Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82472:56346&catid=1575&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:31:11+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 187899, October 23, 2013 - ROBERT DA JOSE AND FRANCISCO OCAMPO Y ANGELES, Petitioners, v. CELERINA R. ANGELES, EDWARD ANGELO R. ANGELES ANDCELINE ANGELI R. ANGELES, Respondent.
ROBERT DA JOSE AND FRANCISCO OCAMPO Y ANGELES, Petitioners, v. CELERINA R. ANGELES, EDWARD ANGELO R. ANGELES ANDCELINE ANGELI R. ANGELES, Respondent.
Before this Court is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking the reversal of the Decision2 dated August 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83309, which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated April 12, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, of Malolos, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 46-M-2002.
A criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property was filed on December 3, 2001 against Francisco before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan (Criminal Case No. 01-8154.11] In a Decision12 dated December 22, 2008, the MTC declared Francisco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
During the pendency of the criminal case, respondents’ counsel sent petitioners via registered mail a demand-letter13 dated December 15, 2001 for the payment (within 5 days from receipt of the letter) of the amount ofP5,000,000 representing damages and attorney’s fees.Failing to reach any settlement, respondents subsequently filed a Complaint14 for Damages based on tort against Robert and Francisco before the RTC on January 16, 2002.A pre-trial conference was held on May 6, 2002.15 Trial on the merits ensued.
5) P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus the costs of suit.
P2,316,000.00 is awarded for lost earnings of the deceased Eduardo T. Angeles.
The CA agreed with the RTC’s findings that Francisco was clearly negligent in driving the Nissan Patrol and that such negligence caused the vehicular collision which resulted in the death of Eduardo. Like the RTC, the CA also dismissed Francisco’s claim that the Mitsubishi Lancer’s headlights were not on at the time of the incident and found that petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to the contrary that Eduardo was of good health and of sound mind at the time. The CA thus ruled that no contributory negligence could be imputed against Eduardo.
While sustaining the RTC’s award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000; actual damages in the amount of P4,830 as hospitalization expenses and P50,000 as burial expenses; and attorney’s fees and costs of the suit in the amount of P50,000, the CA reduced the awards for moral and exemplary damages in the amounts of P50,000 and P25,000 respectively, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Moreover, the CA awarded respondents indemnity for Eduardo’s loss of earning capacity based on the documentary and testimonial evidence they presented.Excluding the other cash vouchers, the CA took into consideration the P20,000 monthly salary Eduardo received from Glennis Laundry Haus in the computation thereof, finding that the said cash vouchers were typewritten and duly signed by employees who prepared, checked and approved them and that said business venture was validated by the aforementioned Joint Affidavit. Thus, the CA awarded the amount of P2,316,000 for loss of earning capacity in favor of respondents.
Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration36 but the CA denied it under Resolution37dated April 23, 2009.
Respondents counter that the questions raised by petitioners,specifically, the adequacy of the amount of damages awarded and the admissibility of evidence presented,are not questions of law, hence, not proper under a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. They argue that a court’s appreciation of evidence is an exercise of its sound judicial discretion, the abuse of which is correctible by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
At the outset it must be stressed that absent any issue raised by petitioners as regards the negligence of Francisco and the corresponding liabilities of Francisco and Robert arising therefrom, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb much less deviate from the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA that Francisco was negligent in driving the Nissan Patrol, and that such negligence caused the vehicular collision which resulted in the death of Eduardo.
The sole issue to be resolved is whether the CA erred in awarding the sum of P2,316,000 for loss of earning capacity.
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.
Based on the foregoing and in line with respondents’ claim that Eduardo during his lifetime earned more or less an annual income of P1,000,000, the case falls under the purview of the general rule rather than the exceptions.
Now, while it is true that respondents submitted cash vouchers to prove Eduardo’s income, it is lamentable as duly observed by the RTC that the officers and/or employees who prepared, checked or approved the same were not presented on the witness stand. The CA itself in its assailed Decision disregarded the cash vouchers from Classic Personnel, Inc. and the Jhamec Construction Corp. due to lack of proper identification and authentication.We find that the same infirmity besets the cash vouchers from Glennis Laundry Haus upon which the award for loss of earning capacity was based.
Except for the award for the loss of earning capacity,the Court concurs with the findings of the CA and sustains the other awards made in so far as they are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, pursuant to this Court’s ruling in Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy54 citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,55 an interest of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded shall be imposed, computed from the time of finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The award for the loss of earning capacity in the amount of P2,316,000 granted by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 29, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 83309 in favor of respondents is hereby SET ASIDE. All the other monetary awards are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded shall be imposed, computed from the time of finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.
2 Id. at 37-58. Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong with Associate Justices Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring.
3 Records, pp. 386-398. Penned by Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr.
9 TSN, May 14, 2003, pp. 4-6.
10 Records, pp. 231, 235.
12 Rollo, pp. 79-88. Penned by Presiding Judge Sita Jose-Clemente.
15 TSN, May 6, 2002, pp. 1-16.
… at pagdating sa nasabing lugar ay sinakop ng Nissan Patrol ang lugar ng kalsada na tinatakbuhan ng Mitsubishi Lancer na naging dahilan upang magkabunggo ang dalawang harapan ng behickulo (sic). Namatay ang driver ng Mitsubishi Lancer matapos madala sa FM Cruz Hospital samantalang walang nasaktan sa Nissan Patrol….
20 TSN, July 3, 2002, pp. 7-24.
23Rollo, pp. 62-64; TSN, August 19, 2002, pp. 6-12; TSN, October 18, 2002, pp. 8-10.
24 TSN, November 13, 2002, pp. 2-5.
29 TSN, May 14, 2003, pp. 3-13, 36-37.
30 TSN, November 10, 2003, pp. 2-18.
36 CA rollo, pp. 173-183.
37Rollo, p. 60. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and Arturo G. Tayag concurring.
42 G.R. No. 177116, February 27, 2013, pp. 6-7.
43 See Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corporation, G.R. Nos. 170071 & 170125, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 93, 112-113.
45Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 576, 591, citing Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 152, 178.
46People v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 185726, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 216, 239.
47People v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 148627, April 28, 2004,428 SCRA 146, 162-163,citing People v. Panabang, G.R. Nos. 137514-15, January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 560, 575; People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999, 312 SCRA 640, 670; and Chan v. Maceda, Jr., 450 Phil. 416, 431 (2003).
48People v. Jadap, G.R. No. 177983, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 179, 196-197; People v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 420, 448-449; People v. Algarme, G.R. No. 175978, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 601, 629; Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, 486 Phil. 574, 590 (2004); People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 692, 711-712; People v. Oco, 458 Phil. 815, 855 (2003); People v. Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27, 448 Phil. 78,97 (2003); and People v. Pajotal, G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001, 368 SCRA 674, 689.
49 TSN, November 13, 2002, pp. 6-10.
51Asilo, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 159017-18 & 159059, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 41, 64.
52Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013, pp. 7-8.
53Jaca v. People, G.R. Nos. 166967, 166974 & 167167, January 28, 2013, 689 SCRA 270, 299.
54 G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 91, 111.
55 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 97.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.