Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
525, JUNE 22, 2007 427 these requirements, employers must submit concrete proof,
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang including documentary evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; The employee and his
G.R. No. 172122. June 22, 2007. *
employer are also liable for all damages which are the natural
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION and ROLANDO J. and probable consequences of the act or omission complained
DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES RICHARD of.Petitioners are also liable for all damages which are the
HUANG and CARMEN HUANG, and STEPHEN natural and probable consequences of the act or omission
HUANG, respondents. complained of. The doctors who attended to respondent
Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Employer-Employee Stephen are one in their prognosis that his chances of
Relationships; The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 walking again and performing basic body functions are nil.
of the Civil Code is direct or immediateit is not conditioned For the rest of his life, he will need continuous rehabilitation
on a prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior and therapy to prevent further complications such as
showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint and pneumonia, bladder and rectum infection, renal failure,
solidary with the employee.The liability of the employer sepsis and severe bed sores, osteoporosis and fractures, and
under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or immediate. It is other spinal cord injury-related conditions. He will be
not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent em- completely dependent on the care and support of his family.
_______________ We thus affirm the award of P23,461,062.00 for the life care
*FIRST DIVISION.
cost of respondent Stephen Huang, based on his average
428 monthly expense and the actuarial computation of the
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED remaining years that he is expected to live; and the
conservative amount of P10,000,000.00, as reduced by the
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
trial court, for the loss or impairment of his earning capacity,
ployee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such
considering his age, probable life expectancy, the state of his
employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee. To
health, and his mental and physical condition before the
be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug should show
accident.
that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family,
Same; Same; Same; Same; The amount of the award of
both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision
moral damages bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth
of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its
or means of the offender.The award of moral damages is
prospective employees, the employer is required to examine
aimed at a restoration, within the limits of the possible, of
them as to their qualifications, experience, and service
the spiritual status quo ante. Moral damages are designed
records. With respect to the supervision of its employees, the
to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
employer should formulate standard operating procedures,
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
measures for their breach. To establish compliance with 429
VOL. 525, JUNE 22, 2007 429
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang On appeal are the Decision and Resolution of the Court
1 2
social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83981, dated February
person. Although incapable of pecuniary computation, they 16, 2006 and March 30, 2006, respectively which
must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The amount affirmed with modifi-
of the award bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or _______________
means of the offender.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Exemplary damages may be 1Rollo, pp. 9-72.
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence;
2Id., at pp. 74-75.
430
Employers should be more circumspect in the observance of
due diligence in the selection and supervision of their 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
employees.On the matter of exemplary damages, Art. 2231 Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
of the Civil Code provides that in cases of quasidelicts, cation the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
3
exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted Makati City, dated September 29, 2004. The trial court
with gross negligence. The records show that at the time of found petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay
the accident, petitioner Del Rosario was driving without a respondents damages for the injuries sustained by
license because he was previously ticketed for reckless respondent Stephen Huang, son of respondent spouses
driving. The evidence also shows that he failed to step on his
Richard and Carmen Huang.
brakes immediately after the impact. Had petitioner Del
Rosario done so, the injuries which respondent Stephen
First, the facts:
sustained could have been greatly reduced. Wanton acts such Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation (Mercury
as that committed by petitioner Del Rosario need be Drug) is the registered owner of a six-wheeler 1990
suppressed; and employers like petitioner Mercury Drug Mitsubishi Truck with plate number PRE 641 (truck).
should be more circumspect in the observance of due It has in its employ petitioner Rolando J. del Rosario as
diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. driver. Respondent spouses Richard and Carmen
The award of exemplary damages in favor of the respondents Huang are the parents of respondent Stephen Huang
is therefore justified. and own the red 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI Sedan with
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and plate number PTT 775 (car).
resolution of the Court of Appeals. These two vehicles figured in a road accident on
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. December 20, 1996 at around 10:30 p.m. within the
Corazon S. Agustin for petitioners. municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila. Respondent
Anacleto M. Diaz for respondents. Stephen Huang was driving the car, weighing 1,450 kg.,
while petitioner Del Rosario was driving the truck,
PUNO, C.J.: weighing 14,058 kg. Both were traversing the C-5
Highway, north bound, coming from the general
direction of Alabang going to Pasig City. The car was on Stephen Huangs recklessness. According to petitioner
the left innermost lane while the truck was on the next Del Rosario, he was driving on the left innermost lane
lane to its right, when the truck suddenly swerved to its when the car bumped the trucks front right tire. The
left and slammed into the front right side of the car. The truck then swerved to the left, smashed into an electric
collision hurled the car over the island where it hit a post, crossed the center island, and stopped on the other
lamppost, spun around and landed on the opposite lane. side of the highway. The car likewise crossed over the
The truck also hit a lamppost, ran over the car and center island and landed on the same portion of C-5.
