Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 174161 2015-02-18	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. LUISITO G. YU PERALTA, J.
After a review of the records of the case, we find no cogent reason to reverse the rulings of the courts below for none of the aforementioned exceptions are present herein. Both the trial and appellate courts found driver Gimena negligent in hitting and running over the victim and ruled that his negligence was the proximate cause of her death. Negligence has been defined as "the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury."[13] Verily, foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence.[14] It is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.[15]
	GR No. 187899 2013-10-23	ROBERT DA JOSE v. CELERINA R. ANGELES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Article 2206[44] of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money.[45] The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[46] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[47] Thus, as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[48]
	GR No. 197987 2012-03-19	MARITER MENDOZA v. CASUMPANG ABAD, J.
Further, in view of Josephine's death resulting from petitioner's negligence, civil indemnity under Article 2206[5] of the Civil Code should be given to respondents as heirs. The amount of P50,000.00 is fixed by prevailing jurisprudence for this kind.[6]
	GR No. 193861 2012-03-14	PAULITA “EDITH” SERRA v. NELFA T. MUMAR CARPIO, J.
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. Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of its employees.[22] The liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.[23]
	GR No. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity.[27] By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[28]
	GR No. 148974 2010-07-02	OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA PERALTA, J.
Death indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00.[32] Hence, the amount awarded by the RTC and the CA must be reduced accordingly. On the issue of moral damages, prevailing jurisprudence fixes moral damages of P50,000.00 for death.[33] It must be stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant.[34] They are awarded to allow the plaintiff to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendant's culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.[35] Thus, given the circumstances of the case at bar, an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper.