1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.

YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.160286.July30,2004]

SPOUSES FRANCISCO M. HERNANDEZ and ANICETA ABELHERNANDEZ and

JUAN GONZALES, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES LORENZO DOLOR and
MARGARITA DOLOR, FRED PANOPIO, JOSEPH SANDOVAL, RENE
CASTILLO, SPOUSES FRANCISCO VALMOCINA and VIRGINIA
VALMOCINA, SPOUSES VICTOR PANOPIO and MARTINA PANOPIO, and
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,respondents.

DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the
decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, dated April 29, 2003, in CAG.R. CV No. 60357, which affirmed
with modification the amount of damages awarded in the November 24, 1997 decision[2] of the
RegionalTrialCourtofBatangasCity,BranchIV.
Theundisputedfactsareasfollows:
Atabout3:00p.m.ofDecember19,1986,LorenzoMenardBoyetDolor,Jr.wasdrivinganowner
typejeepneywithplateno.DEB804ownedbyhermother,Margarita,towardsAnilao,Batangas.As
he was traversing the road at Barangay Anilao East, Mabini, Batangas, his vehicle collided with a
passengerjeepneybearingplateno.DEG648,drivenbypetitionerJuanGonzalesandownedbyhis
copetitionerFranciscoHernandez,whichwastravellingtowardsBatangasCity.
BoyetDolorandhispassenger,OscarValmocina,diedasaresultofthecollision.FredPanopio,
ReneCastilloandJosephSandoval,whowerealsoonboardtheownertypejeep,whichwastotally
wrecked,sufferedphysicalinjuries.The collision also damaged the passenger jeepney of Francisco
Hernandez and caused physical injuries to its passengers, namely, Virgie Cadavida, Fiscal Artemio
ReyesandFranciscaCorona.[3]
Consequently, respondents commenced an action[4] for damages against petitioners before the
RegionalTrialCourtofBatangasCity,allegingthatdriverJuanGonzaleswasguiltyofnegligenceand
lack of care and that the Hernandez spouses were guilty of negligence in the selection and
supervisionoftheiremployees.[5]
Petitioners countered that the proximate cause of the death and injuries sustained by the
passengers of both vehicles was the recklessness of Boyet Dolor, the driver of the ownertype
jeepney, who was driving in a zigzagging manner under the influence of alcohol. Petitioners also
alleged that Gonzales was not the driveremployee of the Hernandez spouses as the former only
leasedthepassengerjeepneyonadailybasis.TheHernandezspousesfurtherclaimedthatevenif
an employeremployee relationship is found to exist between them, they cannot be held liable
becauseasemployerstheyexercisedduecareintheselectionandsupervisionoftheiremployee.
During the trial of the case, it was established that the drivers of the two vehicles were duly
licensed to drive and that the road where the collision occurred was asphalted and in fairly good
condition.[6] The ownertype jeep was travelling uphill while the passenger jeepney was going
downhill. It was further established that the ownertype jeep was moderately moving and had just
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 1/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

passedaroadbendwhenitspassengers,privaterespondentsJosephSandovalandReneCastillo,
sawthepassengerjeepneyatadistanceofthreemetersaway.Thepassengerjeepneywastraveling
fastwhenitbumpedtheownertypejeep.[7]Moreover,theevidencepresentedbyrespondentsbefore
thetrialcourtshowedthatpetitionerJuanGonzalesobtainedhisprofessionaldriverslicenseonlyon
September 24, 1986, or three months before the accident.Prior to this, he was holder of a student
driverspermitissuedonApril10,1986.[8]
OnNovember24,1997,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisioninfavorofrespondents,thedispositive
portionofwhichstates:

Premisesdulyconsideredandtheplaintiffshavingsatisfactorilyconvincinglyandcrediblypresentedevidence
clearlysatisfyingtherequirementsofpreponderanceofevidencetosustainthecomplaint,thisCourthereby
declaresjudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffsandagainstthedefendants.DefendantsspousesFranciscoHernandez
andAnicetaAbelHernandezandJuanGonzalesarethereforedirectedtopayjointlyandseverally,the
following:

1)TospousesLorenzoDolorandMargaritaDolor:

a)P50,000.00forthedeathoftheirson,LorenzoMenardBoyetDolor,Jr.
b)P142,000.00asactualandnecessaryfuneralexpenses
c)P50,000.00reasonablevalueofthetotallywreckedownertypejeepwithplateno.DEB804
Phil85
d)P20,000.00asmoraldamages
e)P20,000.00asreasonablelitigationexpensesandattorneysfees.

2)TospousesFranciscoValmocinaandVirginiaValmocina:

a)P50,000.00forthedeathoftheirson,OscarBalmocina(sic)
b)P20,000.00asmoraldamages
c)P18,400.00forfuneralexpenses
d)P10,000.00forlitigationexpensesandattorneysfees.

