Fegarido v. Alcantara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 15, 2008, Cristina S. Alcantara was hit by a public utility jeepney driven by Gerry S. Fegarido while crossing a street in Olongapo City. Alcantara sustained injuries and died three days later. Fegarido was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Separately, the heirs of Alcantara filed a civil action for damages against Fegarido and Linalie A. Milan, the registered owner of the jeepney. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities acquitted Fegarido of the criminal charge, finding insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond moral certainty. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Fegarido and Milan solidarily liable for damages in the civil case, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The RTC found Fegarido negligent in operating the jeepney and Milan vicariously liable for failing to exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of her employee. The Petition: Fegarido and Milan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that Fegarido's acquittal in the criminal case negated any basis for civil liability and that the RTC's ruling was based on presumptions without factual basis.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court Decision finding petitioner Gerry S. Fegarido liable for negligence. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court Decision finding petitioner Linalie A. Milan vicariously liable for petitioner Gerry S. Fegarido's supposed negligence. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioners to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The October 13, 2017 Decision and May 4, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Petitioners Gerry S. Fegarido and Linalie A. Milan are solidarily liable to pay respondents-heirs of Cristina S. Alcantara actual damages worth ₱138,591.00, moral damages worth ₱100,000.00, exemplary damages worth ₱50,000.00, and attorney's fees and litigation expenses worth ₱40,000.00. The total amount shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Gerry S. Fegarido's negligence: The Supreme Court held that the issue of whether petitioners acted negligently is a question of fact, which is generally beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition. The Court is not a trier of facts and does not reevaluate evidence, especially when the RTC and CA findings on negligence are consistent. The testimonies of the traffic enforcer, the physician, and the security guard, when taken together, sufficiently proved Fegarido's negligence. The RTC's observation that Fegarido's jeep must have been moving fast, inferred from the need to step hard on the gas from a full stop and the screeching sound upon braking, was bolstered by the security guard's account of the jeepney moving fast while turning and sideswiping the victim. The Court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case for reckless imprudence does not extinguish civil liability based on quasi-delict, as the latter requires only a preponderance of evidence and can proceed independently. The RTC, despite acquitting Fegarido criminally, found him civilly liable based on a preponderance of evidence, which the Supreme Court found no cogent reason to reverse. On the vicarious liability of Linalie A. Milan: The Court affirmed Milan's vicarious liability as the registered owner of the jeepney under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Once employee negligence is established, a presumption of employer negligence in selection and supervision arises, which the employer must rebut with proof of diligence. Milan failed to rebut this presumption, as she delegated her duties to her husband, Nestor, who admitted to testing Fegarido's driving skills only once. Furthermore, Fegarido was only required to submit police and NBI clearances, not medical or drug tests. This insufficient screening process demonstrated Milan's failure to exercise the diligence required by law, making her solidarily liable with Fegarido. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the damages awarded. Actual damages of ₱138,591.00 were awarded based on receipts presented by the respondents, fulfilling the requirement of competent proof of loss. Moral damages of ₱100,000.00 were proper to alleviate the emotional pain and mental anguish caused by the untimely death of a loved one, which do not require pecuniary loss for their award. Exemplary damages of ₱50,000.00 were awarded to mold behavior with socially deleterious consequences, serving as a warning to public utility drivers and operators who have a duty to exercise extraordinary diligence. Finally, attorney's fees and litigation expenses of ₱40,000.00 were awarded due to the prolonged litigation.
Main Doctrine
An acquittal in a criminal case for reckless imprudence does not preclude a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict, as the latter requires only preponderance of evidence and can proceed independently.