G.R. No. L-63135. June 24, 1983.
GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND GERONIMO DALMACIO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Geronimo Dalmacio, while driving a passenger bus, ran over and killed Juana Sonza Vda. de Darrocha, a USVA pensioner. She was survived by her only child, petitioner Gloria Darrocha de Caliston. Dalmacio was prosecuted and convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence by the Court of First Instance. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered him to pay the petitioner P15,000 as civil indemnity for death, P5,000 as moral damages, P5,000 for burial expenses, and P10,000 representing the loss of the deceased’s pension.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s decision. It absolved Dalmacio from paying the P10,000 awarded for the loss of the victim’s pension. Furthermore, it credited him with the amount of P5,000, which the petitioner had previously received from the vehicular insurance policy obtained by the bus owner. The petitioner now assails these modifications before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) deleting the award of P10,000 for the loss of the deceased’s pension; and (2) crediting the P5,000 insurance payment to the benefit of the convicted driver, Dalmacio.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It reinstated the P10,000 award for loss of pension but upheld the crediting of the insurance payment.
On the first issue, the deletion of the P10,000 was unjustified. Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the defendant in a death case is liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, with the indemnity payable to the heirs. The deceased’s pension constituted a sure and regular income stream. Her untimely death, for which Dalmacio was responsible, directly cut short this income. Therefore, the surviving heir is entitled to compensation for this loss. The awarded amount, equivalent to one year of the pension, was a proper quantification of this lost earning capacity.
On the second issue, the crediting of the P5,000 insurance payment was correct. The insurance proceeds paid to the petitioner originated from the bus owner, who procured the policy. The bus owner’s civil liability for the wrongful act of his driver is subsidiary in nature. Since both the driver’s direct liability and the owner’s subsidiary liability ultimately arise from the same culpable act, any payment made by or on behalf of the owner—such as this insurance indemnity—should inure to the benefit of the primarily liable driver. This prevents unjust enrichment by the claimant and ensures the payment is credited against the total civil obligation arising from the single quasi-delict.