G.R. No. L-55963 and L-61045, December 1, 1989
Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla, petitioners, vs. Honorable Inocencio D. Maliaman and National Irrigation Administration, respondents. / National Irrigation Administration, appellant, vs. Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla, appellees.

FACTS

On August 21, 1976, a pickup truck owned and operated by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), driven by its regular employee Hugo Garcia, struck a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla and Restituto Deligo along the Maharlika Highway in San Jose City. The impact threw Fontanilla approximately fifty meters, causing severe injuries that led to his death. The NIA vehicle sustained significant damage, including dents and a cracked radiator. The driver and his supervisor, Ely Salonga, who were traveling in a group, did not stop to assist the victims, proceeding instead to their intended campsite.
The victim’s parents, the Spouses Fontanilla, filed a damages suit against NIA. The trial court awarded death benefits and actual expenses but denied claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed: the Fontanillas sought the disallowed damages, while NIA contested its liability entirely, arguing the driver was not negligent. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the petitions.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Spouses Fontanilla are entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in their quasi-delict claim for the death of their son.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court first affirmed the finding of negligence against NIA’s driver, Hugo Garcia. The factual circumstances—the violent impact, the victim being thrown fifty meters, the substantial vehicle damage, and the failure of the driver and supervisor to stop—collectively established that Garcia was driving at an excessive speed within city limits, constituting reckless imprudence. This negligence was imputed to NIA as his employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
On the claim for damages, the Court ruled that moral damages are expressly recoverable under Article 2206 of the Civil Code by the parents of a deceased victim for the mental anguish caused by the death. The gross negligence exhibited—speeding in an urban area and the callous failure to render aid—justified an award of exemplary damages under Articles 2229 and 2231 to set a public example and deter similar conduct. Attorney’s fees were also deemed proper as the claimants were compelled to litigate to protect their interests. Consequently, the Court awarded P30,000 as moral damages, P8,000 as exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the total award, in addition to the death benefits and actual expenses previously granted by the trial court.