zigzagged towards, and finally stopped in front of Further, petitioner Mercury Drug claims that it
Buellah Land Church. exercised due diligence of a good father of a family in
At the time of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario the selection and supervision of all its employees.
only had a Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR). His drivers The trial court, in its Decision dated September 29,
license had been confiscated because he had been 2004, found petitioners Mercury Drug and Del Rosario
previously apprehended for reckless driving. jointly and severally liable to pay respondents actual,
The car, valued at P300,000.00, was a total wreck. compensatory, moral and exemplary damages,
Respondent Stephen Huang sustained massive injuries attorneys fees, and litigation expenses. The dispositive
to his spinal portion reads:
_______________ WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding defendants
Mercury Drug Corporation, Inc. and Rolando del Rosario,
Id., at pp. 523-564.
jointly and severally liable to pay plaintiffs Spouses Richard
3
431
Y. Huang and Carmen G. Huang, and Stephen Huang the
VOL. 525, JUNE 22, 2007 431 following amounts:
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
cord, head, face, and lung. Despite a series of 1. 1.Two Million Nine Hundred Seventy Three
operations, respondent Stephen Huang is paralyzed for Thousand Pesos (P2,973,000.00) actual damages;
life from his chest down and requires continuous 2. 2.As compensatory damages:
medical and rehabilitation treatment.
Respondents fault petitioner Del Rosario for 1. a.Twenty Three Million Four Hundred Sixty One
committing gross negligence and reckless imprudence Thousand, and Sixty-Two Pesos (P23,461,062.00) for
while driving, and petitioner Mercury Drug for failing life care cost of Stephen;
to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in
432
the selection and supervision of its driver. 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
In contrast, petitioners allege that the immediate
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
and proximate cause of the accident was respondent
1. b.Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as and for 2. B.IN ACCORDING GREATER WEIGHT TO THE
lost or impaired earning capacity of Stephen; EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN AND COMPLETELY DISREGARDING
1. 3.Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) as moral THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN;
damages;
3. C.IN DISREGARDING COMPLETELY ALL
2. 4.Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as
EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE
exemplary damages; and PETITIONERS HEREIN AND PROCEEDED TO
3. 5.One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as attorneys RENDER ITS DECISION BASED ON
fees and litigation expense.4
PRESUMPTIONS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WITNESSES TO THE
On February 16, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed ACCIDENT;
the decision of the trial court but reduced the award of
moral damages to P1,000,000.00. The appellate court _______________
also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by 4Id.,at pp. 563-564.
petitioners. 433
Hence, this appeal. VOL. 525, JUNE 22, 2007 433
Petitioners cite the following grounds for their Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
appeal:
1. D.IN AWARDING DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF
1. 1.That the subject Decision which dismissed the
RESPONDENTS HEREIN;
appeal of petitioners herein but AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION the decision of the Regional Trial 2. E.IN FINDING THAT MERCURY DRUG
Court, Branch 64, Makati City, in that the award of CORPORATION FAILED TO EXERCISE THE
moral damages was reduced to P1,000,000.00 and its DILIGENCE REQUIRED IN SUPERVISING
Resolution dated March 30, 2006, which dismissed ITS EMPLOYEES DESPITE
outright the Motion for Reconsideration must be set OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PRESENTED
aside because the Honorable Court of Appeals BY PETITIONER COMPANY;
committed reversible error: 3. F.IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER ROLANDO
DEL ROSARIO WAS NEGLIGENT IN
1. A.IN DENYING OUTRIGHTLY THE MOTION FOR DRIVING THE TRUCK AT THE TIME OF
RECONSIDERATION ON ALLEGEDLY BEING ACCIDENT AND TOTALLY DISREGARDING
FILED OUT OF TIME FOR ONE DAY;
THE EVIDENCES PRESENTED DURING
THE TRIAL OF THE CASE.
