Mendoza vs. Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 164012, June 08, 2007
FA!S"
At around 1:00 a.m., July 14, 1997, Sonny Soriano, while crossing Commonwealth Avenue near u!on Avenue in "ue!on City, was hit #y a s$eeding %amaraw %amaraw &' driven #y omer (acasasa. Soriano was thrown )ve meters away, away, while the vehicle only sto$$ed sto$$ed some *+ meters meters rom the $oint o im$act. im$act. -erard -erard illas$in, illas$in, one o Soriano/ Soriano/ss com$anions, ased (acasasa to #ring Soriano to the hos$ital, #ut aer checing out the scene o the incident, (acasasa returned to to the &', only to 2ee. A school #us #rought Soriano to 3ast Avenue Avenue (edical Center Center where he later later died. Su#seuen Su#seuently tly,, the "ue!on "ue!on City 5rosecutor 5rosecutor recommende recommended d the )ling o a criminal criminal case or recless im$rudence resul6ng to homicide against (acasasa. n August *0, 1997, res$ondents (utya Soriano and Julie Ann Soriano, Soriano/s Soriano/s wie and daughter, daughter, res$ec6vely, )led a com$laint or damages against (acasasa and $e66oner &lordeli!a (endo!a, the registered owner o the vehicle. 8es$ondents $rayed that (acasasa and $e66oner #e ordered to $ay them: 5*00,000 moral damages 5+00,000 or lost income 5**,*+0 or uneral services 54+,000 or #urial lot 51+,1+0 or interment and la$ida 5,0;; or hos$itali!a6on, other medical and trans$orta6on trans$orta6on e<$enses 5*,+40 or ood and drins during the wae 5+0,000 et ound Soriano negligent or crossing Comm Common onwe weal alth th Aven Avenue ue #y usin using g a smal smalll ga$ in the the isla island nd//s enci encing ng rathe atherr than than the the $ede $edest stri rian an over$ass. 8es$ondents a$$ealed. %he Court o A$$eals reversed reversed the trial court #ut reduced $ayment #y twenty ?*0@ $er cent due to the $resence o contri#utory negligence #y the vic6m as $rovided or in Ar6cle *179 o the Civil Code. Bhile the a$$ellate court agreed that Soriano was negligent, it also ound (acasasa negligent or s$eeding, such that he was una#le una#le to avoid avoid hing the vic6m. vic6m. >t o#served o#served that Soriano/ Soriano/ss own negligence negligence did not $reclude $reclude recovery o damages rom (acasasa/s (acasasa/s negligence. negligence. >t urther held that since $e66oner ailed to $resent evidence evidence to the contrary, and conorma#ly with Ar6cle *10DE o the Civil Code, the $resum$6on o negligence o the em$loyer in the selec6on and su$ervision o em$loyees stood. Fence, $e66oner a$$ealed. #SS$%S" ?1BG 8egional 8egional %rial %rial Court has Hurisdic6on to try the case case and
?* BG there was suIcient legal #asis to award damages R$&#NG"
5e66oner argues that the amount claimed #y res$ondents is within the Hurisdic6on o the (etro$olitan (etro$olitan %rial Court and that the sum o these amounts, 5179,00;, 5179,00;, is #elow the Hurisdic6onal amount o the 8egional %rial %rial Court. She states that under Sec6on 19? o the Judiciary 8eorgani!a6on Act o 190, the ollowing claims o res$ondents must #e e
a=orney/s ees $lus 5+00 $er court a$$earance. ut relatedly, Administra6ve Circular Go. 09K94D1*E e<$ressly states: < < < < Fowever, in cases where the claim or damages is the main cause o ac6on, or one o the causes o ac6on, the amount o such claim shall #e considered in determining the Hurisdic6on o the court
Ac6ons or damages #ased on uasiKdelicts, as in this case, are $rimarily and eLec6vely ac6ons or the recovery o a sum o money or the damages or tor6ous acts. %hese money claims are the $rinci$al relies sought #y res$ondents in their com$laint or damages. Conseuently then, we hold that the 8egional %rial Court o Caloocan City $ossessed and $ro$erly en this case, we hold $e66oner $rimarily and solidarily lia#le or the damages caused #y (acasasa. 8es$ondents could recover directly rom $e66oner since $e66oner ailed to $rove that she e
