10.

Sps Perena vs Sps Nicolas By petition for review on certiorari, Spouses Teodoro and
Nanette Pereña (Pereñas) appeal the adverse decision
promulgated on November 13, 2002, by which the Court of
FIRST DIVISION
Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the decision rendered on
December 3, 1999 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 260, in
[G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012.]
Parañaque City that had decreed them jointly and severally liable
with Philippine National Railways (PNR), their co-defendant, to
SPOUSES TEODORO 1 and NANETTE
Spouses Nicolas and Teresita Zarate (Zarates) for the death of
PEREÑA,  petitioners, vs. SPOUSES NICOLAS and
their 15-year old son, Aaron John L. Zarate (Aaron), then a high
TERESITA L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
school student of Don Bosco Technical Institute (Don Bosco).
RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF
APPEALS,  respondents.
Antecedents

The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting

DECISION
students from their respective residences in Parañaque City to
Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, and back. In their
business, the Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van (van) with Plate No.
BERSAMIN,  J  :
PYA 896, which had the capacity to transport 14 students at a time,
p

The operator of a school bus service is a common carrier in two of whom would be seated in the front beside the driver, and
the eyes of the law. He is bound to observe extraordinary diligence the others in the rear, with six students on either side. They
in the conduct of his business. He is presumed to be negligent employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van.  ACcHIa

when death occurs to a passenger. His liability may include In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to
indemnity for loss of earning capacity even if the deceased transport Aaron to and from Don Bosco. On August 22, 1996, as
passenger may only be an unemployed high school student at the on previous school days, the van picked Aaron up around 6:00
time of the accident.  a.m. from the Zarates' residence. Aaron took his place on the left
side of the van near the rear door. The van, with its air-
The Case
conditioning unit turned on and the stereo playing loudly,
ultimately carried all the 14 student riders on their way to Don
Bosco. Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by
Page 1 of 14
7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late because of the Devastated by the early and unexpected death of Aaron,
heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro took the the Zarates commenced this action for damages against Alfaro,
van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the the Pereñas, PNR and Alano. The Pereñas and PNR filed their
narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was respective answers, with cross-claims against each other, but
then commonly used by Makati-bound vehicles as a short cut into Alfaro could not be served with summons.  HCDaAS

Makati. At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the facts and
construction materials and parked passenger jeepneys, and the
issues,  viz.:
railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning signs,
or watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the crossing. A. FACTS:
In fact, the bamboo  barandilla  was up, leaving the railroad (1) That spouses Zarate were the legitimate
crossing open to traversing motorists.  parents of Aaron John L. Zarate;

At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad (2) Spouses Zarate engaged the services of
crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train), operated by Jhonny Alano spouses Pereña for the adequate and
(Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling safe transportation carriage of the
northbound. As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro former spouses' son from their
drove the van eastward across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a residence in Parañaque to his school
large passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked at the Don Bosco Technical Institute in
because he overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The train Makati City;
blew its horn to warn motorists of its approach. When the train (3) During the effectivity of the contract of
was about 50 meters away from the passenger bus and the van, carriage and in the implementation
Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He applied the thereof, Aaron, the minor son of
emergency brakes only when he saw that a collision was spouses Zarate died in connection
imminent. The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad with a vehicular/train collision which
tracks, but the van driven by Alfaro did not. The train hit the rear occurred while Aaron was riding the
end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 students in contracted carrier Kia Ceres van of
the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path spouses Pereña, then driven and
of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, operated by the latter's
instantaneously killing him. Alano fled the scene on board the employee/authorized driver Clemente

train, and did not wait for the police investigator to arrive. Alfaro, which van collided with the
train of PNR, at around 6:45 A.M. of

