Lawyerly

GR No. 116121

2011-07-18

MENDOZA, J.

Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his employee.[23] Thus, in the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualification, experience and service record. With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. These facts must be shown by concrete proof, including documentary evidence. [24] Thus, the RTC committed no error in finding that the evidence presented by respondent Guballa was wanting. It ruled: x x x. As expected, defendant Jose Guballa, attempted to overthrow this presumption of negligence by showing that he had exercised the due diligence required of him by seeing to it that the driver must check the vital parts of the vehicle he is assigned to before he leaves the compound like the oil, water, brakes, gasoline, horn (9 tsn, July 17, 1986); and that Geronimo had been driving for him sometime in 1976 until the collision in litigation came about (5-6 tsn, ibid); that whenever his trucks gets out of the compound to make deliveries, it is always accompanied with two (2) helpers (16-17 tsn, ibid). This was all which he considered as selection and supervision in compliance with the law to free himself from any responsibility. This Court then cannot consider the foregoing as equivalent to an exercise of all the care of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his driver Mariano Geronimo." [25]

GR No. 172871

2008-09-16

PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE CASTA Y CAROLINO

BRION, J.

The RTC awarded the amount of P13,000.00 to the victim's heirs as actual damages in light of established jurisprudence that allows only expenses duly supported by receipts as proof of actual damages.[48] This RTC ruling has however been overtaken by our rulings in the landmark cases of People v. Abrazaldo[49] and People v. Villanueva.[50] In Abrazaldo, we ruled that where the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because of the absence of supporting and duly presented receipts but evidence confirming the heirs' entitlement to actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 may be awarded. This ruling was reiterated, with slight modification in Villanueva, where we held that when the actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, we can nevertheless award temperate damages of P25,000.00. Thus, the heirs' entitlement is P25,000.00 of temperate damages.

GR No. 174479

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA

BRION, J.

With respect to actual damages, established jurisprudence allows only expenses duly supported by receipts.[82] It appears that out of the P126,000.00 awarded by the trial court, only P64,075.00 was actually supported by the required receipts.[83] The difference represents the amounts based solely on the unreceipted submissions by Major Opina's mother. Thus, we affirm the indemnity for actual damages of P64,075.00 that the CA awarded.

GR No. 177223

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This modification is in accord with our ruling in Pleyto v. Lomboy.[40] Pleyto offers the following computation for the award for loss of earning capacity: Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 Age at x (Gross Annual Capacity

GR NO. 150097

2007-02-26

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO

CORONA, J.

Whether or not demand was made is a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[21] Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts.[22] Neither is it our function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[23] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[24] none of these exceptions finds application here.

GR NO. 148147

2007-02-16

JESSIE GASATAYA

CORONA, J.

The trial court's findings, as affirmed by the CA, that petitioner and his father deceived respondent to acquire the disputed lots bind us. Well-settled is the rule that factual conclusions of the trial court deserve respect and become irrefutable especially when affirmed by the CA.[9] Absent any evidence that the CA overlooked salient matters that could justify a reversal of the outcome of this case, we decline to disturb such factual conclusions.

GR NO. 165732

2006-12-14

SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY v. LAURO TANGCO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the award of moral damages, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the spouse, legitimate children and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[45] The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.[46]

GR NO. 150723

2006-07-11

RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

The records[42] reveal that Bautista was 36 years old at the time of his death and not 26 years old as stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.[43] Moreover, the annual salary of Bautista at the time of his death was already P60,864 and not P60,600.[44] We likewise modify the formula applied by the Court of Appeals in the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity. In accordance with current jurisprudence,[45] the formula for the indemnification for loss of earning capacity is: Net Earning

GR NO. 150464

2006-06-27

SECURITY BANK v. ERIC GAN

CORONA, J.

It is well established that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[10]

GR NO. 144215

2006-06-27

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SOUTH PACIFIC PLASTIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

CORONA, J.

It is obvious that both parties want this Court to revisit the factual findings of the lower courts. Well established is the doctrine that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[14] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[15] none of these exceptions applies here.

GR NO. 143951

2005-10-25

NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It must be remembered that moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person.[32] Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount.[33]

AM No. 03-11-30-SC

2005-06-09

COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA ARRIENDA

CORONA, J.

