Tort 2

8/6/2019 Tort 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-2 1/20

8/6/2019 Tort 2


8/6/2019 Tort 2


On December 4, 1980, private respondents filed this civil case for damages before the thenCourt of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch, against petitioner.

On November 23, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Makati, to which the case was transferred

following the reorganization of the judiciary, rendered judgment for private respondents. Thedispositive portion of its decision reads:

It is for the reasons stated above that the court is persuaded to award thedamages incurred by the plaintiffs as proved in the trial as follows:

Actual or compensatory expenses:

a. Charito Estolano P35,813.87 (Exh. J)

b. Nicanor Bernabe III 20,024.94

& Josefina C. Bernabe

c. Julieta, Ailyn & 45,830.45 (Exh. QQ)

Josefina Enriquez

and Josefina Valeiro

d. Leonor Macaspac 2,740.00

e. Victor Rey Ignacio 14,820.64 (Exh. EEE)

f. Rene Tablante 10,032.40 (Exh. QQQ)

g. Nenita Salonoy, widow; 20,000.00

and Jack & Manilyn,

children

Moral damages should also be awarded as follows:

For the injuries sustained by:

a. Charito Estolano P10,000.00 (Exh. F)

b. Julieta P. Enriquez 15,000.

c. Ailyn C. Enriquez 8,000.00

d. Josefina R. Enriquez 10,00

e. Josefina P. Valerio 2,000.0

f. Nenita Salonoy 20,000.00 (

g. Nicanor Bernabe III 8,000.0

h. Josephine Bernabe 2,000.0

i. John Joseph Bernabe 10,00

j. Manilyn G. Salonoy 10,000.

k. Jack Salonoy 10,000.00 (E

l. Leonor C. Macaspac 2,000.

m. Victor Ignacio 8,000.00 (Ex

n. Rene Tablanta 8,000.00 (E

and finally the heirs of Jason Bernabe should be awarP50,000.00 for the latter's death. The heirs of Dalmacgiven the sum of P100,000.00 for moral damages and

The foregoing considered, judgment is rendered in favdefendant to pay the amounts aforecited and to pay thP50,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs.

SO ORDERED.

8/6/2019 Tort 2


8/6/2019 Tort 2


ATTY. ALILING:

Can we stipulate that it is 1 foot, Your Honor.

ATTY. GONZALES:

A little more, 1 1/2 feet.

ATTY. ALILING:

1 1/4 feet.

ATTY. GONZALES:

Between 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 feet.

The panel truck driver's testimony is consistent with the testimonies of private respondents thatthe panel truck went out of control and simply smashed into the Cimarron in which they wereriding. Thus, Nicanor Bernabe IIItestified:

7

Q: And did you see how the accident happened?

A: I just saw a glare of light. That is all and then the impact.

Q: Where did you see that glare of light?

A: Coming in front ahead of us.

Q: When you say ahead of you, was it . . . ?

A: Towards us.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And from what did those glare of light come from.

A: Based on information I received, thheadlights of a certain panel owned byInc.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You said that the lights were goingwhat pace did these lights come towa

A: Fast pace.

Charito Estolano, another passenger who was seated in front of the Cithat they just saw the panel truck hurtling toward them. She said:

8

Q Now, you said earlier that you wereWhat was that accident?

A An approaching vehicle hit us.

Q Now, why do you know that there wvehicle?

A There was a light which glared us afrom a vehicle. We were blinded.

Q Where was this vehicle headed for?

A Headed for Cavite.

Q Coming from?

A Coming from Manila, I think.

Q So that, actually, in relation to your from the opposite direction?

A Yes, sir.

8/6/2019 Tort 2


8/6/2019 Tort 2


In Herrera v. Bollos [G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002], the trial courtawarded rent to the defendants in a forcible entry case. Reversing the RTC, thisCourt declared that the reasonable amount of rent could be determined not bymere judicial notice, but by supporting evidence:

x x x A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy.The court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or whichare capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to

judges because of their judicial functions. Before taking such judicial notice,the court must ³allow the parties to be heard thereon.´ Hence, there can beno judicial notice on the rental value of the premises in question withoutsupporting evidence.

Truly, mere judicial notice is inadequate, because evidence is required for a court to

determine the proper rental value. But contrary to Corinthian's arguments, both the RTC and the

CA found that indeed rent was due the Tanjangcos because they were deprived of possession

and use of their property. This uniform factual finding of the RTC and the CA was based on the

evidence presented below. Moreover, in Spouses Catungal v. Hao, we considered the increase

in the award of rentals as reasonable given the particular circumstances of each case. We noted

therein that the respondent denied the petitioners the benefits, including rightful possession, of

their property for almost a decade.

Similarly, in the instant case, the Tanjangcos were deprived of possession and use

of their property for more than two decades through no fault of their own. Thus, we find no

cogent reason to disturb the monthly rental fixed by the CA.

All told, the CA committed no reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is

AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner

Tort 2

Documents

Transcript of Tort 2