Page 2 of 14
 August 22, 1996, within the vicinity of (10) PNR refused to acknowledge any liability
the Magallanes Interchange in Makati for the vehicular/train collision;
City, Metro Manila, Philippines; 
(11) The eventual closure of the railroad
(4) At the time of the vehicular/train collision, crossing alleged by PNR was an
the subject site of the vehicular/train internal arrangement between the
collision was a railroad crossing used former and its project contractor; and
by motorists for crossing the railroad
(12) The site of the vehicular/train collision
tracks;
was within the vicinity or less than 100
(5) During the said time of the vehicular/train meters from the Magallanes station of
collision, there were no appropriate PNR.
and safety warning signs and railings
B. ISSUES
at the site commonly used for railroad
crossing; (1) Whether or not defendant-driver of the
van is, in the performance of his
(6) At the material time, countless number of
functions, liable for negligence
Makati bound public utility and private
constituting the proximate cause of
vehicles used on a daily basis the site
the vehicular collision, which resulted
of the collision as an alternative route
in the death of plaintiff spouses' son; 
and short-cut to Makati;
(2) Whether or not the defendant spouses
(7) The train driver or operator left the scene
Pereña being the employer of
of the incident on board the
defendant Alfaro are liable for any
commuter train involved without
negligence which may be attributed to
waiting for the police investigator;
defendant Alfaro;
(8) The site commonly used for railroad
(3) Whether or not defendant Philippine
crossing by motorists was not in fact
National Railways being the operator
intended by the railroad operator for
of the railroad system is liable for
railroad crossing at the time of the
negligence in failing to provide
vehicular collision; 
adequate safety warning signs and
ACTaDH

(9) PNR received the demand letter of the railings in the area commonly used by
spouses Zarate; motorists for railroad crossings,

Page 3 of 14
 constituting the proximate cause of (9) Whether or not defendant PNR should be
the vehicular collision which resulted made to reimburse defendant
in the death of the plaintiff spouses' spouses for any and whatever amount
son; the latter may be held answerable or
which they may be ordered to pay in
(4) Whether or not defendant spouses Pereña
favor of plaintiffs by reason of the
are liable for breach of the contract of
action;
carriage with plaintiff-spouses in
failing to provide adequate and safe (10) Whether or not defendant PNR should
transportation for the latter's son; pay plaintiffs directly and fully on the
amounts claimed by the latter in their
(5) Whether or not defendants spouses are
Complaint by reason of its gross
liable for actual, moral damages,
negligence;
exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees; (11) Whether or not defendant PNR is liable to
defendants spouses for actual, moral
(6) Whether or not defendants spouses
and exemplary damages and
Teodorico and Nanette Pereña
attorney's fees. 2
observed the diligence of employers
and school bus operators;  HCSAIa The Zarates' claim against the Pereñas was upon breach of
the contract of carriage for the safe transport of Aaron; but that
(7) Whether or not defendant-spouses are
civilly liable for the accidental death of
against PNR was based on quasi-delict under Article 2176,  Civil
Aaron John Zarate; Code.

(8) Whether or not defendant PNR was In their defense, the Pereñas adduced evidence to show
grossly negligent in operating the that they had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family
commuter train involved in the in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, by making sure that
accident, in allowing or tolerating the Alfaro had been issued a driver's license and had not been
motoring public to cross, and its involved in any vehicular accident prior to the collision; that their
failure to install safety devices or own son had taken the van daily; and that Teodoro Pereña had
equipment at the site of the accident sometimes accompanied Alfaro in the van's trips transporting the
for the protection of the public; students to school.

Page 4 of 14
 For its part, PNR tended to show that the proximate cause On June 29, 2000, the RTC denied the Pereñas' motion for
of the collision had been the reckless crossing of the van whose reconsideration, 4 reiterating that the cooperative gross negligence
driver had not first stopped, looked and listened; and that the of the Pereñas and PNR had caused the collision that led to the
narrow path traversed by the van had not been intended to be a death of Aaron; and that the damages awarded to the Zarates
railroad crossing for motorists.  were not excessive, but based on the established circumstances.

