PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 120553 (JUNE 17, 1997)

FACTS:
On March 24, 1990, about 6:00 o’clock in the morning, Ramon A. Acuesta was riding in
his easy rider bicycle along Gomez Street in Calbayog City. In a perpendicular street –
Magsaysay Boulevard, Rogaciones Manilhig y Dolira was a driving a bus (no.4025) of
Philtranco. The bus was being pushed by some persons in order to start its engine.

As the engine of the Philtranco bus started abruptly and suddenly, its running motion was
enhanced by the functioning engine and resulted to Ramon A. Acuesta to be ran over. P/Sgt.
Yabao was jogging thru Gomez Street and was heading to meet the victim Ramon Acuesta when
he saw the Philtranco bus being pushed, its engine starting and the bus bumping and running
over the victim. He jumped into the bus to order the driver to stop but it still ran a distance of
about 15 meters from the scene of the accident.

Petitioners alleged that Philtranco exercised due diligence of a good father of a family
including the selection and supervision of its employee – Manilhig who had an excellent record
as a driver, religiously observing traffic rules and regulations. They further claimed that it was
negligence of the victim in overtaking two tricycles, without taking precautions such as seeing
first that the road was clear that had caused the death of the victim.

The trial court handed down a decision ordering the petitioners to jointly and severally
pay the private respondent P55, 615.75 as actual damages, P200,000 as death indemnity for the
death of the victim, P1M as moral damages, P500,000 as exemplary damages and P50,000 as
attorney’s fees.

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the petitioners was not denied
due process. The Doctrine of Last Chance theorized is inapplicable because under the premises
because the victim, who was bumped from behind, obviously, did not of course anticipate a
Philtranco bus being pushed from a perpendicular street. The respondent court sustained the
awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees under Articles 2206, 2231 and 2208
of the Civil Code.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the CA erred in awarding damages to respondents and/or in not finding
the trial court’s award of damages excessive.

HELD:
There is, however, merit in the third imputed error. The trial intended the award of
P200,000 as death indemnity not as compensation loss of earning capacity. There is no evidence
on the victim’s earning capacity and life expectancy. The moral damages of P1M for moral
damages has no sufficient basis and is excessive and unreasonable based solely on the testimony
of one of the heirs. The award of P500,000 for exemplary damages is also excessive. In
quasi0delicts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the party at fault acted with gross
negligence.

Petition is partially granted and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED. Death

indemnity P50,000; moral damages P50,000; exemplary damages P50,000; attorney’s fees
P25,000.