Case Digest: Tamayo vs. Abad Sera

GR No. 176946: November 15, 2010

CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO, JOCELYN G. TAMAYO, and ARAMIS G. TAMAYO, collectively known as HEIRS OF CIRILO TAMAYO, Petitioners, v. ROSALIA ABAD SERA, ROAN ABAD SERA, and JANETE ABAD SERA, Respondents

Nachura, J.:

FACTS:

Antonieto Senora, 43 years old and police chief inspector of the PNP was riding along Sucat in his motorcycle, when he was bumped by a tricycle from behind. This led to the motorcycle being pushed under an oncoming Isuzu Elf Van driven by Polloso which immediately resulted to the death of Senora. Cirilo, the owner of the sole proprietorship which employed Polloso put up the defenseof using the diligence of a good father of a family when employing his employees. When a case was filed in the RTC, it ruled in favour of Senora, which it ordered to pay the latter the amounts ofP105,100.00 for actual damages,P50,000.00 for loss of life,P1,152,360.00 for loss of earnings andP30,000.00 for attorneys fees. It reasoned that even without the simple negligence of the tricycle, Polloso could have avoided the accident by slowing down or stopping.

Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, but it adjusted the value to P1.8 Million.

Petitioner then appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in declaring Polloso to be negligent.

2. Whether Cirilo is solidarily liable

HELD:

No. It has not been sufficiently established that Polloso and Cirilo is liable..

Civil Law: Negligence

1st Issue:

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that findings of factof trial courts are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed, except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again.The factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are final and conclusive. There is no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.

2nd Issue:

The RTC correctly disregarded the testimonies of Cirilos wife and his employee, leaving no other evidence to support the claim that he had exercised the degree of diligence required in hiring and supervising his employees. The CA also correctly applied the formula in computing the damages awarded, which is:

Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)

Petition DENIED. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.

Popular Posts