G.R. No. 160110 - MARIANO C. MENDOZA AND ELVIRA LIM, VS. SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ AND GABRIEL V. GOMEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [respondents] and against the [petitioners]: Ordering the [petitioners] except Enriquez to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the costs of repair of the damaged vehicle in the amount of P142,757.40; Ordering the defendants except Enriquez to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the amount of P1,000.00 per day from March 7, 1997 up to November 1997 representing the unrealized income of the [respondents] when the incident transpired up to the time the damaged Isuzu truck was repaired; Ordering the [petitioners] except Enriquez to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages, plus a separate amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; Ordering the [petitioners] except Enriquez to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; Ordering the [petitioners] except Enriquez to pay [respondents] the costs of suit. [18] Displeased, petitioners appealed to the CA, which appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 71877. After evaluating the damages awarded by the RTC, such were affirmed by the CA with the exception of the award of unrealized income which the CA ordered deleted, viz : WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED . The judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 dated January 31, 2001, is MODIFIED , in that the award of P1,000.00 per day from March 1997 up to November 1997 representing unrealized income is DELETED . The award of P142,757.40 for the cost of repair of the damaged vehicle, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, the award of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and the costs of the suit are hereby MAINTAINED . [19] The Present Petition Unsatisfied with the CA ruling, petitioners filed an appeal by certiorari before the Court, raising the following issues: [20] The court a quo has decided questions of substance in a way not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court when it awarded: a. Moral damages in spite of the fact that the [respondents] cause of action is clearly based on quasi-delict and [ respondents ] did not sustain physical injuries to be entitled thereto pursuant to Article 2219 (2) of the New Civil Code and pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court to that effect. The court a quo erroneously concluded that the driver acted in bad faith and erroneously applied the provision of Article 21 of the same code to justify the award for bad faith is not consistent with quasi-delict which is founded on fault or negligence. b. Exemplary damages in spite of the fact that there is no finding that the vehicular accident was due to petitioner-drivers gross negligence to be entitled thereto pursuant to Article 2231 of the New Civil Code and pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court to that effect. The factual basis of the court a quo that the act of the driver of the bus in attempting