This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, we note that the indemnity for lost earnings was erroneously computed. It is already settled jurisprudence that "the formula that has gained acceptance over time has limited recovery to net earning capacity; x x x [meaning], less the necessary expense for his own living."[20] Here, the computation for lost income of P16,000.00 did not take into consideration the deceased's necessary expenses. | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.,[39] temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation,[40] temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras,[41] the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty. In People v. Briones,[42] in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven. | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In light of prevailing rules and jurisprudence, the reckoning date of the 6% per annum interest on the monetary awards must, however, be modified. It bears emphasis that the damages imposed upon the petitioner, as Tungal's employer, were the result of a separate complaint for damages based on a quasi-delict under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the New Civil Code. Consistent with pertinent jurisprudence, the interest on these awards must be computed from the date when the RTC rendered its decision in the civil case, or on June 17, 2008, as it was at this time that a quantification of the damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained.[9] The CA's increase of the rate of interest to 12% per annum from the date of finality of judgment must also be rectified. Under Circular No. 799 issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas on June 21, 2013, "[t]he rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum." From the finality of a judgment awarding a sum of money until it is satisfied, the award shall be considered a forbearance of credit, regardless of whether the award in fact pertained to one.[10] To be consistent with the foregoing, the interest on the monetary awards shall then be fixed at 6% per annum, until the damages are fully paid. | |||||