Torts Cases

NANITO Z.
EVANGELISTA (substituted by his Heirs, represented by the Surviving Spouse,

LEOVIGILDA C. EVANGELISTA), petitioners vs. SPOUSED NEREO V. ANDOLONG III and ERLINDA
T. ANDOLONG and RINO AMUSEMENT INNOVATORS, INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 221770, November 16, 2016
(First Division)
FACTS: Nanito alleged that Spouses Andolong is the majority shareholders of Rino Amusement
Innovators. On various dates, Nanito and respondents entered into various memoranda of agreement, as
well as deeds of assignment/sale with right to repurchase over machines, equipment, and amenities,
which were used in the operations of amusement centers in different malls. In the subject MOA, the
parties agreed, that they would equally share from the net profits of said amusement centers and that
spouses Andolong would remit Nanito's share on the 15 th and 30th of the month. Claiming that
respondents failed to comply with their obligation to remit his share of the net profits, Nanito filed the
instant complaint for sum of money, accounting and specific performance with prayer for issuance of writ
of preliminary attachment and damages. During the pendency of the case, Nanito died. The RTC
dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Nanito is entitled to damages despite presenting only the gross revenues of
the business and not the net proceeds?
HELD: Yes. Under the foregoing circumstances, the Court is convinced that Nanito should have received
remittances representing net profits from respondents, albeit he failed to prove the exact amount he
should receive from the latter. Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc. [654 Phil. 443 (2011)], temperate
damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount
cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in
that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's
property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss.
Here, we are convinced that respondent sustained damages to its conveyor facility due to petitioner's
negligence. Nonetheless, for failure of respondent to establish by competent evidence the exact amount
of damages it suffered, we are constrained to award temperate damages. Considering that the lower
courts have factually established that the conveyor facility had a remaining life of only five of its estimated
total life of ten years during the time of the collision, then the replacement cost of P7,046,351.84 should
rightly be reduced to 50% or P3,523,175.92. This is a fair and reasonable valuation, having taking into
account the remaining useful life of the facility.
As already adverted to, respondents' failure to remit the net profits to Nanito pursuant to the subject MOA
caused some pecuniary loss on the part of the latter, albeit he failed to prove the exact amount of such
loss. In view of such circumstance, the Court deems it reasonable to award temperate damages to
petitioners in the amount of P1,100,000.00, which is roughly half 44 of P2,241,632.00, or the amount of
gross revenue claimed to have been earned by the amusement centers. Notably, the award of
P1,100,000.00 shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this
Decision until fully paid.
CRESENCIO BAÑO AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AMANCIO ASUMBRADO, NAMELY:
ROSALINDA ASUMBRADO, VICENTE ASUMBRADO, ROEL ASUMBRADO, ANNALYN
ASUMBRADO, ARNIEL ASUMBRADO, ALFIE ASUMBRADO and RUBELYN ASUMBRADO,
petitioners, vs. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC./CERES LINER, INC. and WENIFREDO SALVAÑA,
respondents.
G.R. No. 191703, March 12, 2012
FACTS: Wenifredo Salvaña was driving the bus owned by Bachelor Express, Inc./Ceres Liner, Inc. He
overtook a Lawin PUJ jeepney while negotiating a blind curve, causing him to intrude into the opposite
lane and bump the 10-wheeler Hino dump truck of Cresencio Baño running uphill from the opposite
direction. The collision resulted in damage to both vehicles, the subsequent death of the truck driver,
Amancio Asumbrado, and serious physical injuries to bus driver Salvaña. Baño and the heirs of
Asumbrado filed a complaint for quasi-delict, damages and attorney's fees against Salvaña, accusing him
of negligently driving Bus 4042 causing it to collide with the dump truck. Salvaña denied liability, claiming
that prior to the collision, Bus 4042 was running out of control because of a problem in the steering wheel
system which could not have been avoided despite their maintenance efforts. Instead, they claimed that
Asumbrado had the last clear chance to avoid the collision had he not driven the dump truck at a very fast
speed. The RTC found that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was the reckless
negligence of the bus driver, Salvaña, in attempting to overtake a jeepney along a descending blind curve
and completely invading the opposite lane. The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings on Salvaña’s negligence
and liability for damages but deleted the separate awards of exemplary damages. The CA also deleted
the award of moral damages to Baño for the damage to his property.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not Salvaña was grossly negligent in continuing to drive the bus even after he had
discovered the malfunction in its steering wheel?
ISSUE #2: Whether or not the reduction of the amount of damages is proper?
HELD #1: Yes. In the case of Government Service Insurance System v. Pacific Airways Corporation, the
Court has defined gross negligence as "one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected."
In the present case, records show that when bus driver Salvaña overtook the jeepney in front of him, he
was rounding a blind curve along a descending road. Considering the road condition and that there was
only one lane on each side of the center line for the movement of traffic in opposite directions, it would
have been more prudent for him to confine his bus to its proper place. Having thus encroached on the
opposite lane in the process of overtaking the jeepney, without ascertaining that it was clear of oncoming
traffic that resulted in the collision with the approaching dump truck driven by deceased Asumbrado,
Salvaña was grossly negligent in driving his bus. He was remiss in his duty to determine that the road
was clear and not to proceed if he could not do so in safety.
HELD #2: Yes. With respect to Baño, the award of moral damages for the loss of his dump truck was
correctly deleted since the damage to his vehicle was not shown to have been made willfully or
deliberately. However, the Court finds the grant of P100,000.00 as temperate damages for the damaged
vehicle to be insufficient considering its type as a 10-wheeler dump truck and its good running condition at
the time of the incident. Instead, the Court finds the amount of P400,000.00 as fair and reasonable under
the circumstances. With respect to the adjudged lost income from the dump truck, the Court sustains, for
being just and equitable, the award of temperate damages in the sum of P200,000.00.

Torts Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NANITO Z.

EVANGELISTA (substituted by his Heirs, represented by the Surviving Spouse,

You might also like