Ruling of the RTC The CA's Ruling

On December 3, 1999, the RTC rendered its Both the Pereñas and PNR appealed (C.A.-G.R. CV No.
decision, 3 disposing: 68916).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment PNR assigned the following errors, to wit: 5
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
The Court a quo  erred in:
against the defendants ordering them to jointly and
severally pay the plaintiffs as follows: 1. In finding the defendant-appellant Philippine
National Railways jointly and severally liable
(1) (for) the death of Aaron — Php50,000.00;
together with defendant-appellants spouses
(2) Actual damages in the amount of Teodorico and Nanette Pereña and
Php100,000.00; defendant-appellant Clemente Alfaro to pay
plaintiffs-appellees for the death of Aaron
(3) For the loss of earning capacity —
Zarate and damages. 
Php2,109,071.00;
CaAIES

2. In giving full faith and merit to the oral testimonies

(4) Moral damages in the amount of
of plaintiffs-appellees witnesses despite
(Php)4,000,000.00;
overwhelming documentary evidence on
(5) Exemplary damages in the amount of record, supporting the case of defendants-
Php1,000,000.00; appellants Philippine National Railways.

(6) Attorney's fees in the amount of The Pereñas ascribed the following errors to the RTC,
Php200,000.00; and namely:
(7) Cost of suit.  The trial court erred in finding defendants-
SO ORDERED. appellants jointly and severally liable for actual,

Page 5 of 14
 moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees deceased's earning capacity despite Cariaga being only a medical
with the other defendants. student at the time of the fatal incident. Applying the formula

The trial court erred in dismissing the cross-claim

adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality:  cSIHCA

of the appellants Pereñas against the Philippine

2/3 x (80 - age at the time of death) = life expectancy
National Railways and in not holding the latter and
its train driver primarily responsible for the
the CA determined the life expectancy of Aaron to be 39.3
incident.
years upon reckoning his life expectancy from age of 21 (the age
The trial court erred in awarding excessive when he would have graduated from college and started working
damages and attorney's fees. for his own livelihood) instead of 15 years (his age when he died).
The trial court erred in awarding damages in the Considering that the nature of his work and his salary at the time
form of deceased's loss of earning capacity in the of Aaron's death were unknown, it used the prevailing minimum
absence of sufficient basis for such an award.  wage of P280.00/day to compute Aaron's gross annual salary to be
P110,716.65, inclusive of the thirteenth month pay. Multiplying this
On November 13, 2002, the CA promulgated its decision,
annual salary by Aaron's life expectancy of 39.3 years, his gross
affirming the findings of the RTC, but limited the moral damages
income would aggregate to P4,351,164.30, from which his
to P2,500,000.00; and deleted the attorney's fees because the RTC
estimated expenses in the sum of P2,189,664.30 was deducted to
did not state the factual and legal bases, to wit: 6
finally arrive at P2,161,500.00 as net income. Due to Aaron's
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the computed net income turning out to be higher than the amount
assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch claimed by the Zarates, only P2,109,071.00, the amount expressly
260 of Parañaque City is AFFIRMED with prayed for by them, was granted
the modification that the award of Actual
Damages is reduced to P59,502.76; Moral On April 4, 2003, the CA denied the Pereñas' motion for
Damages is reduced to P2,500,000.00; and the reconsideration. 8
award for Attorney's Fees is Deleted.
Issues
SO ORDERED.
In this appeal, the Pereñas list the following as the errors
The CA upheld the award for the loss of Aaron's earning
committed by the CA, to wit:
capacity, taking cognizance of the ruling in  Cariaga v. Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company and Manila Railroad Company, 7 wherein the I. The lower court erred when it upheld the trial
Court gave the heirs of Cariaga a sum representing the loss of the court's decision holding the petitioners jointly

Page 6 of 14
 and severally liable to pay damages with To start with, the Pereñas' defense was that they exercised
Philippine National Railways and dismissing the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
their cross-claim against the latter. supervision of Alfaro, the van driver, by seeing to it that Alfaro had
II. The lower court erred in affirming the trial court's a driver's license and that he had not been involved in any
decision of awarding damages for loss of vehicular accident prior to the fatal collision with the train; that
earning capacity of a minor who was only a they even had their own son travel to and from school on a daily
high school student at the time of his death in basis; and that Teodoro Pereña himself sometimes accompanied
the absence of sufficient basis for such an Alfaro in transporting the passengers to and from school. The RTC
award. gave scant consideration to such defense by regarding such
defense as inappropriate in an action for breach of contract of
III. The lower court erred in not reducing further the
carriage. 
amount of damages awarded, assuming
petitioners are liable at all. We find no adequate cause to differ from the conclusions
of the lower courts that the Pereñas operated as a common
Ruling
carrier; and that their standard of care was extraordinary
diligence, not the ordinary diligence of a good father of a family.
The petition has no merit.  aEHTSc