4. G.IN PRESENTING ONLY IN THE DECISION 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
TESTIMONIES FAVORABLE TO THE Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
RESPONDENTS HEREIN AND right side, the car would not have landed on the opposite
COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE side, but would have been thrown to the right side of the
EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE C-5 Highway. Noteworthy on this issue is the testimony
PETITIONERS HEREIN WHICH of Dr. Marlon Rosendo H. Daza, an expert in the field of
CONTRADICTED SUCH TESTIMONIES NOT physics. He conducted a study based on the following
ONLY THROUGH ORAL TESTIMONIES BUT assumptions provided by respondents:
AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCES. 5
1. 1.Two vehicles collided;
2. 2.One vehicle is ten times heavier, more massive
We affirm the findings of the trial court and the than the other;
appellate court that petitioner Del Rosario was 3. 3.Both vehicles were moving in the same
negligent. The evidence does not support petitioners direction and at the same speed of about 85 to
claim that at the time of the accident, the truck was at 90 kilometers per hour;
the left inner lane and that it was respondent Stephen 4. 4.The heavier vehicle was driving at the
Huangs car, at its right, which bumped the right front innermost left lane, while the lighter vehicle
side of the truck. Firstly, petitioner Del Rosario could was at its right.
not precisely tell which part of the truck was hit by the
car, despite the fact that the truck was snub-nosed and
6
Dr. Daza testified that given the foregoing assumptions,
a lot higher than the car. Petitioner Del Rosario could if the lighter vehicle hits the right front portion of the
not also explain why the car landed on the opposite lane heavier vehicle, the general direction of the light vehicle
of C-5 which was on its left side. He said that the car after the impact would be to the right side of the heavy
did not pass in front of him after it hit him or under him vehicle, not the other way around. The truck, he opined,
or over him or behind him. If the truck were really at
7
is more difficult to move as it is heavier. It is the car,
the left lane and the car were at its right, and the car the lighter vehicle, which would move to the right of,
hit the truck at its front and away from the truck. Thus, there is very little
_______________
chance that the car will move towards the opposite
5 Id., at pp. 90-92. side, i.e., to the left of the truck.
6 TSN, March 27, 2000, p. 16. Dr. Daza also gave a further study on the basis of the
7 TSN, April 12, 2000, pp. 53-58.
same assumptions except that the car is on the left side
434 of the truck, in accordance with the testimony of
respondent Stephen Huang. Dr. Daza concluded that No more, sir, because I went over the island.
the general direction of the car after impact would be to ATTY. DIAZ:
the left of the truck. In this situation, the middle island Because as you said you lost control, correct sir?
against which the car was pinned would slow down the WITNESS:
car, and enable the truck to catch up and hit the car Yes, sir.
again, before running over it. 8
ATTY. DIAZ:
To support their thesis, petitioners tried to show the In other words, sir from the time your truck was hit
damages that the truck sustained at its front right side. according to you up to the time you rested on the
The attempt does not impress. The photographs shoulder, you traveled fifty meters?
presented were WITNESS:
_______________
Yes, sir, about that distance.
8TSN, March 23, 2003, pp. 5-29. ATTY. DIAZ:
435 And this was despite the fact that you were only traveling
VOL. 525, JUNE 22, 2007 435 at the speed of seventy five kilometers per hour, jumped
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang over the island, hit the lamppost, and traveled the three
taken a month after the accident, and Rogelio Pantua, lanes of the opposite lane of C-5 highway, is that what
the automechanic who repaired the truck and you want to impress upon this court?
authenticated the photographs, admitted that there WITNESS:
were damages also on the left side of the truck. 9
Yes, sir. 10
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for employees, the employer should formulate standard
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- operating procedures, monitor their implementation,
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
establish compliance with these requirements,
Chapter.
employers must submit concrete proof, including
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also documentary evidence. 13
for those of persons for whom one is responsible. In the instant case, petitioner Mercury Drug
xxx presented testimonial evidence on its hiring procedure.
