ORIX METRO LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (Formerly

CONSOLIDATED ORIX LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION) v.

MINORS: DENNIS, MYLENE, MELANIE and MARIKRIS, all surnamed
MANGALINAO y DIZON, MANUEL M. ONG, LORETO LUCILO, SONNY LI,
AND ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS, G.R. No. 174089

SONNY LI and ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. MINORS: DENNIS, MYLENE,

MELANIE and MARIKRIS, all surnamed MANGALINAO y DIZON, LORETO
LUCILO, CONSOLIDATED ORIX LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION
and MANUEL M. ONG, G.R. No. 174266, 25 January 2012.
1st Division

DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: A multiple-vehicle collision in North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) resulting in the

death of all the passengers in one vehicle, including the parents and a sibling of the surviving
orphaned minor heirs, compelled the latter to file an action for damages against the registered
owners and drivers of the two 10-wheeler trucks that collided with their parents’ Nissan
Pathfinder (Pathfinder).

Anacleto Edurese, Jr. (Edurese) was driving a Pathfinder. His Isabela-bound passengers were
the owners of said vehicle, spouses Roberto and Josephine Mangalinao (Mangalinao spouses),
their daughter Marriane, housemaid Rufina Andres and helper Armando Jebueza (Jebueza).
Before them on the outer lane was a Pampanga-bound Fuso 10-wheeler truck (Fuso) driven
by Loreto Lucilo (Loreto), who was with truck helper Charlie Palomar (Charlie). The Fuso
was then already moving in an erratic and swerving motion. Following behind the Pathfinder
was another 10-wheeler truck, an Isuzu Cargo (Isuzu) driven by Antonio, who was then with
helper Rodolfo Navia (Rodolfo).

The Mangalinao spouses, the driver Edurese, and the helper Jebueza were declared dead on
the spot while 6-month old Marriane and the housemaid were declared dead on arrival at a
nearby hospital. The occupants of the trucks escaped serious injuries and death.

As their letters to the registered owners of the trucks demanding compensation for the
accident were ignored, the minor children of the Mangalinao spouses, Dennis, Mylene,
Melanie and Marikris, through their legal guardian, consequently filed a Complaint for damages
based on quasi-delict, before the RTC. They impleaded the drivers Loreto and Antonio, as
well as the registered owners of the Fuso and the Isuzu trucks, namely Orix and Sonny,
respectively. The children imputed recklessness, negligence, and imprudence on the truck
drivers for the deaths of their sister and parents; while they hold Sonny and Orix equally liable
for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
of their respective drivers.

Orix in its Motion to Dismiss interposed that it is not the actual owner of the Fuso truck. As
the RTC denied the motion, it then filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and
Cross-claim. Orix reiterated that the children had no cause of action against it because it already
sold the Fuso truck to MMO Trucking owned by Manuel Ong (Manuel). The latter being the
alleged owner at the time of the collision, Orix filed a Third Party Complaint against Manuel.

In their Answer, Sonny and Antonio attributed fault for the accident solely on Loreto’s reckless
driving of his truck which suddenly stopped and slid across the highway. They claimed that
Sonny had exercised the expected diligence required of an employer; that Antonio had been
all along driving with care; and, that with the abrupt and unexpected collision of the vehicles
before him and their precarious proximity, he had no way of preventing his truck from hitting
the Pathfinder.

For failing to file any responsive pleading, both Manuel and Loreto were declared in default.
RTC found Sonny, Antonio, Loreto and Orix liable for damages. It likewise ruled in favor of
Orix anent its third party complaint, the latter having sufficiently proven that Manuel of MMO
Trucking is the real owner of the Fuso. CA affirmed RTC.

ISSUE: Was CA’s finding of negligence on the part of both truck drivers binding?

RULING: Yes. Negligence and proximate cause are factual issues. Settled is the rule
that this Court is not a trier of facts, and the concurrence of the findings of fact of the
courts below are conclusive. "A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court should include only questions of law - questions of fact are not
reviewable” save for several exceptions, two of which petitioners invoke, i.e., that ‘the
finding is grounded on speculations, surmises, and conjectures,’ and that ‘the judgment
is based on a misapprehension of facts.’ The Court ruled that there is no compelling
reason to disturb the lower courts’ factual conclusions.

ISSUE: Is Orix, as the registered owner of the Fuso, solidarily liable with the truck
driver?

RULING: Yes. Orix as the operator on record of the Fuso truck is liable to the heirs
of the victims of the mishap. Orix cannot point fingers at the alleged real owner to
exculpate itself from vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Regardless
of whoever Orix claims to be the actual owner of the Fuso by reason of a contract of
sale, it is nevertheless primarily liable for the damages or injury the truck registered
under it have caused.
ISSUE: Were the damages properly awarded by CA in favor of the Mangalinao
children?

RULING: Yes. The heirs deserve to receive the damages awarded by the CA, with
modifications as to their amounts.

With regard to actual damages, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. In addition to ₱150,000.00
indemnity for the death of the spouses Mangalinao and their daughter Marianne as a
result of quasi-delict, actual damages shall likewise include the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased. Here, the CA awarded ₱2,000,000.00, which it found
reasonable after considering the income statement of Roberto Mangalinao as of the
year 1989.

While the net income had not been sufficiently established, the Court recognizes the
fact that the Mangalinao heirs had suffered loss deserving of compensation. What the
CA awarded is in actuality a form of temperate damages. Such form of damages under
Article 2224 of the Civil Code is given in the absence of competent proof on the actual
damages suffered.

Moral damages, it must be stressed, are not intended to enrich plaintiff at the expense
of the defendant. They are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she had
undergone due to the other party’s culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional
to the suffering inflicted. While the children did not testify before the court,
undoubtedly, they suffered the pain and ordeal of losing both their parents and sibling
and hence, the award of moral damages is justified.

"In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence." It is given by way of example or correction for the public good. Before the
court may consider such award, the plaintiff must show his entitlement first to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages, which the respondents have.

Lastly, because exemplary damages are awarded and that the Court find it equitable that
expenses of litigation should be recovered, the Court find it sufficient and reasonable
enough to grant attorney’s fees of ₱50,000.00.