Although in this jurisdiction the operator of a school bus

1. service has been usually regarded as a private carrier, 9 primarily
because he only caters to some specific or privileged individuals,
Were the Pereñas and PNR jointly
and his operation is neither open to the indefinite public nor for
and severally liable for damages?
public use, the exact nature of the operation of a school bus
service has not been finally settled. This is the occasion to lay the
The Zarates brought this action for recovery of damages
matter to rest.
against both the Pereñas and the PNR, basing their claim against
the Pereñas on breach of contract of carriage and against the PNR A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to
on quasi-delict. transport or convey goods or persons from one place to another,
gratuitously or for hire. The carrier is classified either as a
The RTC found the Pereñas and the PNR negligent. The CA
private/special carrier or as a common/public carrier. 10 A private
affirmed the findings.
carrier is one who, without making the activity a vocation, or
We concur with the CA. without holding himself or itself out to the public as ready to act
for all who may desire his or its services, undertakes, by special
Page 7 of 14
agreement in a particular instance only, to transport goods or a right which the law compels the owner to give to
persons from one place to another either gratuitously or for the general public. It is not enough that the general
hire. 11 The provisions on ordinary contracts of the  Civil prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not
Code govern the contract of private carriage. The diligence synonymous with public interest. The true criterion
required of a private carrier is only ordinary, that is, the diligence by which to judge the character of the use is whether

of a good father of the family. In contrast, a common carrier is a the public may enjoy it  by right  or only by
permission.
person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, In  De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 16 the Court noted that
water, or air, for compensation,  offering such services to the Article 1732 of the  Civil Code  avoided any distinction between a
public. 12 Contracts of common carriage are governed by the person or an enterprise offering transportation on a regular or an
provisions on common carriers of the  Civil Code, the  Public Service isolated basis; and has not distinguished a carrier offering his
Act, 13 and other special laws relating to transportation. A common services to the general public, that is, the general community or
carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is population, from one offering his services only to a narrow
presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the segment of the general population. 
loss of the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries to
Nonetheless, the concept of a common carrier embodied in
passengers. 14  EITcaD

Article 1732 of the Civil Code  coincides neatly with the notion

In relation to common carriers, the Court defined  public of public serviceunder the  Public Service Act, which supplements the
use  in the following terms in  United States v. Tan Piaco, 15 viz.: law on common carriers found in the Civil Code. Public service,
according to Section 13, paragraph (b) of the  Public Service
"Public use" is the same as "use by the
public". The essential feature of the public use is not Act, includes:
confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the . . . every person that now or hereafter may
indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines,
quality that gives it its public character. In for hire or compensation, with general or limited
determining whether a use is public, we must look clientèle, whether permanent or occasional, and
not only to the character of the business to be done, done for the general business purposes, any
but also to the proposed mode of doing it. If the use common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction
is merely optional with the owners, or the public railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or
benefit is merely incidental, it is not a public use, passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and
authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier
public utility commission. There must be, in general, service of any class, express service, steamboat, or
Page 8 of 14
 steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, service were: (a)engaged in transporting passengers generally as a
engaged in the transportation of passengers or business, not just as a casual occupation; (b)  undertaking to carry
freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, ice- passengers over established roads by the method by which the
refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, business was conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee.
electric light, heat and power, water supply and Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a
power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready
communications systems, wire or wireless
transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular
broadcasting stations and other similar public
school living within or near where they operated the service and
services. . . . . 17 
for a fee. 
AEITDH