This administrative case was spawned by the November 10, 2003 affidavit of complaint filed by complainant Aurelio Indencia Arrienda with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his complaint, the complainant accused Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Santiago M. Kapunan,[1] Bernardo P. Pardo[2] and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago of this Court, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz[3] and Perlita Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals (CA), of graft and corruption.[4] In particular, the complainant charged the respondent justices for "willfully, maliciously and arbitrarily" rendering allegedly unjust decisions in (RTC) Civil Case No. Q-53060, CA-G.R. CV No. 48737 and G.R. No. 137904 which were filed by complainant and his family against

	GR No. 116121 2011-07-18	HEIRS OF LATE RUBEN REINOSO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his employee.[23] Thus, in the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualification, experience and service record. With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. These facts must be shown by concrete proof, including documentary evidence. [24] Thus, the RTC committed no error in finding that the evidence presented by respondent Guballa was wanting. It ruled: x x x. As expected, defendant Jose Guballa, attempted to overthrow this presumption of negligence by showing that he had exercised the due diligence required of him by seeing to it that the driver must check the vital parts of the vehicle he is assigned to before he leaves the compound like the oil, water, brakes, gasoline, horn (9 tsn, July 17, 1986); and that Geronimo had been driving for him sometime in 1976 until the collision in litigation came about (5-6 tsn, ibid); that whenever his trucks gets out of the compound to make deliveries, it is always accompanied with two (2) helpers (16-17 tsn, ibid). This was all which he considered as selection and supervision in compliance with the law to free himself from any responsibility. This Court then cannot consider the foregoing as equivalent to an exercise of all the care of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his driver Mariano Geronimo." [25]
	GR No. 172871 2008-09-16	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE CASTA Y CAROLINO BRION, J.
The RTC awarded the amount of P13,000.00 to the victim's heirs as actual damages in light of established jurisprudence that allows only expenses duly supported by receipts as proof of actual damages.[48] This RTC ruling has however been overtaken by our rulings in the landmark cases of People v. Abrazaldo[49] and People v. Villanueva.[50] In Abrazaldo, we ruled that where the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because of the absence of supporting and duly presented receipts but evidence confirming the heirs' entitlement to actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 may be awarded. This ruling was reiterated, with slight modification in Villanueva, where we held that when the actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, we can nevertheless award temperate damages of P25,000.00. Thus, the heirs' entitlement is P25,000.00 of temperate damages.
	GR No. 174479 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA BRION, J.
With respect to actual damages, established jurisprudence allows only expenses duly supported by receipts.[82] It appears that out of the P126,000.00 awarded by the trial court, only P64,075.00 was actually supported by the required receipts.[83] The difference represents the amounts based solely on the unreceipted submissions by Major Opina's mother. Thus, we affirm the indemnity for actual damages of P64,075.00 that the CA awarded.
	GR No. 177223 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This modification is in accord with our ruling in Pleyto v. Lomboy.[40] Pleyto offers the following computation for the award for loss of earning capacity: Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 Age at x (Gross Annual Capacity
	GR NO. 150097 2007-02-26	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO CORONA, J.
Whether or not demand was made is a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[21] Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts.[22] Neither is it our function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[23] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[24] none of these exceptions finds application here.
	GR NO. 148147 2007-02-16	JESSIE GASATAYA CORONA, J.
The trial court's findings, as affirmed by the CA, that petitioner and his father deceived respondent to acquire the disputed lots bind us. Well-settled is the rule that factual conclusions of the trial court deserve respect and become irrefutable especially when affirmed by the CA.[9] Absent any evidence that the CA overlooked salient matters that could justify a reversal of the outcome of this case, we decline to disturb such factual conclusions.
	GR NO. 165732 2006-12-14	SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY v. LAURO TANGCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the award of moral damages, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the spouse, legitimate children and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[45] The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.[46]
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
The records[42] reveal that Bautista was 36 years old at the time of his death and not 26 years old as stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.[43] Moreover, the annual salary of Bautista at the time of his death was already P60,864 and not P60,600.[44] We likewise modify the formula applied by the Court of Appeals in the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity. In accordance with current jurisprudence,[45] the formula for the indemnification for loss of earning capacity is: Net Earning
	GR NO. 150464 2006-06-27	SECURITY BANK v. ERIC GAN CORONA, J.
It is well established that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[10]
	GR NO. 144215 2006-06-27	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SOUTH PACIFIC PLASTIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION CORONA, J.
It is obvious that both parties want this Court to revisit the factual findings of the lower courts. Well established is the doctrine that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[14] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[15] none of these exceptions applies here.
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It must be remembered that moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person.[32] Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount.[33]
	AM No. 03-11-30-SC 2005-06-09	COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA ARRIENDA CORONA, J.
This administrative case was spawned by the November 10, 2003 affidavit of complaint filed by complainant Aurelio Indencia Arrienda with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his complaint, the complainant accused Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Santiago M. Kapunan,[1] Bernardo P. Pardo[2] and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago of this Court, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz[3] and Perlita Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals (CA), of graft and corruption.[4] In particular, the complainant charged the respondent justices for "willfully, maliciously and arbitrarily" rendering allegedly unjust decisions in (RTC) Civil Case No. Q-53060, CA-G.R. CV No. 48737 and G.R. No. 137904 which were filed by complainant and his family against

ERNESTO PLEYTO v. MARIA D. LOMBOY