THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 243237, February 17, 2020 ]

HEIRS OF CATALINA P. MENDOZA, PETITIONERS, VS. ES
TRUCKING AND FORWARDERS, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 is the

Decision[2] dated February 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No.
04394-MIN, affirming the Decision[3] dated April 21, 2016 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 12, in Civil Case No. 6538, dismissing the
complaint for damages filed by petitioners Heirs of Catalina P. Mendoza (Heirs of
Catalina). Likewise assailed is the Resolution[4] dated September 25, 2018 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration of the Heirs of Catalina. [5]

The Antecedents

On June 13, 2013, at around noontime, Catalina P. Mendoza (Catalina) was walking
along Sta. Maria Road after visiting a lotto outlet nearby. While she was at the
center of the road and attempting to cross its second half, she was sideswiped by a
14-wheeler prime mover truck at the junction of Gov. Ramos Street and Sta. Maria
Road in Zamboanga City. The prime mover truck bore body no. 5 and green plate
no. NAO 152,[6] while the trailer attached to it had yellow plate no. JZA163.[7] The
vehicle is registered under the name of ES Trucking and Forwarders (ES Trucking)
[8]
 with Sumarni Asprer Ruste as its sole proprietor.[9] At the time of the incident,
the vehicle was driven by Clin Timtim (Timtim), a holder of professional driver's
license no. 104-99-069007.[10]

Moments before the incident, Timtim claimed that he stopped the vehicle at the
crossing lane as the tricycle in front of the prime mover truck stopped and only
began to accelerate once the tricycle started moving.

The two sons of Catalina picked her up from under the fuel tank of the prime mover
truck behind its front left tire and brought her to Ciudad Medical Zamboanga where
she was pronounced dead.[11] Catalina suffered multiple abrasions and contusions in
the clavicle area, lacerated wound on the cheek, and multiple abrasions on the
abdomen.[12] She also suffered multiple rib fractures. [13] The immediate cause of
death, stated in her Certificate of Death,[14] is "Cardio-Pulmonary Arrest Sec. to
Vehicular Accident."[15]

At the time of the incident, the prime mover truck was on its way back to San
Roque after having delivered kitchenware merchandise to its customer, Suani
Enterprises.[16]

On February 19, 2013, the counsel of the Heirs of Catalina sent a demand letter to
ES Trucking seeking reimbursement for the actual expenses incurred in the amount
of P470,197.05, P250,000.00 as moral damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to
10% of the total claim.[17] ES Trucking offered financial assistance of P200,000.00
and the proceeds from the third-party liability insurance in the amount of
P100,000.00, but the Heirs of Catalina refused the offer. Instead, they insisted on
the amount they were claiming.[18]

On April 24, 2013, a Certification to File Action was issued after the parties failed to
reach a settlement.[19]

A criminal case for Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide was filed against the
driver in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) docketed as Criminal Case No.
50864 (1-6564).[20] The complaint for quasi-delict against ES Trucking was
separately filed in the RTC of Zamboanga City, Branch 12, docketed as Civil Case
No. 6538.[21]

Incidentally, in Criminal Case No. 50864 (1-6564), the MTCC found Timtim guilty of
Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide and sentenced him to serve an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) months and one (1)
day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months and 21 days
of prision correccional, as maximum.[22] Timtim applied for probation and has since
been released. On March 10, 2016, an Entry of Judgment [23] was issued certifying
that the Decision of the MTCC dated December 15, 2015 became final and
executory on February 2, 2016.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On April 21, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision, [24] the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby

rendered DISMISSING the above-entitled case for insufficient evidence and want
of cause of action against the Defendant herein. No cost.

