GR L 24471; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24471 January 31, 1969
SILVERIO MARCHAN and PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS CO., INC., petitioners, vs. ARSENIO MENDOZA, LEONARDA ILAYA and ZENAIDA MENDOZA, respondents.
FACTS
This is a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision dated August 30, 1968. Petitioners seek reconsideration insofar as the decision condemns them to pay exemplary damages of P30,000.00, attorney’s fees of P5,000.00, interest on these awards, and costs. The petitioners challenge the correctness of the award of exemplary damages, arguing that if such damages are not warranted, the award of attorney’s fees would also be unjustifiable. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated March 31, 1965, had held petitioners liable for exemplary damages, relying on the ruling in Singson v. Aragon. Petitioners, however, invoke the cases of Rotea v. Halili and Munsayac v. De Lara to support their position against the award.
ISSUE
Whether the award of exemplary damages, and consequently the awards for attorney’s fees, interest, and costs, against the petitioners is correct.
RULING
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court held that the award of exemplary damages was proper. The Court distinguished the cases cited by petitioners. In Rotea v. Halili, the issue involved subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code for a criminal act, and exemplary damages were disallowed because the crime was not committed with aggravating circumstances and the employer had no participation in the wrongful act. In Munsayac v. De Lara, exemplary damages were not awarded because the alleged act justifying them (failure to placate the plaintiff’s suffering) occurred after the breach of contract and had no causal connection to it. The present case is analogous to Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. v. Diasanta, where exemplary damages were awarded because the defendant’s driver was found guilty of recklessness, constituting gross negligence. Since the driver acted in a reckless manner, the employer could be held liable for exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the awards for attorney’s fees, interest, and costs were also upheld as justified.