3)TospousesVictorPanopioandMartinaPanopio:

a)P10,450.00forthecostoftheartificiallegandcrutchesbeingusedbytheirsonFredPanopio
b)P25,000.00forhospitalizationandmedicalexpensestheyincurredforthetreatmentoftheirson,Fred
Panopio.

4)ToFredPanopio:

a)P25,000.00forthelossofhisrightleg
b)P10,000.00asmoraldamages.

5)ToJosephSandoval:

a)P4,000.00formedicaltreatment.

Thedefendantsarefurtherdirectedtopaythecostsofthisproceedings.

SOORDERED.[9]

Petitioners appealed[10] the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the same with
modifications as to the amount of damages, actual expenses and attorneys fees awarded to the
privaterespondents.ThedecretalportionofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreads:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 2/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

WHEREFORE,theforegoingpremisesconsidered,theappealeddecisionisAFFIRMED.However,theaward
fordamages,actualexpensesandattorneysfeesshallbeMODIFIEDasfollows:

1)TospousesLorenzoDolorandMargaritaDolor:

a)P50,000.00civilindemnityfortheirsonLorenzoMenardDolor,Jr.
b)P58,703.00asactualandnecessaryfuneralexpenses
c)P25,000,00astemperatedamages
d)P100,000.00asmoraldamages
e)P20,000.00asreasonablelitigationexpensesandattorneysfees.

2)ToSpousesFranciscoValmocinaandVirginiaValmocina:

a)P50,000.00civilindemnityforthedeathoftheirson,OscarValmocina
b)P100,000.00asmoraldamages
c)P10,000.00astemperatedamages
d)P10,000.00asreasonablelitigationexpensesandattorneysfees.

3)ToSpousesVictorPanopioandMartinaPanopio:

a)P10,352.59asactualhospitalizationandmedicalexpenses
b)P5,000.00astemperatedamages.

4)ToFredPanopio:

a)P50,000.00asmoraldamages.

5)ToJosephSandoval:

a)P3,000.00astemperatedamages.

SOORDERED.[11]

Hencethepresentpetitionraisingthefollowingissues:

1.WhethertheCourtofAppealswascorrectwhenitpronouncedtheHernandezspousesassolidarilyliablewith
JuanGonzales,althoughitisofrecordthattheywerenotinthepassengerjeepneydrivenbylatterwhenthe
accidentoccurred

2.WhethertheCourtofAppealswascorrectinawardingtemperatedamagestoprivaterespondentsnamelythe
SpousesDolor,SpousesValmocinaandSpousesPanopioandtoJosephSandoval,althoughthegrantof
temperatedamagesisnotprovidedforindecisionofthecourtaquo

3.WhethertheCourtofAppealswascorrectinincreasingtheawardofmoraldamagestorespondents,Spouses
Dolor,SpousesValmocinaandFredPanopio

4.WhethertheCourtofAppealswascorrectinaffirmingthegrantofattorneysfeestoSpousesDolorandto
SpousesValmocinaalthoughthelowercourtdidnotspecifythefactandthelawonwhichitisbased.

PetitionerscontendthattheabsenceoftheHernandezspousesinsidethepassengerjeepneyat
the time of the collision militates against holding them solidarily liable with their copetitioner, Juan
Gonzales,invokingArticle2184oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:

ARTICLE2184.Inmotorvehiclemishaps,theownerissolidarilyliablewithhisdriver,iftheformer,whowas
inthevehicle,couldhave,bytheuseoftheduediligence,preventedthemisfortune.Itisdisputablypresumed

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 3/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

thatadriverwasnegligent,ifhehadbeenfoundguiltyofrecklessdrivingorviolatingtrafficregulationsatleast
twicewithinthenextprecedingtwomonths.

Iftheownerwasnotinthemotorvehicle,theprovisionsofarticle2180areapplicable.

The Hernandez spouses argues that since they were not inside the jeepney at the time of the
collision,theprovisionsofArticle2180oftheCivilCode,whichdoesnotprovideforsolidaryliability
betweenemployersandemployees,shouldbeapplied.
Wearenotpersuaded.
Article2180provides:

ARTICLE2180.Theobligationimposedbyarticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforone'sownactsor
omissions,butalsoforthoseofpersonsforwhomoneisresponsible.

Thefatherand,incaseofhisdeathorincapacity,themother,areresponsibleforthedamagescausedbythe
minorchildrenwholiveintheircompany.

Guardiansareliablefordamagescausedbytheminorsorincapacitatedpersonswhoareundertheirauthority
andliveintheircompany.

Theownersandmanagersofanestablishmentorenterprisearelikewiseresponsiblefordamagescausedbytheir
employeesintheserviceofthebranchesinwhichthelatterareemployedorontheoccasionoftheirfunctions.

Employersshallbeliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployeesandhouseholdhelpersactingwithin
thescopeoftheirassignedtasks,eventhoughtheformerarenotengagedinanybusinessorindustry.

TheStateisresponsibleinlikemannerwhenitactsthroughaspecialagentbutnotwhenthedamagehasbeen
causedbytheofficialtowhomthetaskdoneproperlypertains,inwhichcasewhatisprovidedinarticle2176
shallbeapplicable.

Lastly,teachersorheadsofestablishmentsofartsandtradesshallbeliablefordamagescausedbytheirpupils
andstudentsorapprentices,solongastheyremainintheircustody.

Theresponsibilitytreatedofinthisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonshereinmentionedprovethatthey
observedallthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventdamage.(Underscoringsupplied)

Ontheotherhand,Article2176provides

Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,isobligedtopayforthe
damagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractualrelationbetweentheparties,is
calledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.

Whiletheaboveprovisionsoflawdonotexpresslyprovideforsolidaryliability,thesamecanbe
inferred from the wordings of the first paragraph of Article 2180 which states that the obligation
imposedbyarticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforone'sownactsoromissions,butalsoforthoseof
personsforwhomoneisresponsible.
Moreover, Article 2180 should be read with Article 2194 of the same Code, which categorically
statesthattheresponsibilityoftwoormorepersonswhoareliableforquasidelictissolidary.Inother
words, the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary.[12] Verily, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an
employermaybeheldsolidarilyliableforthenegligentactofhisemployee.[13]
Thesolidaryliabilityofemployerswiththeiremployeesforquasidelictshavingbeenestablished,
the next question is whether Julian Gonzales is an employee of the Hernandez spouses. An
affirmativeanswerwillputtorestanyissueonthesolidaryliabilityoftheHernandezspousesforthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 4/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

acts of Julian Gonzales. The Hernandez spouses maintained that Julian Gonzales is not their
employee since their relationship relative to the use of the jeepney is that of a lessor and a lessee.
TheyarguethatJulianGonzalespaysthemadailyrentalofP150.00fortheuseofthejeepney.[14]In
essence, petitioners are practicing the boundary system of jeepney operation albeit disguised as a
leaseagreementbetweenthemfortheuseofthejeepney.
We hold that an employeremployee relationship exists between the Hernandez spouses and
JulianGonzales.
Indeedtoexemptfromliabilitytheownerofapublicvehiclewhooperatesitundertheboundary
system on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations of the
Public Service Law, but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible
driversrecklessbecausethemeasureoftheirearningsdependslargelyuponthenumberoftripsthey
makeand,hence,thespeedatwhichtheydriveandirresponsiblebecausemostifnotallofthemare
innopositiontopaythedamagestheymightcause.[15]
Anent the award of temperate damages to the private respondents, we hold that the appellate
courtcommittednoreversibleerrorinawardingthesametotherespondents.
Temperate or moderate damages are damages which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory which may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.[16] Temperate
damagesareawardedforthosecaseswhere,fromthenatureofthecase,definiteproofofpecuniary
losscannotbeoffered,althoughthecourtisconvincedthattherehasbeensuchloss.Ajudgeshould
beempoweredtocalculatemoderatedamagesinsuchcases,ratherthantheplaintiffshouldsuffer,
withoutredress,fromthedefendantswrongfulact.[17]Theassessmentoftemperatedamagesisleftto
thesounddiscretionofthecourtprovidedthatsuchanawardisreasonableunderthecircumstances.
[18]

We have gone through the records of this case and we find that, indeed, respondents suffered
losseswhichcannotbequantifiedinmonetaryterms.Theselossescameintheformofthedamage
sustainedbytheownertypejeepoftheDolorspousestheinternmentandburialofOscarValmocina
thehospitalizationofJosephSandovalonaccountoftheinjurieshesustainedfromthecollisionand
theartificiallegandcrutchesthatrespondentFredPanopiohadtousebecauseoftheamputationof
his right leg. Further, we find that the amount of temperate damages awarded to the respondents
werereasonableunderthecircumstances.
Astotheamountofmoraldamageswhichwasawardedtorespondents,areviewoftherecords
ofthiscaseshowsthatthereexistsnocogentreasontooverturntheactionoftheappellatecourton
thisaspect.
Under Article 2206, the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceasedmaydemandmoraldamagesformentalanguishforthedeathofthedeceased.Thereason
forthegrantofmoraldamageshasbeenexplained,thus:

...theawardofmoraldamagesisaimedatarestoration,withinthelimitspossible,ofthespiritualstatusquo
anteandtherefore,itmustbeproportionatetothesufferinginflicted.Theintensityofthepainexperiencedby
therelativesofthevictimisproportionatetotheintensityofaffectionforhimandbearsnorelationwhatsoever
withthewealthormeansoftheoffender.[19]