SO ORDERED.[25]

The RTC found no evidence of recklessness that can be attributed to the driver of
the truck. PO3 Marlon V. Agbalos (PO3 Agbalos) testified that he cannot point to
any negligent act of the driver, since the truck was coursing through the proper
lane when the incident happened. The RTC concluded that Catalina was not bumped
on the front side of the truck but most probably on the left side of the vehicle, as
she appeared not to have been run over by its front tire. The RTC surmised that the
victim may have attempted to cross the street while the truck was already in
motion and traffic was already moving on both sides of the street when she was
sideswiped. Since there is no finding of negligence or recklessness on the part of
the driver, the RTC concluded that the action for quasi-delict based on ES
Trucking's vicarious liability must fail.[26]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In the Decision[27] dated February 15, 2018, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
[28]
 The CA held that it was incorrect for the Heirs of Catalina to conclude that a
criminal conviction will establish ES Trucking's civil liability. For the CA, even if
there is such negligence, the employer may defend itself through proof that it
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. To rule
otherwise will create an absurd result, where the case for quasi-delict is already
prejudged and predetermined by the guilty verdict in the Reckless Imprudence
case, thus rendering the proceedings in the former without purpose at all. [29] It was
ruled that judicial notice of the subsequent finality of the judgment of the MTCC in
the Reckless Imprudence case is discretionary only.[30]

Based on the records, the CA found that there was no sufficient evidence of
negligence because: (1) none of the petitioners' witnesses saw the moment of
impact; (2) ES Trucking's witnesses saw no person walk across the street or in
front of the truck; (3) there was no warning beforehand that a person could have
crossed the street as there was no possible threat or obstacle in front of the truck;
and (4) the police investigator confirmed that he saw no evidence of negligent
driving. The CA concluded that the death of Catalina was brought a bout by a
terrible accident, which could only be blamed on being in the wrong place at the
wrong time. The CA noted that caution and exercise of due diligence must be
exercised by all persons, drivers, and pedestrians alike in the use of streets. [31]

The Heirs of Catalina filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied [32] in the
Resolution[33] dated September 25, 2018.

In the present petition, the Heirs of Catalina maintain that ES Trucking did not
exercise due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
of the driver because it hired a driver who did not have the necessary training for
driving a trailer truck pursuant to Department Order No. 2011-25 issued by
Department of Transportation (DOTr).[34] The Heirs of Catalina further argue that
the Court should take cognizance of the existence of negligence established from
the driver's conviction. As the Heirs of Catalina argue on the belief that ES Trucking
is a common carrier, there is a presumption of negligence that may only be
defeated if evidence of observance of the diligence required by law is presented.
Due to the alleged failure of ES Trucking to present such evidence, the Heirs of
Catalina insist that they are entitled to damages.[35]
On the other hand, ES Trucking insists in its Comment[36] that it cannot be held
vicariously liable for damages as there is no sufficient evidence that Timtim was
negligent. ES Trucking argues that it had successfully proven its diligence not only
in the selection but also in the supervision of its driver.[37]

Issues

The issues to be resolved are:

(1) Whether Clin Timtim was negligent in driving the vehicle that caused the death
of Catalina to hold his employer ES Trucking liable under Article 2180 of the New
Civil Code;
(2) Whether the complaint for quasi-delict against ES Trucking, Timtim's employer,
may proceed independently of the criminal action for Reckless Imprudence resulting
to Homicide;
(3) Whether ES Trucking is a common carrier required by law to observe
extraordinary diligence in the carriage of passengers and goods.
(4) Whether ES Trucking exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of
its driver, Timtim; and
(5) Whether the Heirs of Catalina are entitled to damages.

The Court's Ruling

Timtim was recklessly driving

the prime mover truck that caused
the death of Catalina Mendoza.

It would be a grave injustice to simply accept the testimony of PO3 Agbalos and
adopt the conclusion of the CA that the terrible incident "could only be blamed on
being in the wrong place at the wrong time."[38] This incident would not have
happened had Timtim been vigilant in checking his front, rear, and side mirrors for
any obstruction on the road, and had he timely stepped on his breaks to avoid
hitting Catalina.

Contrary to the ruling of the lower courts, the fact that the truck was traveling on
the right lane when the incident happened does not automatically mean that the
driver was not negligent. Catalina had already crossed half of the road when she
was sideswiped by the vehicle driven by Timtim. This is the reason why her body
was found under the fuel tank behind the left front wheel of the truck. [39] Had he
been driving with caution, he would have seen that Catalina was already attempting
to cross the second half of the road in front of him. A prudent driver would have
immediately slowed down and stopped the vehicle to give way to the pedestrian
crossing the road.

