G.R. No. L-11394; September 9, 1958
MANUEL S. ARANETA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN ARREGLADO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On March 7, 1951, plaintiff Benjamin Araneta, a student, was seated on a wall at the Ateneo de Manila with other students when defendant Dario Arreglado, a former Ateneo student, passed by. After being twitted about transferring to De La Salle College, Dario Arreglado, then 14 years old, pulled a licensed Japanese Lugar pistol (registered to his father, Juan Arreglado) and shot Benjamin Araneta, hitting him in the lower jaw. Benjamin was hospitalized, hovered near death for three days, and survived but was left with a degenerative injury to his jawbone (mandible) and a facial scar, which caused him to become inhibited and morose. Dario Arreglado pleaded guilty to frustrated homicide, but due to his minority, the court suspended proceedings and placed him on probation under Republic Act No. 47; he was later discharged in 1953 and the case was quashed. Subsequently, Manuel S. Araneta (Benjamin’s father) and Benjamin filed a civil action for damages against Dario Arreglado and his parents. The trial court found Juan Arreglado negligent for allowing his son access to the pistol and awarded P3,943 in damages, rejecting the defense argument that the failure to award damages in the criminal case foreclosed a separate civil action. The Aranetas appealed, contending the damages were inadequate.

ISSUE

Whether the damages awarded by the trial court for the injuries suffered by Benjamin Araneta are adequate.

RULING

No, the damages awarded were inadequate. The Supreme Court modified the decision, increasing the total indemnity to P18,000. The Court found the trial court erred in not adequately compensating for the permanent deformity, degenerative jaw condition, and necessary surgical interventions, including potential repeated operations and plastic surgery to remove the scar. The father’s delay in seeking treatment did not negate the necessity for such treatment or prejudice the son’s right to full indemnity. However, recovery for the cost of surgery in the United States was disallowed as evidence showed it could be competently performed locally. The award considered the cost of corrective measures, pain and suffering, feelings of inferiority due to deformity, the voluntary nature of the injury, and the fact that repair is never equivalent to the original state. The Court also emphasized the duty of firearm owners to safeguard weapons to prevent access by minors. The claim for increased damages for a lost school year was denied as speculative, and the claim for moral damages by the father was disallowed based on precedent (Strebel vs. Figueras) that moral damages for physical injuries are recoverable only by the injured party, not next of kin, absent statutory provision. Defendants Dario Arreglado and his parents are solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2194 of the Civil Code.