1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

SECONDDIVISION

FLORDELIZAMENDOZA,
G.R.No.164012

Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versus
CARPIO,

CARPIOMORALES,

TINGA,and

VELASCO,JR.,JJ.
MUTYA SORIANO and Minor

JULIE ANN SORIANO duly

represented by her natural mother

Promulgated:
and guardian ad litem MUTYA

SORIANO,
June8,2007
Respondents.
xx

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
InthispetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,petitionerasksthisCourt
[1]
[2]
toreverseandsetasidetheDecision datedNovember17,2003andtheResolution dated
May24,2004 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 69037. The appellate court found
petitioner,asemployerofLomerMacasasa,liablefordamages.
Thefactsareasfollows:
At around 1:00 a.m., July 14, 1997, Sonny Soriano, while crossing Commonwealth
Avenue near Luzon Avenue in Quezon City, was hit by a speeding Tamaraw FX driven by
LomerMacasasa.Sorianowasthrownfivemetersaway,whilethevehicleonlystoppedsome25
metersfromthepointofimpact.GerardVillaspin,oneofSorianoscompanions,askedMacasasa
to bring Soriano to the hospital, but after checking out the scene of the incident, Macasasa
returnedtotheFX,onlytoflee.AschoolbusbroughtSorianotoEastAvenueMedical Center
where he later died. Subsequently, the Quezon City Prosecutor recommended the filing of a
[3]
criminalcaseforrecklessimprudenceresultingtohomicideagainstMacasasa.
OnAugust20,1997,respondentsMutyaSorianoandJulieAnnSoriano,Sorianoswifeand
daughter, respectively, filed a complaint for damages against Macasasa and petitioner Flordeliza
Mendoza,theregisteredownerofthevehicle.ThecomplaintwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.C
18038 in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121. Respondents prayed that
Macasasa and petitioner be ordered to pay them: P200,000 moral damages P500,000 for lost
income P22,250 for funeral services P45,000 for burial lot P15,150 for interment and lapida
P8,066forhospitalization,othermedicalandtransportationexpensesP28,540forfoodanddrinks
duringthewakeP50,000exemplarydamagesP60,000indemnityforSorianosdeathandP25,000
[4]
forattorneysfeesplusP500percourtappearance.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

1/6

1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

Inheranswer,petitionerMendozamaintainedthatshewasnotliablesinceasownerof
the vehicle, she had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family over her employee,
Macasasa.
Uponrespondentsmotion,thecomplaintfordamagesagainstMacasasawasdismissed.
[5]
After trial, the trial court also dismissed the complaint against petitioner. It found
Soriano negligent for crossing Commonwealth Avenue by using a small gap in the islands
fencingratherthanthepedestrianoverpass.The lower court also ruled that petitioner was not
negligent in the selection and supervision of Macasasa since complainants presented no
[6]
evidencetosupporttheirallegationofpetitionersnegligence.
Respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The dispositive
portionoftheappellatecourtsdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED, and another one is hereby
renderedordering[petitioner]FlordelizaMendozatopay[respondents]MutyaSorianoandJulieAnn
Sorianothefollowingamounts:
1.HospitalandBurialExpensesP80,926.25
2.LossofearningcapacityP77,000.00
3.MoralDamagesP20,000.00
4.IndemnityforthedeathofSonnySorianoP50,000.00
Actual payment of the aforementioned amounts should, however, be reduced by twenty (20%)
percentduetothepresenceofcontributorynegligencebythevictimasprovidedforinArticle
2179oftheCivilCode.
[7]
SOORDERED.

While the appellate court agreed that Soriano was negligent, it also found Macasasa
negligent for speeding, such that he was unable to avoid hitting the victim. It observed that
Sorianos own negligence did not preclude recovery of damages from Macasasas negligence. It
furtherheldthatsincepetitionerfailedtopresentevidencetothecontrary,andconformablywith
[8]
Article2180 oftheCivilCode,thepresumptionofnegligenceoftheemployerintheselection
andsupervisionofemployeesstood.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in a
[9]
Resolution datedMay24,2004.
Hence,thisappealwherepetitionerallegesthat:
I.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTIONOFTHEREGIONALTRIALCOURT.
II.
[COROLLARILY], THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS

[10]

[HAS]NOBASISINLAW.

