GR No. 164012 - Mendoza vs. Soriano

G.R. No.
164012
June 8, 2007
FLORDELIZA MENDOZA, petitioner,
vs.
MUTYA SORIANO and Minor JULIE ANN SORIANO
duly rep. by her natural mother MUTYA SORIANO, respondents.
The facts
 At around 1:00 a.m., July 14, 1997, Sonny Soriano, while crossing Commonwealth
Avenue was hit by a speeding Tamaraw FX driven by Lomer Macasasa. Soriano was
thrown five meters away, while the vehicle only stopped some 25 meters from the point
of impact.
 After Macasasa checked out the scene of the incident, he returned to the FX and fled.
 A school bus brought Soriano to East Avenue Medical Center where he later died.
 Thus, a case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was filed against Macasasa.
 On August 20, 1997, respondents Mutya Soriano and Julie Ann Soriano, Soriano’s wife
and daughter, respectively, filed a complaint in RTC for damages (CIVIL CASE)
against Macasasa and petitioner Flordeliza Mendoza, the registered owner of the vehicle.
 Respondents prayed that Macasasa and petitioner be ordered to pay them: ₱200,000
moral damages; ₱500,000 for lost income; ₱22,250 for funeral services; ₱45,000 for
burial lot; ₱15,150 for interment and lapida; ₱8,066 for hospitalization, other medical
and transportation expenses; ₱28,540 for food and drinks during the wake; ₱50,000
exemplary damages; ₱60,000 indemnity for Soriano’s death; and ₱25,000 for attorney’s
fees plus ₱500 per court appearance.
PETITIONER’S ANSWER:
 she was not liable since as owner of the vehicle, she had exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family over her employee, Macasasa
 She filed a MOTION TO DISMISS
RTC:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against Macasa was DISMISSED
It found Soriano negligent for crossing Commonwealth Avenue by using a small gap in the
island’s fencing rather than the pedestrian overpass. The lower court also ruled that petitioner
was not negligent in the selection and supervision of Macasasa since complainants presented no
evidence to support their allegation of petitioner’s negligence.
Respondents appealed to the CA

CA: reversed the DECISION of the trial court, ordering [petitioner] Flordeliza Mendoza to pay
[respondents] Mutya Soriano and Julie Ann Soriano the following amounts:
1. Hospital and Burial Expenses ₱80,926.25
2. Loss of earning capacity ₱77,000.00
3. Moral Damages ₱20,000.00
4. Indemnity for the death of Sonny Soriano ₱50,000.00
Actual payment of the aforementioned amounts should, however, be reduced by twenty (20%)
per cent due to the presence of contributory negligence by the victim as provided for in Article
2179 of the Civil Code.
While the appellate court agreed that Soriano was negligent, it also found Macasasa negligent for
speeding, such that he was unable to avoid hitting the victim. It observed that Soriano’s own
negligence did not preclude recovery of damages from Macasasa’s negligence. It further held
that since petitioner failed to present evidence to the contrary, and conformably with Article
21808 of the Civil Code, the presumption of negligence of the employer in the selection and
supervision of employees stood.
CA DENIED the MR filed by the petitioner, Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. WON the total amount prayed for in the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
2. WON the award of damages in favor of the respondents has LEGAL basis.
RULING:
As to ISSUE # 1:
Petitioner argues that the amount claimed by respondents is within the jurisdiction of the
MeTC, that to determine the jurisdictional amount, what should only be considered are the
following:
₱22,250 for funeral services;
₱45,000 for burial lot;
₱15,150 for interment and lapida;
₱8,066 for hospitalization and transportation;
₱28,540 for food and drinks during the wake; and
₱60,000 indemnity for Soriano’s death.
the sum of these amounts, ₱179,006, is below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC.
That under Section 19(8) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the following claims
of respondents must be excluded:
₱200,000 moral damages,
₱500,000 for lost income;
₱50,000 exemplary damages;
₱25,000 attorney’s fees plus ₱500 per court appearance.
Petitioner thus prays that the decision of the CA be reversed, and the dismissal of the case by
RTC be affirmed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Section 19(8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691,
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.–Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the
demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(₱200,000.00).
But relatedly, Administrative Circular No. 09-94 expressly states:

2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional
amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause
of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of
the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
of the court.
The Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, as in this case, are primarily actions for the
recovery of a sum of money for the damages for tortious acts, the respondents’ claim of
₱929,006 in damages and ₱25,000 attorney’s fees plus ₱500 per court appearance represents
the monetary equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury. These money claims are the
PRINCIPAL RELIEFS sought by respondents in their complaint for damages.
THEREFORE, RTC Consequently possessed and properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
As to ISSUE # 2:
still petitioner, as owner and employer, is directly and separately civilly liable for her failure to
exercise due diligence in supervising Macasasa.22 We must emphasize that this damage suit is for
the quasi-delict of petitioner, as owner and employer, and not for the delict of Macasasa, as
driver and employee.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages caused by their
employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The liability arises due to the
presumed negligence of the employers in supervising their employees unless they prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
In this case, we hold petitioner primarily and solidarily liable for the damages caused by
Macasasa. Respondents could recover directly from petitioner since petitioner failed to prove
that she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Macasasa.
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit and hereby AFFIRM the Decision

dated November 17, 2003 and the Resolution dated May 24, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 69037.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

GR No. 164012 - Mendoza vs. Soriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No. 164012 - Mendoza vs. Soriano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No. 164012 - Mendoza vs. Soriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

Respondents appealed to the CA

But relatedly, Administrative Circular No. 09-94 expressly states:

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit and hereby AFFIRM the Decision

You might also like