G.R. No. 176946 - Tamayo vs. Senora

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176946)

Factual Background of the Incident

On September 28, 1995, at about 11:00 a.m., the victim, then 43 years old and a Police Chief Inspector of the Philippine National Police (PNP), was riding a motorcycle and crossing Sucat Road toward Filipinas Avenue. A tricycle allegedly bumped the motorcycle from behind. As a result, the motorcycle was pushed into the path of an Isuzu Elf delivery van traveling along Sucat Road toward the South Superhighway. The delivery van ran over the victim. The victim was recovered underneath the vehicle and was brought to the Medical Center of Paranaque, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

The tricycle was driven by Leovino F. Amparo (Amparo). He testified that the delivery van bumped the motorcycle. He stated that he did not see how the motorcycle was hit by his tricycle because he was looking to his right, but that upon hearing a sound, he looked left and saw the victim already underneath the delivery van. He further stated that at the police station for investigation, he brought his tricycle to show that it sustained no damage, purportedly to disprove the delivery van driver’s claim.

The delivery van was driven by Elmer O. Polloso (Polloso) and was registered in the name of Cirilo Tamayo (Cirilo). During trial, Cirilo was suffering from lung cancer and was bedridden, so his wife, petitioner Constancia, testified on his behalf. Constancia testified that she and Cirilo managed a single proprietorship, Tamayo and Sons Ice Dealer, and she claimed that Cirilo hired their drivers. She asserted that Cirilo exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection, hiring, and supervision of employees, including Polloso, and that Cirilo instructed drivers not to drive fast and to be courteous to customers.

Another witness, Nora Pascual (Pascual), worked as an auditor and checker for the ice dealer. Pascual testified that she and another employee were with Polloso in the delivery van when the incident happened. She recounted that while they traversed Sucat Road, she saw a motorcycle heading toward Filipinas Avenue. At the intersection of Sucat Road and Filipinas Avenue, she said Polloso blew the horn. She then testified that she saw a tricycle bump the rear of the motorcycle, after which Polloso stopped the van. When they alighted, she said the motorcycle was already under the delivery van. Pascual also stated that Polloso was a careful driver who drove the truck slowly and followed traffic rules, and she added that Cirilo called for a meeting before the delivery trucks left to instruct drivers to be careful and courteous.

RTC Judgment on Liability and Damages

On March 2, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment finding Amparo, Polloso, and Cirilo Tamayo jointly and severally liable. The dispositive portion ordered payment of P105,100.00 for actual damages, P50,000.00 for loss of life, P1,152,360.00 for loss of earnings, and P30,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

As to fault, the RTC found Polloso negligent. It held that Polloso failed to slow down or come to a full stop at the intersection, which caused the van to run over the victim. It also found that the delivery van was traveling fast on the outer lane, a lane customarily considered for slow-moving vehicles.

The RTC likewise found Amparo negligent. It credited the testimony that the tricycle bumped the victim’s motorcycle and pushed it into the truck’s path. The RTC treated Pascual’s assertion about the collision as credible because it was offered as a spontaneous reaction made immediately after a startling occurrence.

Regarding Cirilo’s liability, the RTC held him solidarily liable based on the principle of vicarious liability. It disregarded Constancia’s testimony as hearsay and unsupported by documentary evidence. It also brushed aside Pascual’s testimony on Cirilo’s supervision because Pascual, described as a checker and auditor, allegedly had no participation in hiring the drivers. Thus, the RTC concluded that Cirilo was liable for the acts and omissions of Polloso.

On damages, the RTC modified the formula for life expectancy by using two-thirds (2/3) × (55 − age of the victim at the time of death), taking 55 years old as the retirement age of PNP members.

CA Decision and Modification of Net Earning Capacity

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, but modified the computation of the deceased’s net earning capacity. While the RTC had assessed damages using its modified life expectancy approach, the CA applied a different method.

