G.R. No. 99301 - Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals

On February 28, 1987, at about 7:45 p.m., a Pantranco bus bearing plate number AVE-845 was traveling along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) from Congressional Avenue toward Clover Leaf, Balintawak.
The bus, while navigating heavy Saturday traffic, lost control before reaching the corner of Oliveros Drive, swerved to the left, and crossed over the center island occupying the east-bound lane.
The front of the bus collided with an Isuzu pickup truck driven by Legaspi, which was moving along Congressional Avenue toward Roosevelt Avenue, resulting in significant physical damage and injuries.

The bus not only hit the pickup truck but also struck a Caltex gasoline station, damaging its building and gasoline dispensing equipment.
A pedestrian crossing EDSA was injured by the bus in the process.

The pickup truck owned by the Kierulf spouses, bearing plate number UV PGS 798, suffered severe damage; its front portion was completely smashed with repair costs estimated at P107,583.50.

Lucila Kierulf, a victim in the accident, sustained multiple injuries requiring major surgeries including tracheotomy, open reduction, mandibular fracture repair, and intermaxillary fixation, as documented in the medical report of Dr. Pedro P. Solis.
Legaspi, the driver of the pickup, also sustained injuries treated by Dr. Alex L. Castillo; his injuries and the physical destruction to the vehicle are clearly recorded and supported by the trial evidence.
Additional physical evidence from autopsy and medical reports documented extensive wounds, lacerations, fractures, and other injuries which required prolonged hospitalization and multiple corrective operations.

Pantranco’s petition asserts that a used engine differential accidentally dropped from a preceding junk truck struck the underchassis of the bus, purportedly causing the driver, Jose Malanum, to lose control.
Pantranco contended that the incident resulted from this fortuitous event rather than driver negligence, a claim that was contested by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The factual findings of both courts identified the bus driver’s behavior as falling short of the due diligence and extraordinary care required in heavy traffic, contributing to the accident.

Whether the awards for moral, exemplary, and actual (compensatory) damages granted by the Court of Appeals were adequate.
Specific contention by the Kierulf spouses and Legaspi that the awards should have been significantly higher, notably:

Moral damages for Lucila and Legaspi should be increased to P1,000,000.00 and P100,000.00 respectively.
Exemplary damages should have been raised to P500,000.00 for the spouses and P50,000.00 for Legaspi.

Whether the husband, Victor Kierulf, was entitled to damages for the loss of marital consortium due to his wife’s disfigurement and the consequent impairment of their sexual relationship.
The evidentiary basis for such a claim, including comparisons to the California case of Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

Whether the proximate cause of the vehicular accident was solely attributable to the accused bus driver’s negligence, or if it was influenced by a fortuitous event as argued by Pantranco.
The contention by Pantranco that the driver was not negligent and that no gross negligence existed, which would negate the causation of the accident.

Legaspi’s claim for loss of income amounting to P16,500.00 based on his incapacitation for ten months following the accident.
Whether sufficient evidence was presented to substantiate similar claims by Lucila Kierulf regarding loss of or impairment in earning capacity.

The propriety of the trial court’s reduction of the repair cost estimate by 10%, with Pantranco arguing that such reduction was speculative given the generally inflated estimates provided by motor repair shops.

The issue concerning whether legal interest should be imposed on the sums awarded, and if so, at what rate and commencing from which date as proposed by Pantranco.