It is also worthy to point out that in the Appellee's Brief,[40] which ES Trucking filed
with the CA, the conviction of Timtim for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide
in Criminal Case NO. 50864 (1-6564) was admitted. [41] The finding of negligence on
the part of Timtim made by the MTCC is consistent with Our pronouncement that
Timtim was negligent at the time of the incident.

A civil case for quasi-delict may proceed

independently against Timtim's employer, ES
Trucking.

Under the Rules, when "a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action."[42] However, the civil action referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of
the New Civil Code shall "proceed independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence." [43]

Furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Article 2177 of the Civil Code that

responsibility arising from quasi-delict "is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code."[44] The same rule finds
support from Article 31 of the same Code which states that when "the civil action is
based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a
felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter."[45] Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the
criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide instituted against
Timtim, a civil case for quasi-delict may proceed independently against Timtim's
employer, ES Trucking, under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.

ES Trucking is considered a common carrier

required to secure a Certificate of Public
Convenience.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons, corporations,
firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their
services to the public.

The Land Transportation and Traffic Code distinguished the classification of vehicles
as follows:

xxxx

(a) Private. - Motor vehicles registered under this classification shall not be used for
hire under any circumstance.
(b) For Hire.- Motor vehicles registered under this classification are those covered
by certificates of public convenience, or special permits issued by the Board of
Transportation, and shall be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act and
the rules and regulations issued thereunder, as well as the provisions of this Act.
x x x x[46]

The requirement for vehicles for hire to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience
from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) was
emphasized in LTFRB Memorandum Circular Number 98-027 which explicitly states:

FRANCHISE FOR DUMP TRUCK AND OTHER PRIVATE

Subject:
VEHICLES USED AS "FOR HIRE"

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of C.A. No. 146, as amended (otherwise

known as the Public Service Act), in relation to Section 15, thereof, a motorized
vehicle used as public land transportation shall first secure a Certificate of Public
Convenience or franchise before it can be operated as "for-hire".

In view hereof, the owners of all dump/ cargo truck or and other private
vehicles rented out for a fee, are hereby required to apply for and secure
franchises from this Board or from its regional offices in their respective
jurisdictions, to legitimize their operation.

Parties, customers, or clients of dump/ cargo truck or private vehicle providers are
urged to require the production/ presentation by the operators of the franchise or
authority from the Board to operate the services offered before hiring them.

x x x x[47] (Emphasis supplied.)

In this case, the Heirs of Catalina established through preponderance of evidence

that, at the time of the incident, the vehicle was being used as a truck for hire
without securing the necessary franchise from the LTFRB. Edgardo Ruste's
testimony regarding the nature of the registration of the vehicle is crucial in
concluding that it is not duly registered with the LTFRB. ES Trucking's flawed
understanding of the concept of a common carrier was highlighted in the testimony
of Edgardo Rustre, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:

ATTY. FAUNDO, Bernardo Jr. C:

Q Your truck bears Plate No. NAO 152, correct? This truck?
A That's correct; if that's what appears in the document (sic) that's correct.
Q The trailer plate number is JZA 163, correct?
A Also correct.
Q So you registered the truck and the trailer. They have different registrations?
A yes.
Q The truck bears the plate number NAO 152 in green?
A Yes.
Q Green prints?
A Yes that's the original
Q Isn't it (sic) a fact that it should be a yellow print?
A No, yellow plate once we register in LTFRB
Q You mean to say Mr. Witness you did not register it with LTFRB?
A We registered it with the LTFRB but because of some differences that we were not able to
have it change plate to register, but it is in the list of the LTFRB that we filed franchise. In
fact, after this incident when you filed the complaint LTFRB cancelled that particular unit
for registration but we did not go on with the registration with the LTFRB because once you
register with the LTFRB you have to change plate with the LTO.
Q Mr. Witness, when you register this truck with the LTFRB you are supposed to be given a
yellow plate, correct?
A No, LTFRB is not the one giving the yellow plate, it's the LTO.
Q In other words, when the yellow plate is issued by the LTO what does it mean?
A I cannot answer you what does it mean because there is no confirmation from LTFRB that
we can transfer, change the plate from green to yellow.
 
