 as exemplary damages; (e) ₱50,000 as attorney’s fees; and (f) costs. The CA affirmed
the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether the award of damages was proper.
(Actual damages for loss of personal effects deleted, the award of ₱30,000 on account of
Jennifer’s death is increased to ₱50,000, and the rest were affirmed.)
RATIO/DOCTRINE: [On actual or compensatory] Actual and compensatory damages, to
be recovered, must be proved; otherwise, if the proof is flimsy, no damages will be awarded.
No proof to this effect was shown. [On award on account of Jennifer’s death] Article 1764
expressly makes Article 2206 applicable to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of
contract by a common carrier. Stated simply, a common carrier is liable for actual or
compensatory damges for the death of its passenger caused by the breach of the contract of
carriage. [On moral damages] In breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may be
recovered when it results to the death of a passenger. [On exemplary damages] Article 2232
of the Civil Code gives the Court the discretion to grant said damages in breach of contract
when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent and reckless manner.
FACTS:
1. Tito Duran Tabuquilde and his three-year old daughter Jennifer Anne
boarded the M/V Doña Marilyn (i.e. owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines,
Inc.) at the North Harbor, Manila, bringing with them several pieces of
luggage.
2. In the morning of October 24, 1988, the M/V Doña Marilyn, while in transit,
encountered inclemement weather which caused huge waves due to
Typhooon “Unsang”.
3. Storm Signal No. 2 had been raised by the PAG-ASA authorities over Leyte
as early as 5:30 PM of Ocotber 23, 1988 and which was raised further to
Signal No. 3 by 10:00 PM of the same day, notwithstanding the foregoing
the ship captain ordered the vessel to proceed to Tacloban.
a. Prudence dictated that he should take the vessel to the nearest port
for shelter, thus violating his duty to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the carrying of pasengers safely to their destination.
4. At about the same time, Angelina Tabuquilde (wife of Tito) contacted
Sulpicio’s Office to verify radio reports that the subject vessel went missing.
She was assured, however, that the ship was merely “hiding”.
5. At around 2:00 PM of October 24, 1988, the said vessel capsized, throwing
Tito and Jennifer, along with hundreds of passengers, into the tumultuous
sea.
a. Tito tried to keep himself and Jennifer afloat but the waves were
too strong subsequently casuing him to be separated from her.
b. He found himself on Almagro Isalnd in Samar the next day at
arounf 11:00 AM and immediately searched for her daughter, but
to no avail.
c. Tito and other survivors were brought to the Tacloban Medical
Center.
6. Angelina tried to seek the assistance of Sulpicio Line’s Manila Office, but
she and the other relatives of passengers were refused aid. Angelina
suffered sleepless nights worrying about Tito and Jennifer in view of
Sulpicio’s refusal to confirm sinking of the boat.
7. On October 31, 1988, Tito was informed that the corpse of a child with his
daughter’s description was found. Subsequently, Tito wrote a letter to
Angelina regarding the said fact. Jennifer’s remains were buried in Tanuan,
Leyte.
8. Aggrieved, Spouses Tabuquilde (Tito and Angelina) filed a claim for
damages against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for the death of their daughter and loss
of several personal belongings.
9. The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Tabuquilde and ordered Sulpicio
Lines, Inc. to pay the following:
a. ₱27, 580 (actual damages; value of the lost personal effects);
b. ₱30,000 (for Jennifer’s death);
c. ₱100,000 (moral damages);
d. ₱50,000 (exemplary damages);
e. ₱50,000 (attorney’s fees); and
f. Costs.
10. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the award of damages was proper (Actual damages for loss of
personal effects deleted, the award of ₱30,000 on account of Jennifer’s death is
increased to ₱50,000, and the rest were affirmed.)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the award of P27,580.00 as actual damages for the loss of
the contents of the pieces of baggage is deleted and that the award of P30,000.00
under Article 2206 in relation Article 1764 is increased to P50,000.00.
RATIO:
On actual or compensatory damages (loss of personal effects)
1. Actual and compensatory damages, to be recovered, must be proved;
otherwise, if the proof is flimsy, no damages will be awarded.
2. In this case, the trial court merely mentioned the fact of the loss and the
value of the contents of Tito’s baggage without stating the eveidence on
which such findings were based.
3. There is no showing that the value of the contents of the lost pieces of
baggage was based on the bill of lading or was previously declared by Tito
before he boarded the ship. Hence, there can be no basis for an award of
actual or compensatory damages.
On damages on account of Jennifer’s death in accordance with Article 2206 in
relation to Article 1764 of the Civil Code
4. The CA was correct in affirming the award of dmages for the death of the
Spouses’ daughter, a passenger on board the stricken vessel.
5. It is admitted that under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, only deaths caused
by a crime or quasi delict are entitled to actual and compensatory damages
without the need of proof of the said damages:
“The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi delict
shall be at least Three Thousand Pesos, even though there may have
been mitigating circumstances. . . .”
6. From the language thereof, it can conclude that damages arising from culpa
contractual (or breach of contract) are not compensable without proof of
special damages sustained by the heirs of the victim. However, Article
1764 expressly makes Article 2206 applicable to the death of a
passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
7. Stated simply, a common carrier is liable for actual or compensatory
damges for the death of its passenger caused by the breach of the contract of
carriage pursuant to Article 2206 in relation to Article 1764 of the Civil
Code.
8. The trial court’s award of ₱30,000 is increased to ₱50,000.
On moral damages
9. As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in culpa contractual
(or breach of contract) cases, except when it is proven to be attended by bad
faith.
10. However, in breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may be
recovered when it results to the death of a passenger.
On exemplary damages
11. Article 2232 of the Civil Code gives the Court the discretion to grant said
damages in breach of contract when the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent and reckless manner (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155
[1966]).
12. Furthermore, in the case of Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 83
(1989), it was ruled that:
The Court will take judicial notice of the dreadful regularity with
which grievous maritime disasters occur in our waters with
massive loss of life. The bulk of our population is too poor to
afford domestic air transportation. So it is that notwithstanding the
frequent sinking of passenger in our waters, crowds of people
continue to travel by sea. This Court is prepared to use the
instruments given to it by the law for securing the ends of law and
public policy. One of those instruments is the institution of
exemplary damages; one of those ends, of special importance in an
archipelagic state like the Philippines, is the safe and reliable
carriage of people and goods by sea. . . .
13. A common carrier is obliged to transport its passengers to their destinations
with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person. The trial court found
that Sulpicio failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of a
common carrier, which resulted in the sinking of the M/V Dona Marilyn.
14. The trial court correctly ruled that the sinking of the vessel was casued by
gross negligence. The crew of the vessel took a calculated risk when it
proceeded despite the typhoon brewing somewhere in the general direction
to which the vessel was going. The crew assumed a greater risk when,
instead of dropping anchor in or at the periphery of the Port of Calapan, or
returning to the port of Manila which is nearer, proceeded on its voyage on
the assumption that it will be able to beat and race with the typhoon and
reach its destination before it (Unsang) passes.