G.R. No. 176946 ; November 15, 2010
CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO, JOCELYN G. TAMAYO, and ARAMIS G. TAMAYO, collectively known as HEIRS OF CIRILO TAMAYO, Petitioners, vs. ROSALIA ABAD SEÑORA, ROAN ABAD SEÑORA, and JANETE ABAD SEÑORA, Respondents.

FACTS

On September 28, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Antonieto M. Señora was riding his motorcycle when he was involved in an accident at an intersection in Parañaque. A tricycle driven by Leovino Amparo allegedly bumped Señora’s motorcycle from behind, propelling it into the path of an oncoming Isuzu Elf delivery van. The van, driven by Elmer Polloso and registered to Cirilo Tamayo, ran over Señora, resulting in his death. Polloso was an employee of Tamayo’s single proprietorship, Tamayo and Sons Ice Dealer. The respondents, Señora’s heirs, filed a damages suit against Amparo, Polloso, and Cirilo Tamayo.
At trial, the petitioners (Tamayo’s heirs) sought to prove that Cirilo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his drivers, including Polloso. They presented testimonies from Cirilo’s wife, Constancia, and an employee, Nora Pascual, who was a passenger in the van. Pascual testified that Polloso was driving slowly, blew his horn at the intersection, and that the tricycle had bumped the motorcycle. The Regional Trial Court found both Amparo and Polloso negligent and held them, together with employer Cirilo Tamayo, jointly and severally liable for damages.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether driver Elmer Polloso was negligent, making his employer, Cirilo Tamayo, vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals correctly computed the award for loss of earning capacity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of negligence against Polloso. The RTC’s factual conclusion, affirmed by the CA, that Polloso failed to slow down or stop at the intersection, was binding. The Court emphasized that factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive. The petitioners failed to present compelling evidence to overturn these findings. The testimony of their witness, Nora Pascual, was deemed insufficient to absolve Polloso of negligence, as the lower courts found her account less credible against the evidence of Polloso’s failure to exercise due care at the intersection.
Consequently, as Polloso’s negligence was established in the performance of his duties, his employer Cirilo Tamayo was held vicariously liable. The petitioners’ defense of exercising due diligence in selection and supervision was rejected. The testimonial evidence offered was considered general, self-serving, and insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer under Article 2180.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the CA’s modification of the damages. The CA correctly applied the settled formula for net earning capacity: Life Expectancy [2/3 x (80 age at death)] x (Gross Annual Income Reasonable Living Expenses [fixed at 50% of gross income]). The Court found no reason to deviate from this standard computation, thereby affirming the awarded amount for loss of earning capacity. The petition was denied for lack of merit.