EHTISC

Given the breadth of the aforequoted characterization of a

The common carrier's standard of care and vigilance as to
common carrier, the Court has considered as common carriers
the safety of the passengers is defined by law. Given the nature of
pipeline operators, 18custom brokers and warehousemen, 19 and
the business and for reasons of public policy, the common carrier
barge operators 20 even if they had limited clientèle.
is bound "to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
As all the foregoing indicate, the true test for a common the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually them, according to all the circumstances of each case." 22 Article
transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used 1755 of the  Civil Code  specifies that the common carrier should
in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity "carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general public provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a
as his business or occupation. If the undertaking is a single due regard for all the circumstances." To successfully fend off
transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation liability in an action upon the death or injury to a passenger, the
engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general public, the common carrier must prove his or its observance of that
individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a extraordinary diligence; otherwise, the legal presumption that he
common, carrier. The question must be determined by the or it was at fault or acted negligently would stand. 23 No device,
character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, not by whether by stipulation, posting of notices, statements on tickets,
any secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or or otherwise, may dispense with or lessen the responsibility of the
assert when charged with the duties and obligations that the law common carrier as defined under Article 1755 of the  Civil Code. 24
imposes. 21
And, secondly, the Pereñas have not presented any
Applying these considerations to the case before us, there compelling defense or reason by which the Court might now
is no question that the Pereñas as the operators of a school bus reverse the CA's findings on their liability. On the contrary, an

Page 9 of 14
examination of the records shows that the evidence fully not permit motorists going into the Makati area to cross the
supported the findings of the CA.  railroad tracks. Although that point had been used by motorists as
a shortcut into the Makati area, that fact alone did not excuse their
As earlier stated, the Pereñas, acting as a common carrier,
driver into taking that route. On the other hand, with his familiarity
were already presumed to be negligent at the time of the accident
with that shortcut, their driver was fully aware of the risks to his
because death had occurred to their passenger. 25 The
passengers but he still disregarded the risks. Compounding his
presumption of negligence, being a presumption of law, laid the
lack of care was that loud music was playing inside the air-
burden of evidence on their shoulders to establish that they had
conditioned van at the time of the accident. The loudness most
not been negligent. 26 It was the law no less that required them to
probably reduced his ability to hear the warning horns of the
prove their observance of extraordinary diligence in seeing to the
oncoming train to allow him to correctly appreciate the lurking
safe and secure carriage of the passengers to their destination.
dangers on the railroad tracks. Also, he sought to overtake a
Until they did so in a credible manner, they stood to be held legally
passenger bus on the left side as both vehicles traversed the
responsible for the death of Aaron and thus to be held liable for all
railroad tracks. In so doing, he lost his view of the train that was
the natural consequences of such death.
then coming from the opposite side of the passenger bus, leading
There is no question that the Pereñas did not overturn the him to miscalculate his chances of beating the bus in their race,
presumption of their negligence by credible evidence. Their and of getting clear of the train. As a result, the bus avoided a
defense of having observed the diligence of a good father of a collision with the train but the van got slammed at its rear, causing
family in the selection and supervision of their driver was not the fatality. Lastly, he did not slow down or go to a full stop before
legally sufficient. According to Article 1759 of the  Civil Code, their traversing the railroad tracks despite knowing that his slackening
liability as a common carrier did not cease upon proof that they of speed and going to a full stop were in observance of the right of
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the way at railroad tracks as defined by the traffic laws and
selection and supervision of their employee. This was the reason regulations. 28 He thereby violated a specific traffic regulation on
why the RTC treated this defense of the Pereñas as inappropriate right of way, by virtue of which he was immediately presumed to
in this action for breach of contract of carriage.  HCTDIS
be negligent. 29

The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the The omissions of care on the part of the van driver
fact that their driver might have acted beyond the scope of his constituted negligence, 30 which, according to  Layugan v.
authority or even in violation of the orders of the common Intermediate Appellate Court, 31 is "the omission to do something
carrier. 27 In this connection, the records showed their driver's which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
actual negligence. There was a showing, to begin with, that their ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
driver traversed the railroad tracks at a point at which the PNR did doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would
Page 10 of 14
not do, 32 or as Judge Cooley defines it, '(t)he failure to observe for govern their conduct by the circumstances which
the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of are before them or known to them. They are not,
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.'" 33 future. Hence they can be expected to take care
only when there is something before them to
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in
in a particular case has been aptly stated in the leading case the case under consideration, foresee harm as a
of Picart v. Smith, 34thuswise:  ITSaHC
result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the
The test by which to determine the existence duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against
of negligence in a particular case may be stated as that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this
negligent act use that reasonable care and prevision, is always necessary before negligence
caution which an ordinarily prudent person can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the
would have used in the same situation? If not, proper criterion for determining the existence of
then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to
effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied be negligent when a prudent man in the position
by the imaginary conduct of the of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an
discreet  paterfamilias  of the Roman law. The effect harmful to another was sufficiently
existence of negligence in a given case is not probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or
determined by reference to the personal judgment guarding against its consequences. (Emphasis
of the actor in the situation before him. The law supplied) SDHTEC

considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, Pursuant to the  Picart v. Smith  test of negligence, the
or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence Pereñas' driver was entirely negligent when he traversed the
and prudence and determines liability by that.  railroad tracks at a point not allowed for a motorist's crossing
The question as to what would constitute despite being fully aware of the grave harm to be thereby caused
the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation to his passengers; and when he disregarded the foresight of harm
must of course be always determined in the light to his passengers by overtaking the bus on the left side as to leave
of human experience and in view of the facts himself blind to the approach of the oncoming train that he knew
involved in the particular case. Abstract was on the opposite side of the bus.
speculation cannot here be of much value but this
much can be profitably said: Reasonable men

Page 11 of 14
 Unrelenting, the Pereñas cite  Phil. National Railways v. Pereñas traversing the railroad tracks at a point not dedicated by
Intermediate Appellate Court, 35 where the Court held the PNR solely the PNR as a railroad crossing for pedestrians and motorists,
liable for the damages caused to a passenger bus and its because the PNR did not ensure the safety of others through the
passengers when its train hit the rear end of the bus that was then placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other
traversing the railroad crossing. But the circumstances of that case permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or pedestrians from
and this one share no similarities. In  Philippine National Railways v. crossing there. The RTC observed that the fact that a crossing
Intermediate Appellate Court, no evidence of contributory guard had been assigned to man that point from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
negligence was adduced against the owner of the bus. Instead, it was a good  indicium  that the PNR was aware of the risks to others
was the owner of the bus who proved the exercise of as well as the need to control the vehicular and other traffic there.
extraordinary diligence by preponderant evidence. Also, the Verily, the Pereñas and the PNR were joint tortfeasors. HCEcAa

