G.R. No. L-4555 - Alcantara vs. Surro

The case is a wrongful death action filed by the legitimate children and heirs of the deceased Hermenegildo L. Co.
The plaintiffs, represented by their judicial guardians Sofronio G. Alcantara and Cornelia L. Co., seek damages for the death caused by the negligent act of the defendant.
The defendant Patricio Surro, a chauffeur of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco), was charged and subsequently convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence in a criminal proceeding.

Date and Time: The fatal incident occurred on November 24, 1945, at approximately 7:50 a.m.
Location: Along Rizal Avenue, near the intersection of Rizal Avenue and Blumentritt Streets in Manila.
Facts of the Accident:

Truck No. 50, driven by the accused Surro, was following truck No. 55 along Rizal Avenue.
At an intersection where traffic was being controlled by policemen, truck No. 55 was ordered to stop to let vehicles from another direction pass.
During this interval, a passenger, Hermenegildo Co, boarded truck No. 55 by quickly grasping the hand rails and setting his foot on the stepboard.
Truck No. 50 then closed in from behind and struck the rear of truck No. 55, crushing Hermenegildo Co between the two vehicles.
The victim, after suffering severe injuries including a fractured pelvis, fractured left leg, and evisceration of the intestines due to the crush, was taken to a hospital where he died shortly after.

The lower court (Court of First Instance of Manila) awarded the plaintiffs an indemnity broken down as follows:

P18,000 for the total salary the deceased would have earned over a four-year period (1946–1949).
P5,000 for moral and “patrimonial” damages covering both the physical and moral sufferings of the family.
P2,155 for “pecuniary expenses” with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until payment.

The lower court stipulated that the liability of Manila Electric Company would only be executed after the writ of execution against co-defendant Patricio Surro returned unsatisfied.
The appellants (both civil parties and co-defendant Manila Electric Company) later appealed, with their primary contention focusing on the amount of damages awarded.

The tender ages of the surviving heirs (ranging from 5 to 13 years at the time of death).
The age and life expectancy of the deceased, determined using available mortality data.
The state of health of the deceased at the time of his death, with conflicting yet resolved evidence from medical testimonies.
The earning capacity of the deceased, including testified salaries and corroborated by documentary evidence (e.g., income tax return).
Actual pecuniary damages incurred and the moral and physical suffering of both the deceased and his family.
The pecuniary status of the liable party as contemplated by Commonwealth Act No. 284.

Cornelia L. Co and Patricio Fajardo confirmed the salary information and adjustments in the remuneration over the relevant years.
Medical testimonies appeared, with Dr. Castro Pineda countering conflicting evidence regarding the deceased’s health.

Articles 104 and 107 of the Revised Penal Code, which provide for restitution, reparation, and indemnification for consequential damages.
Commonwealth Act No. 284, which requires that the civil liability for death be fixed at a reasonable sum based on the pecuniary situation and other circumstances, with a minimum award stipulated.

The decision cites previous cases (e.g., People vs. Amansec, Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Company, Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., Inc., Layda vs. Court of Appeals) to underscore the lack of a fixed rule in determining indemnity.
An emphasis is placed on the discretionary nature of such awards, considering both moral and material damages.

Whether the lower court’s computation of the indemnity, particularly the P18,000 figure as the lost salary for a four-year period, adequately reflected the earning capacity and life expectancy of the deceased.
Whether it was proper to limit the scope of the salary computation to a four-year period despite evidence suggesting a longer life expectancy.

Whether the bonus declared by the deceased’s employer should have been factored into the computation of lost earnings or the overall indemnity.
The correct application and interpretation of Commonwealth Act No. 284 regarding the pecuniary situation of the liable parties, specifically in relation to the defendant Manila Electric Company.

Whether the lower court correctly integrated the provisions of Articles 104 and 107 of the Revised Penal Code with Commonwealth Act No. 284 in determining the indemnity.
If the lower court’s methodology in balancing statutory mandates and discretion afforded under case law was consistent and justified.