xxxx
   
Q So because you were not able to get a yellow plate you were not issued a Certificate of
Public Convenience insofar as this truck is concerned?
A Yes...
Q You were not issued?
A We were not issued certification, confirmation.
Q And when you say you were not issued certification, what kind of certification?
A A Certification issued to us is the franchise, that covers the filing of getting a yellow print
with the LTFRB. We have furnished list of units for registration into yellow plate.
Q So this Prime Mover, this truck, was not issued a franchise by the LTFRB?
A There was none.
Q So if you have no franchise you cannot operate?
A No ...
Q As a trucking service?
A No, we can operate because we are using it with our own [sic] as a private company.
That is registered.
Q At the time of the incident, Mr. Witness, you were moving a cargo or you were able to move
a cargo, correct?
A Yes.
Q Whose cargo was that? Is that your own cargo or cargo of a customer?
A That's our cargo.
Q Your very own cargo?
A No, cargo of our customer.
Q What's the name of the customer?
A That I cannot identify to you.
Q But you are very sure it was a customer?
A Yes.[48] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
From the foregoing, it is clear to Us that ES Trucking engaged in a truck for hire
business, offering their vehicles to transport the cargo of its customers. Noticeably,
Edgardo Ruste admitted that they filed an application to have the vehicle included
in their Certificate of Public Convenience yet their application was never granted.
[49]
 This is inconsistent with his own claim that ES Trucking does not need to
register with the LTFRB because it is not a common carrier but a private company.
[50]
 The fact that they considered applying for the inclusion of the vehicle in their
Certificate of Public Convenience signifies that they are aware of the franchise
requirement of the LTFRB. ES Trucking cannot be excused simply because it is not
registered with the LTFRB and it is a private company. ES Trucking cannot be
exonerated from liability and benefit from its own violation of the laws and rules
governing trucks for hire.

As an entity engaged in the truck for hire business, it should have complied with
the requirements of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code and the issuances of
the LTFRB. Despite being registered as a private vehicle, the actual use of the
vehicle and the clientele to whom ES Trucking offers its services remain controlling.
The failure to register the vehicle as a public vehicle or a common carrier does not
negate the true nature of the vehicle. It is settled that:

A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability

under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability arises the
moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or
not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the applicable
regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate
of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the
liabilities of a common carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate
of public convenience, would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be to
reward private respondent precisely for failing to comply with applicable statutory
requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly and intimately
upon the safety and wellbeing and property of those members of the general
community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and
liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize
their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and
liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the necessary permits and
authorizations.[51]

Moreover, a careful scrutiny of the vehicle reveals that, while the plate number of
the trailer was in the color yellow, signifying that it is a public utility vehicle, the
prime mover truck's plate number was in the color green, signifying that it is
registered as a private vehicle.[52] As admitted by PO3 Agbalos and Edgardo Ruste,
vehicles covered by a Certificate of Public Convenience are issued yellow plates,
while private vehicles are issued green or white plates.[53] In this case, the prime
mover truck was issued a green plate, while the trailer attached to it at the time of
the incident had a yellow plate.[54] We cannot simply ignore the vital information
that the trailer attached to the prime mover truck carried a yellow plate. It would
be absurd to consider the prime mover truck private when it is offered for hire to
the public. It would also be contrary to logic to consider only the trailer with the
yellow plate as public utility vehicle, because the trailer cannot be moved and
utilized for its intended purpose without being attached to the prime mover truck. It
is more sensible to conclude that ES Trucking is a common carrier and that the
prime mover truck should have been covered by a Certificate of Public
Convenience.

It is also important to point out that the vehicle had been registered under the
name of ES Trucking as early as September 17, 2009, yet the vehicle remained
unregistered with the LTFRB at the time of the incident. The Order [55] dated July 29,
2013 of the LTFRB showed that ES Trucking failed to register the subject vehicle as
"FOR HIRE" within one month from the receipt of the approved franchise in
accordance with the conditions of the certificate of public convenience, particularly
paragraph 2 therein. Thus, the certificate of public convenience granted in favor of
ES Trucking on April 27, 2011 was cancelled on February 3, 2012.

ES Trucking is required to observe due

diligence in the selection and supervision of
employees pursuant to Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.

