G.R. No. L-4555; July 23, 1953
SOFRONIO G. ALCANTARA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PATRICIO SURRO and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This is an action for damages arising from wrongful death. The plaintiffs are the minor legitimate children and heirs of the deceased Hermenegildo L. Co, represented by their judicial guardians. The defendant Patricio Surro was a chauffeur of the defendant Manila Electric Company (Meralco). On November 24, 1945, Surro, while driving a Meralco passenger truck along Rizal Avenue in Manila, bumped from behind another Meralco truck that had stopped. Hermenegildo L. Co was at that moment boarding the stopped truck and was crushed between the two vehicles, resulting in his death shortly thereafter. Surro was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence under the Automobile Law. The heirs reserved their right to file a separate civil action. In their complaint, they sought damages from Surro and, subsidiarily, from Meralco. The Court of First Instance of Manila awarded total indemnity of P25,155, broken down as P18,000 for lost salary (calculated for four years: 1946-1949), P5,000 for moral and “patrimonial” damages, and P2,155 for actual expenses. The court ruled that Meralco’s liability would only be executory after execution against Surro proved unsatisfied. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed, contesting the amount of damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in its determination and award of indemnity (damages) to the heirs of the deceased.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that the factors considered by the trial court in fixing the indemnity were reasonable and sanctioned by law and precedents. The award of P18,000 for lost earnings was proper, based on the deceased’s proven monthly salary of P250 (increased to a projected P750 in 1949) and his life expectancy, though reasonably limited to four years. The court correctly disregarded mortality tables as conclusive, considering other circumstances like health. The deceased’s health was found to be normal at death, contrary to the defendants’ claims. The award of P5,000 for moral and patrimonial damages and P2,155 for actual expenses was supported by evidence and precedent. The claim regarding the deceased’s potential bonus was correctly rejected as not a matter of right. The court also clarified that while Commonwealth Act No. 284 considers the “pecuniary situation of the party liable,” the civil liability is also governed by the Revised Penal Code, and the lower court did not improperly rely on Meralco’s financial condition.