G.R. No. 160709 - Lambert vs. Heirs of Castillon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160709)

Factual Background

On the evening of January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon borrowed a motorcycle from his brother Joel and, with Sergio Labang as backrider, rode through Iligan City after supper and a bottle of beer. At about past 10:00 p.m., while following a Tamaraw jeepney driven by Reynaldo Gamot and owned by petitioner NELEN LAMBERT, the motorcycle collided with the jeepney at Brgy. Sto. Rosario after the jeepney made a sudden left turn; Ray died instantly and Sergio sustained injuries.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

Respondents, as heirs of Ray Castillon, filed Civil Case No. 06-2086 in the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06, for damages with prayer for preliminary attachment; the complaint was amended to include Joel Castillon's claim for damage to the motorcycle. After trial, on June 29, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to pay P633,091 representing loss of support, death indemnity, funeral and related expenses, moral damages and attorneys fees; the court reduced defendants' liability by twenty percent on account of contributory negligence and dismissed Joel Castillon’s claim for lack of real party interest, while ordering third-party defendant Zenith Insurance Corporation to pay P16,500 directly to the plaintiffs.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 43734, including the findings on liability, the award of damages, and the apportionment of liability with a twenty percent mitigation for contributory negligence, as reflected in the dispositive portion of the trial court’s judgment.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Issues

Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 contending that the Court of Appeals erred in law and committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to apply the presumption articulated in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC and Pascua and reiterated in Edna A. Raynera v. Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla, namely that a vehicle that bumps the rear of another is presumed to be the cause of the accident. Petitioners also challenged the quantum and method of computation of loss of earning capacity and the award of moral damages and attorneys’ fees, invoking authorities such as Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Ace Haulers Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Abiva.

Petitioners' Arguments

Petitioners argued that the negligence of Ray Castillon, who was allegedly tailgating at high speed and under the influence, was the proximate cause of his death and therefore relieved petitioner of liability. They asserted that the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ reliance on contributory negligence instead of the presumption against the rear driver was contrary to cited Supreme Court precedents, and they questioned the trial court’s computations for loss of earning capacity and the propriety of awarding moral damages absent bad faith.

Scope of Review

The Court reiterated the settled rule that a petition under Rule 45 raises only questions of law and does not permit reexamination of factual findings. The Court treated the trial court’s factual findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as binding when supported by the record, and declined to disturb the courts’ factual determinations on causation and negligence.

Findings on Causation and Contributory Negligence

The Court accepted the factual narrative found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that, as the jeepney neared a side road the driver, Reynaldo Gamot, veered slightly to the right and then executed an abrupt and sudden left turn without stopping or ensuring that the road was clear, thereby causing the motorcycle to strike the jeepney’s left front door; this abrupt left turn was the proximate cause of Ray’s death. The Court nevertheless found that Ray was guilty of contributory negligence by reason of high speed, tailgating, alcohol consumption, and failure to wear a protective helmet, and held that Article 2179, Civil Code, required mitigation of damages.

Determination and Apportionment of Liability

Reviewing comparable jurisprudence on mitigation, the Court concluded that a fifty percent apportionment was equitable under the circumstances and increased the mitigation from twenty percent as found by the trial court to fifty percent. Consequently, the heirs of Ray Castillon were entitled to recover only fifty percent of the damages attributable to the defendant.

Computation of Loss of Earning Capacity

The Court found error in the trial court’s computation of net earnings and applied the established formula for loss of earning capacity using the American Expectancy Table of Mortality formula [2/3 x (80 - age at death)] and treating net earnings ordinarily as fifty percent of gross earnings. With Ray aged thirty-five and gross annual income of P31,876.00, the Court computed net earning capacity as P478,140.00 using the formula Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age)] x [gross annual income - 50% x gross annual income].

Damages Awarded and Adjustments

The Court sustained awards of P33,215.00 for funeral and burial expenses where supported by receipts, P50,000.00 as death indemnity consistent with prevailing jurisprudence under Article 2206, Civil Code, and P50,000.00 as moral damages pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 2206. The Court deleted the trial court’s award of P20,000.00 as attorneys’ fees for lack of factual or le

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160709)

Parties and Procedural Posture

NELEN LAMBERT, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, GLENROY ALOYSUIS LAMBERT, PETITIONERS, appealed to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 45 from a decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 21, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 43734.
HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON, REPRESENTED BY MARILOU T. CASTILLON AND SERGIO LABANG, RESPONDENTS, obtained judgment in Civil Case No. 06-2086 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06.
The trial court rendered judgment on June 29, 1993 ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay P633,091 representing loss of support, death indemnity, funeral expenses, moral damages, and attorneys fees, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, dismissed Joel Castillon’s claim for lack of real party in interest, and ordered Zenith Insurance Corporation to pay P16,500 to plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and the present petition to the Supreme Court sought reversal on issues of negligence presumptions and computation of damages.
The Supreme Court denied the petition with modifications, affirmed the Court of Appeals decision as modified, and deleted the award of attorneys fees for lack of basis.

Key Factual Allegations

On January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon borrowed a motorcycle from his brother Joel and rode with Sergio Labang as backrider after supper and imbibing a bottle of beer.
The motorcycle was following a Tamaraw jeepney owned by petitioner NELEN LAMBERT and driven by Reynaldo Gamot along the highway towards Tambo, Iligan City at high speed.
At Brgy. Sto. Rosario, the jeepney allegedly slightly veered to the right and then made an abrupt left turn without stopping or keeping proper lookout, resulting in a collision in which Ray died instantaneously and Sergio was injured.
Witnesses Frias, Opada, Labang and Sumile testified regarding the sequence of veering and the sudden left turn by the jeepney driver.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming liability against petitioner despite the presumption that a driver who bumps the rear of another vehicle is the cause of the accident.
Whether the trial court erred in its computation of loss of earning capacity and in awarding moral damages and attorneys fees.
Whether the contributory negligence of the deceased should bar or mitigate recovery.

Contentions of Parties

Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the presumption in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC and Edna A. Raynera v. Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla that the rear driver is presumed the cause when one vehicle bumps the rear of another.
Petitioner alternatively challenged the trial court’s computation of loss of earning capacity citing Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and attacked the award of moral damages under Ace Haulers Corporation v. Court of Appeals for lack of bad faith or ill motive.
Respondents relied on the trial court’s factual findings that the abrupt left turn by the jeepney driver without precaution was the proximate cause of the collision and that the deceased was nevertheless contributorily negligent.

Ruling and Disposition

The petition was DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the computation of net earnings to use fifty percent of the gross annual income in computing loss of earning capacity.
The Supreme Court further MODIFIED the judgment to apportion liability so that petition