The basis for the liability of an employer of an erring driver resulting to injury or
damage to a stranger may be found in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the New Civil
Code, which state:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxxx

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise

responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

xxxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)

In this case, it has been proven by preponderant evidence that Timtim recklessly
drove the prime mover truck which caused the death of Catalina. Although the
employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes the employer vicariously liable
on the basis of the civil law principle of paterfamilias for failure to exercise due care
and vigilance over the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to another.
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his
own duties, there arises a presumption that the employer is negligent. This may be
rebutted only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.
The "diligence of a good father" referred to in the last paragraph of Article 2180
means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. [56]

In the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine

them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. ES Trucking did not
require Timtim to present any document other than his professional driver's license
and job application form. Edgardo Ruste's testimony confirms the apparent laxity in
the procedure for hiring and selection of ES Trucking, as disclosed in the following
exchange:

Q OK, you said that you looked into their license. So, he was duly licensed?
A He is a professional licensed up to the maximum qualification.
Q He suffers none of the restrictions based on the driver's license?
A No, he is a qualified driver to the maximum.
Q So, he can drive the truck, correct?
A Yes.
 
xxxx
   
Q OK, you also said you based it on performance. What do you mean by performance?
A Performance from where he came from.
Q Ah ... okay. So where did he come from?
A He came from a company in manila which is the one also supplying a truck with us in
Zamboanga City. So we called up the owner and verifying the status of this driver. He is
from Zamboanga, he came from Manila, transferred to his family in this place.
Q In other words, you made a background investigation on this person because you called his
previous employer.
A The background as well as his performance with the company.
Q But you don't have documents to show that he worked in that company, correct?
A He did not present to us any evidence or documents.
Q So you have none?
A Yes but as a company we don't require documents about his history. All we ask is the
driver's license and verify it from where he came from.
Q So that's confirmed, you just verified, no document?
A Yes. Of course there is document, the application form.
Q Ah, that's the only one, there were no attachments in the application form?
A No. That's normal SOP.
Q You made mention of experience. How did you determine his experience?
A Again it's through verification from the former employer.
 
xxxx
 
ATTY. FAUNDO, Bernardo Jr. C:
Q OK, so based on your investigation how long did he work with Pioneer Tractor?
A He worked there for about two years.
Q So that was his only experience when you obtained his services?
A Well, with regards [sic] to experience, Your Honor, it is not that you determine that you
have to go a longer length of service as a driver. It is what kind of equipment that you are
dealing with what kind of equipment you are driving because an ordinary driver cannot
drive a tractor ...
Q Uh-huh. And what other experience did you gather based on your background
investigation??
A No more experience, Your Honor, except what the company requires in hiring a driver then
we are done with it.
Q Mr. Witness, what other requirements did you ask your driver before he was hired? I'm
referring to Timtim.
A Only job application and driver's license.
Q Those were the only?
A Yes.
 
xxxx
   
Q Did you not try to determine his moral character?
A His moral character? He has a good character because of our verification in Manila.
Q In other words, you did not check whether he has records with the police or NBI?
A We did not.
Q Or in the barangay?
A We did not because it's not the policy of the company it depends. Sometimes if we look
at the applicant he is doubtful then therefore we let him go through the process of
having drug test and other NBI clearance. We are private company and we are not a
corporation.
Q OK, so that [sic] settled. He did not present any record of his good moral character, like the
NBI, police or barangay clearance. There is none, okay?
A We don't require it.
Q OK. Now, did you not require him to attend trainings or seminars?
A No we did not because in the first place acquiring a license he passed already the
seminar with the LTO or else he will not be issued a driver's license.
Q Are you not aware, Mr. Witness, that for public utility vehicles aside from acquiring the
professional license they are also supposed to attend training and seminar on transport
management road safety? Are you not aware of that?
A He did not attend seminar with the LTFRB because that unit was not registered or was
not issued a confirmation by the LTFRB.
Q So while Mr. Timtim was working under your management he never attended any seminar
or transport management and road safety, correct?
A None.
Q He never showed you any document that he also attended a transport management road
safety while employed in another company?
A None because we did not require him.[57] (Emphasis supplied.)

