Case Digest (G.R. No. 246824)
Facts:
Lucio Algarra v. Sixto Sandejas, G.R. No. 8385. March 24, 1914, the Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Lucio Algarra sued defendant-appellee Sixto Sandejas for personal injuries sustained when Sandejas, while driving his automobile, collided with Algarra. Negligence on the defendant’s part was not controverted; the dispute concerned only the quantum of damages.
As a result of the accident (July 9, 1912) Algarra was hospitalized for ten days, bedridden for the first four or five days, and received further private medical treatment thereafter. The treating physician testified that Algarra described himself as well by the end of July. Algarra testified he had done no work since the accident and placed his earning capacity at P50 per month; he also testified to medical expenses of P8 for the doctor and P2 for medicines.
Algarra sold distillery products on a 10% commission and averaged P50 monthly, having built up about twenty regular customers over four years. During his incapacity his wife performed some small work but netted only about P15 during the two months Algarra treated as his period of incapacity. Algarra lost all but four regular customers; other agents had taken over his territory, and he could not say how long it would take to rebuild his clientele.
The trial court recognized the injury but denied Algarra recovery for the damage to his business caused by enforced absence, relying on the court’s reading of Marcelo v. Velasco (11 Phil. Rep., 277) and a statement in Viada to the effect that civil liability for lesiones is “almost always limited to indemnity for damage…for the time during which [the injured party] was incapacitated for work.” The trial court thus allowed only such damages as corresponded to actual disability time and medical expenses.
Algarra appealed. The Supreme Court reviewed the record under the appellate powers vested by the Code of Civil Procedure (including section 496), examined Spanish and Anglo‑Saxon authorities and prior Phil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine in Marcelo v. Velasco bar recovery under Article 1902 of the Civil Code for loss of prospective profits or injury to an established business beyond the period of physical incapacity?
- Did the plaintiff prove his claim for medical expenses, wages lost during incapacity, and loss of profits to warrant an award, and if...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)