18.
Marchan v Mendoza Compensatory Damages:
G.R. No. L-24471. August 30, 1968.
By: EAY III
Topic: DAMAGES
Petitioners: SILVERIO MARCHAN and PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS CO., INC.
Respondents: ARSENIO MENDOZA, LEONARDA ILAYA, and ZENAIDA MENDOZA,
Ponente: FERNANDO J.
FACTS:
1. In the evening of February 22, 1954, between 9:00 and 9:30 o'clock, a passenger bus
of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, which was then driven by Silverio Marchan fell
into a ditch somewhere in barrio Malanday, Polo, Bulacan, while travelling on its way
to Manila;
2. as a result of which plaintiffs-appellees Arsenio Mendoza, his wife and child, who
were then inside the bus as passengers were thrown out to the ground resulting in
their multiple injuries.
3. Plaintiff Arsenio Mendoza suffered the most serious injuries which damaged his
vertebrae causing the paralysis of his lower extremities which up to the time when
this case was tried he continued to suffer.
4. The physician who attended and treated plaintiff Arsenio Mendoza opined that he
may never walk again.
5. Consequently, the driver of said bus Silverio Marchan was prosecuted for serious,
less serious and slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence and he was
convicted by the lower court.
6. CA affirmed the amount of P40,000.00 awarded by the court below as
compensatory damages modifying the appealed lower court decision by holding
petitioners to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and sustaining
the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00.
Issue: W/N the amount of damages awarded was proper – YES
Ratio:
 Exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction only in
addition, among others, to compensatory damages, but that they cannot be
recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the discretion of
the court. It further appears that the amount of exemplary damages need not be
proved, because its determination depends upon the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded to the claimant.
 If the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, it need not also be alleged,
and the reason is obvious because it is merely incidental or dependent upon what
the court may award as compensatory damages.
 Unless and until this premise is determined and established, what may be claimed
as exemplary damages would amount to a mere surmise or speculation. It follows as
a necessary consequence that the amount of exemplary damages need not be
pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be predetermined. One can
merely ask that it be determined by the court if in the use of its discretion the same
is warranted by the evidence, and this is just what appellee has done.
 it is our considered view that the amount of P40,000.00 awarded by the court below
as compensatory damages is quite reasonable and fair, considering that plaintiff
Arsenio Mendoza had suffered paralysis on the lower extremities, which will
incapacitate him to engage in his customary occupation throughout the remaining
years of his life, especially so if we take into account that plaintiff Arsenio Mendoza
was only 26 years old when he met an accident on January 22, 1954; and taking the
average span of life of a Filipino, he may be expected to live for 30 years more; and
bearing in mind the earning capacity of Arsenio Mendoza who before the happening
of this accident derived an income of almost P100.00 a month from the business of
his father-in-law as Assistant Supervisor of the small [fairs] and his income of P100.00
a month which he derived as a professional boxer."
 Considering that respondent Arsenio Mendoza was only in his middle twenties when,
thru the negligence of petitioners, he lost the use of his limbs, being condemned for
the remainder of his life to be a paralytic, in effect leading a maimed, well-nigh
useless existence, the 􏰆xing of such liability in the amount of P40,000.00 as
compensatory damages was well within the discretion of the Court of Appeals.
Exemplary Damages:
 It is argued that this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate this exemplary
damages since there was no allegation nor prayer, nor proof, nor counterclaim of
error for the same by the appellees. It is to be observed, however, that in the
complaint, plaintiffs 'prayed for such other and further relief as this Court may deem
just and equitable.'
 since the body of the complaint sought to recover damages against the defendant-
carrier wherein plaintiffs prayed for indemni􏰆cation for the damages they suffered
as a result of the negligence of said Silverio Marchan who is appellant's employee;
and since exemplary damages is intimately connected with general damages,
plaintiffs may not be expected to single out by express term the kind of damages
they are trying to recover against the defendant's carrier.
 Suffice it to state that when plaintiffs prayed in their complaint for such other relief
and remedies that may be availed of under the premises, in effect, therefore, the
court is called upon to exercise and use its discretion whether the imposition of
punitive or exemplary damages even though not expressly prayed or pleaded in the
plaintiffs' complaint
WHEREFORE, as thus modi􏰆ed, the decision is a􏰆rmed, petitioners being liable for the sum of
P40,000.00 in the concept of compensatory damages with interest at the legal rate from and
after January 26, 1960, and the sum of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest at the
legal rate from and after December 14, 1964, as well as for the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's
fees, likewise earning a legal rate of interest from and after January 26, 1960. Costs against
petitioners.