Theissuesaresimple:(1)DidtheRegionalTrialCourthavejurisdictiontotrythecase?and
(2)Wastheresufficientlegalbasistoawarddamages?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

2/6

1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

Petitionerarguesthattheamountclaimedbyrespondentsiswithinthejurisdictionofthe
Metropolitan Trial Court. She posits that to determine the jurisdictional amount, what should
only be considered are the following: P22,250 for funeral services P45,000 for burial lot
P15,150 for interment and lapida P8,066 for hospitalization and transportation P28,540 for
foodanddrinksduringthewakeandP60,000indemnityforSorianosdeath.Shemaintainsthat
the sum of these amounts, P179,006, is below the jurisdictional amount of the Regional Trial
Court. She states that under Section 19(8) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the
followingclaimsofrespondentsmustbeexcluded:P200,000moraldamages,P500,000forlost
incomeP50,000exemplarydamagesP25,000 attorneys fees plus P500 per court appearance.
PetitionerthuspraysthatthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsbereversed,andthedismissalof
thecasebythetrialcourtbeaffirmedonthegroundoflackofjurisdiction.
[11]
Section19(8)ofBatasPambansaBlg.129,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7691,
statesthepertinentlaw.
SEC.19.Jurisdictionincivilcases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusiveoriginal
jurisdiction:
xxxx
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila,
wherethedemand,exclusiveoftheabovementioneditemsexceedsTwohundredthousandpesos
(P200,000.00).

[12]
Butrelatedly,AdministrativeCircularNo.0994
expresslystates:
xxxx
2.Theexclusionofthetermdamagesofwhateverkindindeterminingthejurisdictional
amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691,
appliestocaseswherethedamagesaremerelyincidentaltooraconsequenceofthemaincause
ofaction.However,incaseswheretheclaimfordamagesisthemaincauseofaction,oroneof
thecausesofaction,theamountofsuchclaimshallbeconsideredindeterminingthejurisdiction
ofthecourt.(Underscoringsupplied.)

Actions for damages based on quasidelicts, as in this case, are primarily and effectively
[13]
actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages for tortious acts.
In this case,
respondents claim of P929,006 in damages and P25,000 attorneys fees plus P500 per court
appearancerepresentsthemonetaryequivalentforcompensationoftheallegedinjury.Thesemoney
[14]
claims are the principal reliefs sought by respondents in their complaint for damages.
Consequentlythen,weholdthattheRegionalTrialCourtofCaloocanCitypossessedandproperly
[15]
exercisedjurisdictionoverthecase.
Petitioner further argues that since respondents caused the dismissal of the complaint
against Macasasa, there is no longer any basis to find her liable. She claims that no iota of
evidencewaspresentedinthiscasetoproveMacasasasnegligence,andbesides,respondentscan
recoverdamagesinthecriminalcaseagainsthim.
Respondents counter that as Macasasas employer, petitioner was presumed negligent in
selectingandsupervisingMacasasaafterhewasfoundnegligentbytheCourtofAppeals.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

3/6

1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

The records show that Macasasa violated two traffic rules under the Land Transportation and
[16]
TrafficCode.First,hefailedtomaintainasafespeedtoavoidendangeringlives.
Both the
[17]
trial and the appellate courts found Macasasa overspeeding.
The records show also that
[18]
Sorianowasthrownfivemetersawayafterhewashit.
Moreover,thevehiclestoppedonly
[19]
some25metersfromthepointofimpact.
Both circumstances support the conclusion that the FX vehicle driven by Macasasa was
overspeeding.Second,Macasasa, the vehicle driver, did not aidSoriano, the accident victim, in
[20]
violation of Section 55,
Article V of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. While
MacasasaatfirstagreedtobringSorianotothehospital,hefledthesceneinahurry.Contraryto
petitioners claim, there is no showing of any factual basis that Macasasa fled for fear of the
peopleswrath.Whatremainsundisputedisthathedidnotreporttheaccidenttoapoliceofficer,
[21]
nordidhesummonadoctor.UnderArticle2185
oftheCivilCode,apersondrivingamotor
vehicleispresumednegligentifatthetimeofthemishap,hewasviolatingtrafficregulations.
While respondents could recover damages from Macasasa in a criminal case and petitioner
could become subsidiarily liable, still petitioner, as owner and employer, is directly and
[22]
separately civilly liable for her failure to exercise due diligence in supervising Macasasa.
We must emphasize that this damage suit is for the quasidelict of petitioner, as owner and
employer,andnotforthedelictofMacasasa,asdriverandemployee.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages caused by their
employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The liability arises due to the
presumed negligence of the employers in supervising their employees unless they prove that
theyobservedallthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage.
In this case, we hold petitioner primarily and solidarily liable for the damages caused by
[23]
[24]
Macasasa.
Respondents could recover directly from petitioner
since petitioner failed to
[25]
provethatsheexercisedthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyinsupervisingMacasasa.
Indeed,itisunfortunatethatpetitionerharboredthenotionthattheRegionalTrialCourtdidnot
havejurisdictionoverthecaseandoptednottopresentherevidenceonthispoint.
Lastly,weagreethattheCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinrulingthatSorianowasguiltyof
contributory negligence for not using the pedestrian overpass while crossing Commonwealth
Avenue.Weevennotethattherespondentsnowadmitthispoint,andconcedethattheappellate
court had properly reduced by 20% the amount of damages it awarded. Hence, we affirm the
[26]
reduction
of the amount earlier awarded, based on Article 2179 of the Civil Code which
reads:
Whentheplaintiff'sownnegligencewastheimmediateandproximatecauseofhisinjury,
he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages,butthecourtsshallmitigatethedamagestobeawarded.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

