G.R. No. 190521; January 12, 2011
LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER, ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN, CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY JOY TAN, and MARK ALLAN TAN, represented herein by their mother, LETICIA TAN, Petitioners, vs. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO ARAMBALA, Respondents.

FACTS

On November 24, 1995, respondent Bonifacio Arambala was driving a truck with a trailer owned by respondent OMC Carriers, Inc. along Meralco Road, Sucat, Muntinlupa City. When the truck suddenly lost its brakes, Arambala and his companion jumped out, abandoning the moving vehicle. The driverless truck rammed into the house and tailoring shop owned by petitioner Leticia Tan and her husband Celedonio Tan, instantly killing Celedonio who was standing at the doorway. The petitioners, heirs of Celedonio Tan, filed a complaint for damages against the respondents, alleging gross negligence in the maintenance of the truck and recklessness in abandoning it. The respondents denied liability, claiming the accident was a fortuitous event due to a slippery road condition caused by spilled motor oil. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the respondents jointly and severally liable for damages, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and rejecting the claim of fortuitous event. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of negligence and liability but modified the awarded damages, reducing the actual damages, deleting the award for loss of earning capacity, reducing exemplary damages, and deleting attorney’s fees. The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, which was initially denied but later reinstated, leading to this motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue is what damages the petitioners are entitled to, specifically concerning the awards for actual damages (including for destroyed property and loss of earning capacity), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It upheld the factual findings of the RTC and CA regarding the respondents’ gross negligence. On the substantive issues: (1) The award of actual damages for the destroyed property was reduced by the CA to only those supported by official receipts (₱72,295.00). The Supreme Court, however, citing exceptions to the rule on documentary evidence for property not capable of precise estimation, reinstated the RTC’s award of ₱355,895.00 based on the petitioners’ testimony and pictures of the damaged property. (2) The CA correctly deleted the award for loss of earning capacity due to the petitioners’ failure to substantiate Celedonio Tan’s income with documentary evidence; mere testimony was deemed insufficient. (3) The CA’s reduction of exemplary damages from ₱500,000.00 to ₱200,000.00 was affirmed, as the amount should be reasonable and proportionate to the actual damages. (4) The award of attorney’s fees was reinstated, as Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows recovery when exemplary damages are awarded. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for the modified amounts.