The CA computed Net earning capacity as life expectancy × gross annual income less living expenses, with life expectancy computed as 34 2/3 × (80 − age of deceased) and living expenses fixed at half of the victim’s gross income. The CA fixed the victim’s net earning capacity at P1,887,847.00.

The CA thus disposed of the case by affirming the RTC with modification as to the amount representing loss of earnings to P1,887,847.00. It later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 6, 2007.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

Petitioners invoked alleged errors primarily on: (a) the finding that Polloso was negligent and on the determination of proximate cause, (b) the conclusion that Amparo and Polloso’s joint negligence was the proximate cause of death, and (c) the determination that Cirilo Tamayo was solidarily liable.

In substance, petitioners contended that the CA committed reversible error in its negligence assessment and in holding the proximate cause attributable to the drivers’ acts. They also challenged the basis for Cirilo’s solidary liability.

Supreme Court’s Treatment of Review Under Rule 45

The Court held that the petition lacked merit. It reiterated the limitation of its review in cases brought from the CA under Rule 45, namely, that its jurisdiction was confined to reviewing errors of law. It characterized petitioners’ arguments as involving questions of fact that required reevaluation of evidence.

The Court emphasized that trial court findings of fact deserve great weight because the trial court is best positioned to observe witness demeanor. It further stated that the CA’s factual findings, which affirmed those of the RTC, became final and conclusive and would bind the Court absent compelling or exceptional reasons, which the Court found absent in this case.

Negligence Findings and Proximate Cause

The Court sustained the RTC and CA findings that Polloso was negligent. It ruled that the testimonies credited by the RTC and CA were sufficiently credible. It noted that, if Pascual’s testimony that the truck stopped after the tricycle bumped the motorcycle from behind were accepted, then no accident would have occurred. The Court reasoned that even if the motorcycle was nudged into the van’s path, there would have been no impact if the delivery van itself was not moving, and no result such as pinning the motorcycle driver underneath the truck.

In the Court’s view, the CA did not err in upholding the finding of negligence and in tying the incident’s occurrence to the drivers’ negligent conduct, as reflected by the trial court’s factual findings and the CA’s affirmance.

Solidary Liability of Cirilo Tamayo

The Court likewise upheld Cirilo’s solidary liability. It agreed that the RTC correctly disregarded the testimonies presented by Cirilo’s wife and his employee insofar as they failed to establish Cirilo’s exercise of the degree of diligence required in hiring and supervising employees.

The Court considered that, once the RTC had disregarded Constancia’s testimony as hearsay and unsupported by documentary evidence, and had brushed aside Pascual’s testimony due to lack of participation in hiring, there remained no sufficient evidence to show that Cirilo exercised the diligence required to avoid vicarious responsibility for the negligent acts of his driver, Polloso.

Computation of Loss of Earning Capacity

Finally, the Court sustained the CA’s modification on damages for loss of earning capacity. It explained that the award of damages for loss of earning capacity concerned the losses sustained by the heirs as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased. The recoverable amount was not the victim’s entire earnings, but only the support the beneficiaries received or would have received had the victim not died.

The Court stated that the proper approach for indemnity on loss of earning capacity was the computation of net earning capacity. It held that the CA correctly

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176946)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Constancia G. Tamayo, Jocelyn G. Tamayo, and Aramis G. Tamayo, collectively known as the heirs of Cirilo Tamayo, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petition sought review of the Decision dated March 22, 2006 and the Resolution dated February 6, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63171.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the award for loss of earnings.
The petition assailed the RTC and CA rulings concerning negligence, proximate cause, and solidary liability of Cirilo Tamayo.
The case reached the Court because petitioners alleged errors of law, but the Court treated the raised matters as primarily involving questions of fact.