Even if Timtim is a holder of a professional driver's license and is permitted to drive

restriction no. 8, which refers to "ARTICULATED VEHICLE 4501 KGS & ABOVE G V
W" and includes the vehicle (with gross vehicle weight capacity of 8000kg), no
evidence was presented to prove that he was certified to drive a prime mover truck
by Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).[58] DOTr DO No.
2011-25 requires, as an additional requirement for the issuance of certificate of
public convenience, that drivers of heavy trucks should be certified by TESDA with
"Driving National Certificate (NC) III."[59] ES Trucking should not have been satisfied
with the mere possession of a professional driver's license. Having failed to present
proof that Timtim possesses the requisite certification from TESDA, ES Trucking
cannot claim to have exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees.

ES Trucking was not only negligent in hiring Timtim but even in supervising the
latter. ES Trucking permitted Timtim to drive the subject vehicle to transport goods
of its customers knowing that the vehicle is not duly registered with the LTFRB.

In addition, it must be highlighted that ES Trucking is not only at fault for blatantly
disregarding pertinent laws and rules governing trucks for hire but is also guilty of
violating its undertaking to preserve the vehicle in its original state while the case is
pending. Altering the body number of the vehicle [60] to avoid detection shows ES
Trucking's wanton disregard of this undertaking and evident bad faith.

Atty. Faundo, counsel of the Heirs of Catalina, pointed out that the vehicle was
released to the manager of ES Trucking, Sumarna Ruste, with an undertaking to
assume custody of the truck at the company compound and to preserve its original
condition pending investigation. However, at about 10:10 a.m. on July 19, 2013,
the same vehicle was apprehended while trying to deliver goods. It was noticed
that the original body no. 5 was altered to no. 15, [61] presumably to avoid being
detected by the authorities.

Considering all the evidence on record, We find that ES Trucking failed to

sufficiently exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employee, Timtim.

The Heirs of Catalina are entitled to damages.

Under the Civil Code, when an injury has been sustained, actual damages may be
awarded under the following condition:
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, only the expenses proven by credible evidence may be awarded. In this case,
the funeral and burial expenses amounting to P362,565.60 were duly supported
with official receipts when presented in the RTC.

Civil or death indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without
need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Initially fixed by the Civil
Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity is currently fixed at P50,000.00.
[62]
 Thus, ES Trucking is liable to pay the Heirs of Catalina P50,000.00 for her death.

With regard to the award of moral damages, Article 2206 of the Civil Code
expressly grants moral damages in addition to the award of civil indemnity. We find
an award of P100,000.00 as moral damages sufficient to answer for the mental
anguish suffered by the Heirs of Catalina because of her death.

In addition, We award exemplary damages upon finding that ES Trucking acted with
gross negligence for failing to duly register the prime mover truck with the
appropriate government agency, and for failing to impose a stringent selection
procedure in hiring and supervising Timtim. The award of exemplary damages is
justified further by ES Trucking's wanton disregard of the law and evident bad faith
through its highly reprehensible conduct of altering the body number of the prime
mover truck to avoid detection, in violation of its undertaking to preserve the
original state of the vehicle while the case is pending. To ensure that such behavior
will not be repeated, ES Trucking is directed to pay P50,000.00 as exemplary
damage to the Heirs of Catalina.

With respect to the award of litigation expenses and attorney's fees, the Civil Code
allows attorney's fees to be awarded if, as in this case, exemplary damages are
imposed. Considering the protracted litigation of this dispute, an award of
P50,000.00 as attorney fees is awarded to the Heirs of Catalina.

Pursuant to the Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[63] the Heirs of Catalina

are entitled to interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary
award, computed from the date of the filing of the complaint for quasi-delict on
June 14, 2013 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013
until their full satisfaction.[64]

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 15, 2018 Resolution dated September
25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04394-MIN is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Respondent ES Trucking Forwarders is DECLARED liable to pay petitioners Heirs of

Catalina Mendoza the following:
 a. P362,565.60 as actual damages for Catalina Mendoza's funeral expenses;
b. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Catalina Mendoza;
c. P100,000.00 as moral damages for Catalina Mendoza's heirs;
d. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
e. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
f. costs of suit

Interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary awards,

computed from the date of the filing of the complaint for quasi-delict on June 14,
2013 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until
their full satisfaction shall also be imposed on the total judgment award.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur