Sps Pereña V Sps Zarate

SPS PEREÑA v.
SPS ZARATE
FACTS:
1. Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their residences to Don Bosco in Makati,
and back. They employed Alfaro as driver of the school van.
2. Sps. Zarate contracted the Pereñas to transport their 15 y/o son, Aaron to and from Don Bosco.
3. One day, the school van picked up Aaron from their house and he sat on the left side of the van near the rear
door. The air-conditioned van was playing loud music, and was carrying 14 students.
4. Because they are already running late due to heavy traffic, Alfaro (driver) took an alternate route by traversing
the narrow path under the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used as shortcut to Makati. The
railroad crossing in the narrow path had no warning signs or watchmen and the bamboo barandilla was up,
thus leaving the railroad open.
5. When the school van was about to traverse the railroad crossing, the PNR train operated by Alano was
approaching. As the train was nearing, Alfaro overtook a passenger bus and thus his view of the oncoming
train was blocked.
6. The PNR train blew its horn to warn motorists. The passenger bus was able to cross, but the school van was
hit by the train at the rear end. The impact threw 9 students, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in
the path of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, instantly killing him.
7. Sps. Zarate filed an action for damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and Alano. a. The action against
the Pereñas was for breach of contract, while that against PNR was based on quasi-delict. b. Note that Alfaro
could not be served summons while Alano already fled right after the accident.
8. Their defenses: a. Pereñas: they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of Alfaro; they made sure he has a driver’s license and that he had not been involved in any prior
vehicular accident; sometimes Teodoro Pereña accompany Alfaro in driving to the school. b. PNR: the
proximate cause of the collision was the reckless crossing of the van; the narrow path was not intended for
motorists.
9. Trial court ruled in favor of the Zarates and awarded damages.
For the death of Aaron – P50k
Actual damages – P100k
For the loss of earning capacity – P2.1M
Moral damages – P4M (but CA reduced it to 2.5)
Exemplary damages – P1M
Atty’s fees – P200k
10. CA affirmed RTC’s ruling but reduced actual damages to P59,502.76 and moral damages to 2.5M. It
based its award on loss of earning capacity on the ruling in Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., a case where
the Court awarded damages for loss of earning capacity to the parents of a medical student who died in an
accident. The CA computed Aaron’s earning capacity based on the prevailing minimum wage and used the
formula [2/3 (80-age]. The CA arrived at a higher amount than what was being asked by the spouses Zarate
and only awarded the amount asked by the latter.
ISSUE:
WoN the award of actual damages and damages for loss of earning capacity was proper. -YES
RULING: Petition denied.
RATIO:
1. Being a common carrier, the Pereñas are bound to observe extraordinary diligence, and as such, they are
presumed to be negligent because of the death of their passenger. They failed to overturn the presumption of
their negligence. Negligence Pereñas are liable despite the fact that their driver might have acted beyond the
scope of his authority or in violation of orders. Their defense of diligence is insufficient. The Court noted the
ff:
a. The driver traversed the tracks at a point not permitted for motorists. o With the driver’s familiarity with the
shortcut, he was fully aware of the risks, and he disregarded the risks. o The loudness of music reduced his ability to
hear the train. o He tried to overtake the bus, and in doing so, lost view of the train. o He did not slow down before
crossing the railroad tracks, in violation of traffic regulations. The omission of care on the part of the driver constituted
negligence. o Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.
2. Although the basis of the right to relief against the Zarates (breach of contract) differs from that against PNR
(quasidelict), they could still be held solidarily liable by virtue of their respective negligence combined. PNR
was also found negligent in not placing warning signs.
3. Award of damages: The SC concurred with the RTCs award of indemnity for the loss of Aaron’s earning
capacity. o Although Aaron was only a highschool student, the RTC considered the minimum wage computed
from the time when he would have graduated from college (21 y/o). The moral damages of P2.5m were just
and reasonable considering the deep mental anguish of the Zarates over their son’s death. The exemplary
damages should not be reduced to render an example for the public good.
4. The spouses Perena cited People v Teehankee where the Court deleted the award of damages for loss of
earning capacity of the victim who graduated high school and was attending pilot school. The Court
ratiocinated that in that case, the award was speculative unlike in this case where the RTC and the CA based
the computation on the prevailing minimum wage. Based on Aaron’s scholastic record, no doubt he would
have graduated high school and college in due time and would have earned more than the minimum wage.
The Court also cited the Cariaga case to support this. In that case, a medical student died and the Court
awarded damages for loss of earning capacity and set the monthly wages to that of a newly practicing
physician stating that based on the student’s scholastic record, he would have graduated on time and passed
the medical boards. It also cited People v Sanchez where the Court awarded damages to the murdered victims
who were senior agriculture students in UP.
5. The fact that Aaron was then without a history of earnings should not be taken against his parents
and in favor of the defendants whose negligence not only cost Aaron his life and his right to work and
earn money, but also deprived his parents of their right to his presence and his services as well. Our
law itself states that the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased shall be the liability of the guilty
party in favor of the heirs of the deceased, and shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the
court „unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant,
had no earning capacity at the time of his death. Accordingly, we emphatically hold in favor of the
indemnification for Aarons loss of earning capacity despite him having been unemployed, because
compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of time or earnings but for loss of the deceased’s
power or ability to earn money.
6. The moral damages of P2,500,000.00 were really just and reasonable under the established circumstances
of this case because they were intended by the law to assuage the Zarates’ deep mental anguish over their
son’s unexpected and violent death, and their moral shock over the senseless accident. It would help the
Zarates obtain the means, diversions or amusements that would alleviate their suffering for the loss of their
child. At any rate, reducing the amount as excessive might prove to be an injustice, given the passage of a
long time from when their mental anguish was inflicted on them on August 22, 1996.
7. Anent the P1,000,000.00 allowed as exemplary damages, we should not reduce the amount if only to render
effective the desired example for the public good. As a common carrier, the Pereñas needed to be vigorously
reminded to observe their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent a similarly senseless accident
from happening again. Only by an award of exemplary damages in that amount would suffice to instill in them
and others similarly situated like them the ever-present need for greater and constant vigilance in the conduct
of a business imbued with public interest.

Sps Pereña V Sps Zarate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Pereña V Sps Zarate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Pereña V Sps Zarate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPS PEREÑA v.

RULING: Petition denied.

You might also like