records are replete with the showing of negligence on the part of

both the Pereñas and the PNR. Another distinction is that the 2.
passenger bus in Philippine National Railways v. Intermediate
Was the indemnity for loss of
Appellate Court  was traversing the dedicated railroad crossing
Aaron's earning capacity proper?
when it was hit by the train, but the Pereñas' school van traversed
the railroad tracks at a point not intended for that purpose. 
The RTC awarded indemnity for loss of Aaron's earning
At any rate, the lower courts correctly held both the capacity. Although agreeing with the RTC on the liability, the CA
Pereñas and the PNR "jointly and severally" liable for damages modified the amount. Both lower courts took into consideration
arising from the death of Aaron. They had been impleaded in the that Aaron, while only a high school student, had been enrolled in
same complaint as defendants against whom the Zarates had the one of the reputable schools in the Philippines and that he had
right to relief, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in been a normal and able-bodied child prior to his death. The basis
respect to or arising out of the accident, and questions of fact and for the computation of Aaron's earning capacity was not what he
of law were common as to the Zarates. 36 Although the basis of the would have become or what he would have wanted to be if not for
right to relief of the Zarates (i.e., breach of contract of carriage) his untimely death, but the minimum wage in effect at the time of
against the Pereñas was distinct from the basis of the Zarates' his death. Moreover, the RTC's computation of Aaron's life
right to relief against the PNR (i.e., quasi-delict under Article expectancy rate was not reckoned from his age of 15 years at the
2176,  Civil Code), they nonetheless could be held jointly and time of his death, but on 21 years, his age when he would have
severally liable by virtue of their respective negligence combining graduated from college.
to cause the death of Aaron. As to the PNR, the RTC rightly found
the PNR also guilty of negligence despite the school van of the
Page 12 of 14
 We find the considerations taken into account by the lower parents of their right to his presence and his services as well. Our
courts to be reasonable and fully warranted.  law itself states that the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased shall be the liability of the guilty party in favor of the
Yet, the Pereñas submit that the indemnity for loss of
heirs of the deceased, and shall in every case be assessed and
earning capacity was speculative and unfounded. They
awarded by the court "unless the deceased on account of
cited  People v. Teehankee, Jr., 37where the Court deleted the
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no
indemnity for victim Jussi Leino's loss of earning capacity as a pilot
earning capacity at the time of his death." 38 Accordingly, we
for being speculative due to his having graduated from high school
emphatically hold in favor of the indemnification for Aaron's loss
at the International School in Manila only two years before the
of earning capacity despite him having been unemployed, because
shooting, and was at the time of the shooting only enrolled in the
compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of time or
first semester at the Manila Aero Club to pursue his ambition to
earnings but for loss of the deceased's power or ability to earn
become a professional pilot. That meant, according to the Court,
money. 39
that he was for all intents and purposes only a high school
graduate. This favorable treatment of the Zarates' claim is not
unprecedented. In Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and
We reject the Pereñas' submission.
Manila Railroad Company, 40 fourth-year medical student Edgardo
First of all, a careful perusal of the  Teehankee, Jr. case shows Carriaga's earning capacity, although he survived the accident but
that the situation there of Jussi Leino was not akin to that of Aaron his injuries rendered him permanently incapacitated, was
here. The CA and the RTC were not speculating that Aaron would computed to be that of the physician that he dreamed to become.
be some highly-paid professional, like a pilot (or, for that matter, The Court considered his scholastic record sufficient to justify the
an engineer, a physician, or a lawyer). Instead, the computation of assumption that he could have finished the medical course and
Aaron's earning capacity was premised on him being a lowly would have passed the medical board examinations in due time,
minimum wage earner despite his being then enrolled at a and that he could have possibly earned a modest income as a
prestigious high school like Don Bosco in Makati, a fact that would medical practitioner. Also, in  People v. Sanchez, 41 the Court opined
have likely ensured his success in his later years in life and at that murder and rape victim Eileen Sarmienta and murder victim
work.  TEcADS
Allan Gomez could have easily landed good-paying jobs had they

And, secondly, the fact that Aaron was then without a graduated in due time, and that their jobs would probably pay

history of earnings should not be taken against his parents and in them high monthly salaries from P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 upon

favor of the defendants whose negligence not only cost Aaron his their graduation. Their earning capacities were computed at rates

life and his right to work and earn money, but also deprived his higher than the minimum wage at the time of their deaths due to
their being already senior agriculture students of the University of
Page 13 of 14
the Philippines in Los Baños, the country's leading educational damages in that amount would suffice to instill in them and others
institution in agriculture.  TAEDcS similarly situated like them the ever-present need for greater and
constant vigilance in the conduct of a business imbued with public
3. interest.

Were the amounts of damages excessive? WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review
on certiorari; AFFIRM the decision promulgated on November 13,
The Pereñas plead for the reduction of the moral and 2002; and ORDER the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
exemplary damages awarded to the Zarates in the respective
SO ORDERED.
amounts of P2,500,000.00 and P1,000,000.00 on the ground that
such amounts were excessive. Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes,
JJ., concur.
The plea is unwarranted.
  (Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917, [August 29,
|||

The moral damages of P2,500,000.00 were really just and

2012], 693 PHIL 373-399)
reasonable under the established circumstances of this case
because they were intended by the law to assuage the Zarates'
deep mental anguish over their son's unexpected and violent
death, and their moral shock over the senseless accident. That
amount would not be too much, considering that it would help the
Zarates obtain the means, diversions or amusements that would
alleviate their suffering for the loss of their child. At any rate,
reducing the amount as excessive might prove to be an injustice,
given the passage of a long time from when their mental anguish
was inflicted on them on August 22, 1996. 

Anent the P1,000,000.00 allowed as exemplary damages,

we should not reduce the amount if only to render effective the
desired example for the public good. As a common carrier, the
Pereñas needed to be vigorously reminded to observe their duty
to exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent a similarly senseless
accident from happening again. Only by an award of exemplary

Page 14 of 14