Moraldamagesareemphaticallynotintendedtoenrichaplaintiffattheexpenseofthedefendant.
They are awarded to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendants culpable action and must,
perforce,beproportionaltothesufferinginflicted.[20]
Truly,thepainofthesuddenlossofonesoffspring,especiallyofasonwhowasintheprimeof
hisyouth,andwhoholdssomuchpromisewaitingtobefulfilledisindeedawellspringofintensepain

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 5/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision

whichnoparentshouldbemadetosuffer.Whileitistruethattherecanbenoexactoruniformrulefor
measuringthevalueofahumanlifeandthemeasureofdamagescannotbearrivedatbyaprecise
mathematical calculation,[21] we hold that the Court of Appeals award of moral damages of
P100,000.00 each to the Spouses Dolor and Spouses Valmocina for the death of their respective
sons,BoyetDolorandOscarValmocina,isinfullaccordwithprevailingjurisprudence.[22]
Withrespecttotheawardofattorneysfeestorespondents,nosufficientbasiswasestablishedfor
thegrantthereof.
It is well settled that attorneys fees should not be awarded in the absence of stipulation except
undertheinstancesenumeratedinArticle2208oftheCivilCode.AswehaveheldinRizalSuretyand
InsuranceCompanyv.CourtofAppeals:[23]

Article2208oftheCivilCodeallowsattorneysfeestobeawardedbyacourtwhenitsclaimantiscompelledto
litigatewiththirdpersonsortoincurexpensestoprotecthisinterestbyreasonofanunjustifiedactoromission
ofthepartyfromwhomitissought.Whilejudicialdiscretionishereextant,anawardthereofdemands,
nevertheless,afactual,legalorequitablejustification.Themattercannotandshouldnotbelefttospeculation
andconjecture(Mirasolvs.DelaCruz,84SCRA337StrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.Courtof
Appeals,173SCRA619).

Inthecaseatbench,therecordsdonotshowenoughbasisforsustainingtheawardforattorneysfeesandto
adjudgeitspaymentbypetitioner.xxx.

Likewise,thisCourtheldinStrongholdInsuranceCompany,Inc.vs.CourtofAppealsthat:

InAbrogarv.IntermediateAppellateCourt[G.R.No.67970,January15,1988,157SCRA57],theCourthad
occasiontostatethat[t]hereasonfortheawardofattorneysfeesmustbestatedinthetextofthecourtsdecision,
otherwise,ifitisstatedonlyinthedispositiveportionofthedecision,thesamemustbedisallowedonappeal.x
xx.[24]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONthatthegrantofattorneysfeesisDELETEDforlackofbasis.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Quisumbing,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

[1] Penned by Justice Juan Q. Enriquez Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Hakim S.
Abdulwahid.Rollo,pp.3345.
[2]DecisionpennedbyJudgeConradoR.Antona,Rollo,pp.4655.

[3]Id.,pp.4950.

[4]DocketedasCivilCaseNo.2790andraffledtoBranchIVoftheRegionalTrialCourtofBatangasCity.

[5]Id.,p.35.

[6]TestimonyofCpl.JuanitoCaringal,TSN,August29,1990,p.3.

[7]TestimonyofReneCastillo,TSN,August8,1990,pp.710.TestimonyofJosephSandoval,TSN,May16,1990,pp.89.

[8]TestimonyofPetronioIlaganoftheBatangasCityofficeoftheLandTransportationOffice,TSN,October22,1991,p.4.

[9]Id.,pp.5455.

[10]Id.,pp.35108.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 6/7
1/12/2017 SpsHernandezvsSpsDolor:160286:July30,2004:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision
[11]Supra,note1,pp.4243.

[12]Worcesterv.Ocampo,22Phil.42(1912)citedinParas,CivilCodeofthePhilippinesAnnotated,BookV,13thEdition.

[13]DelsanTransportLines,Inc.v.C&AConstruction,Inc.,G.R.No.156034,1October2003.

[14]Rollo,p.14.

[15]Erezov.Jepte,102Phil.103(1957).

[16]Article2224,NewCivilCode

[17]Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,VolumeV,p.622,citingtheCivilCodeCommissionReport,p.75.

[18]Id.SeealsoArticle2225oftheNewCivilCode.

[19]CesarSangco,TortsandDamages,1994edition,p.986.

[20]PhiltrancoServiceEnterprisesv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.120553,17June1997,273SCRA562

[21]Supra,note18,p.646.

[22]FortuneExpress,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.119756,18March1999,305SCRA14citingNegrosNavigation
Co.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110398,7November1997,281SCRA534.
[23]G.R.No.96727,28August1996,261SCRA69,8889.

[24]SeealsoArwoodIndustries,Inc.v.D.M.Consunji,Inc.,G.R.No.142277,11December2002,394SCRA11.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160286.htm 7/7