CASE DIGEST: TAN V. OMC (G.R. NO. 190521)

Date Published:
  1. [NO RECOMMENDED CITATION]
  2. PJP UNDOCKETED: This content is yet to be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris.
CASE DIGEST: LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER, ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN, CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY JOY TAN, and MARK ALLAN TAN, represented herein by their mother, LETICIA TAN, Petitioners, vs. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO ARAMBALA, Respondents.

FACTS:

Respondent OMC Carriers owned a truck, driven by respondent Arambala, which crashed into the home of petitioners Tan when its braking mechanism failed. This caused the death of the head of the family, Celedonio Tan. The Tans went to court to demand damages due to the negligence of OMC. OMC counters that the truck went out of control because of motor oil spilled on the road. The RTC found OMC to be liable, that the brake of the truck malfunctioned, and that there was no motor oil which caused the accident. The driver, Aramballa, abandoned the truck when the brakes did not work which caused the truck to slam into the home of the Tans. The RTC awarded actual damages, both on the loss of property and earning capacity of Celedonio. Exemplary damages were also awarded. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the actual damages for loss of property was reduced as they were insufficiently substantiated. The damages for loss of earning capacity was deleted for being totally unsubstantiated. The Tans were unable to present documents to ascertain the amount of earning capacity lost. Exemplary damages were also reduced.

ISSUES:
  1. Was the reduction of actual damages for loss of property proper?
  2. Was the removal of actual damages for loss of earning capacity proper?
  3. Was the reduction of exemplary damages proper?
HELD:

Temperate damages are awarded when the exact amount of damages is unknown. The petitioners clearly suffered damages. Their home and property were damaged. The provider of the family passed away. It is clear and undisputed that they did suffer losses. However, since the value of the properties damaged could not be determined with certainty because of the nature of the property, temperate damages are in order. Also, even if there are no documents supporting the earning capacity of the deceased, the damage caused is still undisputed. Temperate damages must be awarded. The reduction of exemplary damages are proper as exemplary damages are not meant to enrich or reduce another party to poverty.