Key Factual Allegations

On September 28, 1995 at about 11:00 a.m., Antonieto M. Senora, then 43 years old and a police chief inspector of the PNP, was riding a motorcycle crossing the intersection of Sucat Road towards Filipinas Avenue.
A tricycle allegedly bumped Senora’s motorcycle from behind, pushing the motorcycle into the path of an Isuzu Elf Van delivery van cruising along Sucat Road toward the South Superhighway.
The delivery van ran over Senora, who was recovered underneath the van and pronounced dead on arrival at the Medical Center of Paranaque.
The tricycle was driven by Leovino F. Amparo (Amparo), who testified that he looked to his right and later saw Senora already underneath the delivery van after hearing a sound.
Amparo claimed he did not see how the motorcycle could have been hit by his tricycle and asserted that his tricycle sustained no damage, which he said he showed during investigation.
The delivery van was driven by Elmer O. Polloso (Polloso) and was registered in the name of Cirilo Tamayo (Cirilo).
During trial, Cirilo was suffering from lung cancer and was bedridden; his wife Constancia testified for him.
Constancia narrated that Cirilo managed a single proprietorship, Tamayo and Sons Ice Dealer, and exercised due diligence in the selection, hiring, and supervision of drivers, including Polloso.
Constancia also testified that Cirilo instructed drivers not to drive fast and not to be too strict with customers.
Nora Pascual (Pascual), identified as an auditor and checker for the ice dealer, testified that she and another employee were with Polloso in the delivery van at the time of the incident.
Pascual stated that when they reached the intersection of Sucat Road and Filipinas Avenue, Polloso blew the horn, and she saw a tricycle bump the rear of the motorcycle.
Pascual testified that Polloso stopped the delivery van after the bump and that they found the motorcycle already underneath the delivery van.
Pascual further testified that Polloso drove carefully and followed traffic rules, and that Cirilo called for a meeting before deliveries and instructed drivers to be careful and courteous.

RTC Findings and Liability

The RTC found Polloso negligent for failing to slow down or come to a full stop at the intersection, which the RTC held caused the delivery van to run over Senora.
The RTC also found the delivery van traveling fast on the outer lane, which it described as customarily for slow-moving vehicles.
The RTC found Amparo similarly negligent because it held that the tricycle bumped Senora’s motorcycle and pushed it toward the truck’s path.
The RTC ruled that Pascual’s statement regarding the tricycle bumping from behind was made immediately after the accident and could be considered a “spontaneous reaction to a startling occurrence.”
The RTC held that even assuming the tricycle bumped the motorcycle, the collision could have been avoided if Polloso observed the elementary rule of driving requiring a driver to slow down or come to a full stop when crossing an intersection.
The RTC held Cirilo solidarily liable for Senora’s death by attributing liability to Cirilo as employer through the acts and omissions of Polloso.
The RTC disregarded Constancia’s testimony as hearsay and found it unsupported by documentary evidence as to Cirilo’s claimed due diligence.
The RTC also brushed aside Pascual’s testimony because it concluded she had no participation in hiring the company’s drivers.
For damages, the RTC modified the formula for determining life expectancy by using a retirement age of 55 years (for PNP members) and employed two-thirds of (55 minus age at death).
The RTC ultimately ordered defendants jointly and severally to pay P105,100.00 for actual damages, P50,000.00 for loss of life, P1,152,360.00 for loss of earnings, and P30,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

CA Ruling on Appeal

The CA affirmed the RTC decision on negligence but modified the computation of the deceased’s net earning capacity.
The CA sustained Polloso’s negligence and the legal consequence that Polloso’s driving omissions contributed to the fatal result.
The CA upheld Cirilo’s solidary liability, consistent with the RTC’s rejection of evidence offered to prove due diligence in the hiring and supervision of drivers.
The CA used Net earning capacity = life expectancy x gross annual income less living expenses, with life expectancy computed as 34 2/3 x (80 - age of deceased).
The CA fixed living expenses at half of the victim’s gross income.
The CA computed Senora’s net earning capacity at P1,887,847.00 and