4/6

1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit and hereby AFFIRM the
Decision dated November 17, 2003 and the Resolution dated May 24, 2004 of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.69037.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

(Onofficialleave)
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

ActingChiefJustice.
Onofficialleave.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

5/6

1/29/2017

G.R.No.164012

[1]
Rollo,pp.4049.PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes,withAssociateJusticesConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andArsenio
J.Magpaleconcurring.
[2]
Id.at5153.
[3]
Id.at27and82.
[4]
Id.at19.
[5]
Id.at38.
[6]
Id.at3738.
[7]
Id.at4849.
[8]
ART.2180.TheobligationimposedbyArticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforone'sownactsoromissions,butalsoforthoseof
personsforwhomoneisresponsible.
xxxx
Employersshallbeliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployeesandhouseholdhelpersactingwithinthescopeoftheirassignedtasks,even
thoughtheformerarenotengagedinanybusinessorindustry.
xxxx
Theresponsibilitytreatedofinthisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonshereinmentionedprovethattheyobservedallthediligence
ofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventdamage.
[9]
Rollo,pp.5153.
[10]
Id.at10.
[11]
AlsoknownastheJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980.
[12]
GuidelinesintheImplementationofRepublicActNo.7691,EntitledAnActExpandingtheJurisdictionoftheMetropolitanTrialCourts,
MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,AmendingforthePurposeBatasPambansaBlg.129,OtherwiseKnownasthe
JudiciaryReorganizationActof1980.
[13]
Iniegov.Purganan,G.R.No.166876,March24,2006,485SCRA394,401.
[14]
Id.
[15]
Under Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7691, the jurisdictional amounts under Section 19(8) shall increase five years after its
effectivity.
[16]
Rep.ActNo.4136,ChapterIVTRAFFICRULES,ArticleI.SpeedLimitandKeepingtotheRight
SEC.35.Restrictionastospeed.(a)Anypersondrivingamotorvehicleonahighwayshalldrivethesameatacarefulandprudentspeed,notgreater
norlessthanisreasonableandproper,havingdueregardforthetraffic,thewidthofthehighway,andofanyotherconditionthenandthere
existingandnopersonshalldriveanymotorvehicleuponahighwayatsuchaspeedastoendangerthelife,limbandpropertyofanyperson,
norataspeedgreaterthanwillpermithimtobringthevehicletoastopwithintheassuredcleardistanceahead.
xxxx
[17]
Rollo,pp.38,43.
[18]
Id.at35,43.
[19]
Id.
[20]
Rep. Act No. 4136, Chapter IVTRAFFIC RULES,Article V.Miscellaneous Traffic Rules SEC. 55. Duty of driver in case of
accident.
Nodriverofamotorvehicleconcernedinavehicularaccidentshallleavethesceneoftheaccidentwithoutaidingthevictim,except
underanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
1.Ifheisinimminentdangerofbeingseriouslyharmedbyanypersonorpersonsbyreasonoftheaccident
2.Ifhereportstheaccidenttothenearestofficerofthelawor
3.Ifhehastosummonaphysicianornursetoaidthevictim.
[21]
Art.2185.Unlessthereisprooftothecontrary,itispresumedthatapersondrivingamotorvehiclehasbeennegligentifatthe
timeofthemishap,hewasviolatinganytrafficregulation.
[22]
SeeCerezov.Tuazon,G.R.No.141538,March23,2004,426SCRA167,186187.
[23]
SeeVictoryLiner,Inc.v.HeirsofAndresMalecdan,G.R.No.154278,December27,2002,394SCRA520,524.
[24]
Id.at524525Cerezov.Tuazon,supraat186.
[25]
CIVILCODE,Art.2180.
[26]
SeePhoenixConstruction,Inc.v.IntermediateAppellateCourt,No.L65295,March10,1987,148SCRA353,370371.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/164012.htm

6/6