G.R. No. 160286 ; July 30, 2004
SPOUSES FRANCISCO M. HERNANDEZ and ANICETA ABEL-HERNANDEZ and JUAN GONZALES, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES LORENZO DOLOR and MARGARITA DOLOR, FRED PANOPIO, JOSEPH SANDOVAL, RENE CASTILLO, SPOUSES FRANCISCO VALMOCINA and VIRGINIA VALMOCINA, SPOUSES VICTOR PANOPIO and MARTINA PANOPIO, and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On December 19, 1986, an owner-type jeepney driven by Lorenzo Menard “Boyet” Dolor, Jr. collided with a passenger jeepney driven by petitioner Juan Gonzales in Mabini, Batangas. The collision resulted in the deaths of Dolor, Jr. and his passenger Oscar Valmocina, physical injuries to other passengers in both vehicles, and damage to the vehicles. Respondents, the victims and their heirs, filed an action for damages against Gonzales and the owners of the passenger jeepney, spouses Francisco and Aniceta Hernandez. They alleged that Gonzales was negligent and that the Hernandez spouses were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee.
Petitioners countered that the proximate cause was the recklessness of Dolor, Jr., who was allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. They also denied an employer-employee relationship, claiming Gonzales merely leased the jeepney daily, and alternatively argued they exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. The trial court ruled for the respondents, finding petitioners solidarily liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modifications to the awarded amounts.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly held the Hernandez spouses solidarily liable with Gonzales; and (2) whether the awards for temperate damages and attorney’s fees were proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision with modification. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of negligence against driver Juan Gonzales. The evidence showed he was driving fast downhill and had only obtained his professional driver’s license three months prior, indicating relative inexperience. This failure to exercise the requisite diligence made him liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Consequently, the Hernandez spouses, as registered owners of the passenger jeepney, were correctly held solidarily liable with Gonzales under the principle of respondeat superior articulated in Article 2180. The relationship of employer-employee was sufficiently established. The defense of due diligence in selection and supervision was unavailing as petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence of the hiring process or actual supervision measures.
Regarding damages, the award of temperate damages was proper. Temperate damages may be awarded when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its exact amount cannot be proven with certainty. The heirs incurred funeral and medical expenses, and the awards were reasonable approximations. However, the award of attorney’s fees was deleted. The Court emphasized that attorney’s fees cannot be granted arbitrarily; the reason for the award must be stated in the body of the decision, which was not done here. Its award, stated only in the dispositive portion, lacked legal basis.