The owners and managers of an establishment or According to Mrs. Merlie Caamic, the Recruitment and
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by Training Manager of petitioner Mercury Drug,
their employees in the service of the branches in which the applicants are required to take theoretical and actual
latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. driving tests, and psychological examination. In the
xxx case of petitioner Del Rosario, however, Mrs. Caamic
The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil admitted that he took the driving tests and
Code is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned on a psychological examination when he applied for the
prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior position of Delivery Man, but not when he applied for
showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint the position of Truck Man. Mrs. Caamic also admitted
and solidary with the employee. 11
that petitioner Del Rosario used a Galant which is a
To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug light vehicle, instead of a truck during the driving tests.
should show that it exercised the diligence of a good Further, no tests were conducted on the motor skills
father of a family, both in the selection of the employee development, perceptual speed, visual attention, depth
and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. visualization, eye and hand coordination and steadiness
Thus, in the selection of of petitioner Del Rosario. No NBI and police clearances
_______________
were also presented. Lastly, petitioner Del Rosario
11 Art. 2194, Civil Code. The responsibility of two or more persons attended only three driving seminarson June 30,
who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. 2001, February 5, 2000 and July 7, 1984. In effect, the
only seminar he attended before the accident which The trial court awarded the following amounts:
occurred in 1996 was held twelve years ago in 1984.
It also appears that petitioner Mercury Drug does 1. 1.Two Million Nine Hundred Seventy-Three
not provide for a back-up driver for long trips. At the Thousand Pesos (P2,973,000.00) actual
time of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario has been out damages;
on the road for more than thirteen hours, without any 2. 2.As compensatory damages:
alternate. Mrs.
_______________ 1. a.Twenty-Three Million Four Hundred Sixty One
12 Estacion v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006, 483
Thousand, and Sixty-Two Pesos
SCRA 222;Campo v. Camarote, 100 Phil. 459, 463 (1956). (P23,461,062.00) for life care cost of Stephen;
13 Victory Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Andres Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278, 2. b.Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as and for
December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 520. lost or impaired earning capacity of Stephen;
438
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1. 3.Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) as moral
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang damages;
Caamic testified that she does not know of any company 2. 4.Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as
policy requiring back-up drivers for long trips. 14
exemplary damages; and
Petitioner Mercury Drug likewise failed to show that 3. 5.One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as attorneys
it exercised due diligence on the supervision and fees and litigation expense.
discipline over its employees. In fact, on the day of the
accident, petitioner Del Rosario was driving without a _______________
license. He was holding a TVR for reckless driving. He
TSN, January 2002, pp. 39-42.
testified that he reported the incident to his superior,
14
TSN, April 2000, pp. 11-16; TSN, November 28, 2001, pp. 3537.
15
but nothing was done about it. He was not suspended or 439
reprimanded. No disciplinary action whatsoever was
15
VOL. 525, JUNE 22, 2007 439
taken against petitioner Del Rosario. We therefore Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang
affirm the finding that petitioner Mercury Drug has The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
failed to discharge its burden of proving that it court but reduced the award of moral damages to
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision P1,000,000.00.
of its employee, petitioner Del Rosario. With regard to actual damages, Art. 2199 of the Civil
We now consider the damages which respondents Code provides that [E]xcept as provided by law or by
should recover from the petitioners. stipulation one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
duly proved x x x. In the instant case, we uphold the 17 Art. 2205, Civil Code. Damages may be recovered:
remaining years that he is expected to live; and the happened, he had a rosy future ahead of him. He
conservative amount of P10,000,000.00, as reduced by wanted to embark on a banking career, get married and
the trial court, for the loss or impairment of his earning raise children. Taking into account his outstanding
capacity, considering his age, probable life expec-
17
abilities, he would have enjoyed a successful
_______________
professional career in banking. But, as Mr. Lopez
16 Art. 2202, Civil Code. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant stated, it is highly unlikely for someone like respondent
shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable to ever secure a job in a bank. To his knowledge, no bank
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary
has ever hired a person suffering with the kind of helped with almost everything and in his inability to do
disability as Stephen Huangs. 19 simple things he used to do. Similarly, respondent
We likewise uphold the award of moral and spouses and the rest of the family undergo their own
exemplary damages and attorneys fees. private suffering. They live with the day-to-day
The award of moral damages is aimed at a uncertainty of respondent Stephen Huangs condition.
restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the They know that the chance of full recovery is nil.
spiritual status quo Moreover, respondent Stephen Huangs paralysis has
_______________ made him prone to many other illnesses. His family,
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or
especially respondent spouses, have to make
permanent personal injury; themselves available for Stephen twenty-four hours a
xxx day. They have patterned their daily life around taking
TSN, September 24, 1999, pp. 28-29.
care of him, ministering to his daily needs, altering the
18
444
TSN, January 11, 1999, pp. 23-24.
22
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
Art. 2208 (1), Civil Code.
23
reserved.
443