1 Villa Rey Transit Vs CA

Villa Rey Transit v.
CA
Facts:
On March 17, 1960, Policronio Quintos, Jr. was riding the petitioner’s bus, when
the said bus frontally hit the rear side of a bullcart filled with hay. The
protruding end of the bamboo pole at the rear of the cart penetrated the
windshield of the bus and landed at Policronio’s face. He died of traumatic
shock due to cerebral injuries. Private respondents are sisters and surviving
heirs of the deceased. They brought this action against Villa Rey Transit for
breach of contract of carriage. The trial court found that the death was caused
by the negligence of the bus driver, for whom petitioner was liable under the
contract of carriage with the deceased.
Issues:
(1) The number of years to be used as basis of computation
(2) The rate at which the losses sustained by respondents should be fixed
Held:
(1) The determination of the indemnity to be awarded to the heirs of a deceased

person has no fixed basis. Much is left to the discretion of the court considering
the moral and material damages involved, and so it has been said that "(t)here
can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of a human life and
the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculation, but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and
circumstances of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the
beneficiary, whichever is shorter, is an important factor.' Other factors that are
usually considered are: (1) pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary; (2) loss of
support; (3) loss of service; (4) loss of society; (5) mental suffering of
beneficiaries; and (6) medical and funeral expenses."
Thus, life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an important element in
fixing the amount recoverable by private respondents herein. Although it is not
the sole element determinative of said amount, no cogent reason has been given
to warrant its disregard and the adoption, in the case at bar, of a purely arbitrary
standard, such as a four-year rule. In short, the Court of Appeals has not erred
in basing the computation of petitioner's liability upon the life expectancy of
Policronio Quintos, Jr.
(2) With respect to the rate at which the damages shall be computed, petitioner
impugns the decision appealed from upon the ground that the damages
awarded therein will have to be paid now, whereas most of those sought to be
indemnified will be suffered years later. This argument is basically true, and
this is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the Alcantara case points out the
absence of a "fixed basis" for the ascertainment of the damages recoverable in
litigations like the one at bar. Just the same, the force of the said argument of
petitioner herein is offset by the fact that, although payment of the award in the
case at bar will have to take place upon the finality of the decision therein, the
liability of petitioner herein had been fixed at the rate only of P2,184.00 a year,
which is the annual salary of Policronio Quintos, Jr. at the time of his death, as
a young "training assistant" in the Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. In other
words, unlike the Alcantara case, on which petitioner relies, the lower courts
did not consider, in the present case, Policronio's potentiality and capacity to
increase his future income. Indeed, upon the conclusion of his training period,
he was supposed to have a better job and be promoted from time to time, and,
hence, to earn more, if not considering the growing importance of trade,
commerce and industry and the concomitant rise in the income level of officers
and employees therein much more.
Damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support, they
received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of
the negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount of that support, We
must reckon with the "necessary expenses of his own living", which should be
deducted from his earnings. Only net earnings, not gross earning, are to be
considered that is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary in the
creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental
expenses.
All things considered, We are of the opinion that it is fair and reasonable to fix
the deductible living and other expenses of the deceased at the sum of P1,184.00
a year, or about P100.00 a month, and that, consequently, the loss sustained by
his sisters may be roughly estimated at P1,000.00 a year or P33,333.33 for the
33-1/3 years of his life expectancy. To this sum of P33,333.33, the following
should be added: (a) P12,000.00, pursuant to Arts. 104 and 107 of the Revised
Penal Code, in relation to Article 2206 of our Civil Code, as construed and
applied by this Court; (b) P1,727.95, actually spent by private respondents for
medical and burial expenses; and (c) attorney's fee, which was fixed by the trial
court, at P500.00, but which, in view of the appeal taken by petitioner herein,
first to the Court of Appeals and later to this Supreme Court, should be
increased to P2,500.00. In other words, the amount adjudged in the decision
appealed from should be reduced to the aggregate sum of P49,561.28, with
interest thereon, at the legal rate, from December 29, 1961, date of the
promulgation of the decision of the trial court.

1 Villa Rey Transit Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Villa Rey Transit Vs CA

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

1 Villa Rey Transit Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villa Rey Transit v.

(1) The determination of the indemnity to be awarded to the heirs of a deceased

You might also like