Facts
·
June 29, 1960,
Mario del Castillo, a deaf-mute, son of Severo del Castillo, and a passenger of
Bicol Transportation Company (Bitranco), operated by A.L. Ammen Transportation
Co., Inc. (ALATCO) at Casiguran, Sorsogon, fell upon alighting and died as a
result.
·
Sept 5, 1962
–Severo filed an action for the recovery of damages for Mario's death against the driver and conductor of the bus,
and the transportation companies. The Complaint alleged that Severo, a widower, was the sole heir.
·
Transportation
companies traversed the complaint by stating that:
o
bus
involved was owned by Bicol Transportation Co. alone;
o
two companies had
always exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees;
o
proximate cause
of Mario's death was his recklessness in jumping out of the bus while in
motion.
·
Plaintiff was
able to present his evidence and rest his case. Defendants proceeded with the
presentation of their witnesses until July 9, 1966 when they filed a
"Motion for Annulment of Proceedings after Feb 1, 1965", having
learned that Severo had died on Feb 1,
1965, at which time plaintiff had
not yet rested his case having done so only on Jan 28, 1966. The Court a quo directed plaintiff's counsel to verify the
existence of heirs and whether they were willing to be substituted as
parties-plaintiffs."
·
Plaintiff's
counsel filed a "Motion to Admit Amended Complaint" substituting Severo's son-in-law, one
Wenceslao Haloc, as party plaintiff by virtue of a "Deed of
Assignment" August 13, 1960:
SEVERO … assign…
unto HALOC rights he originally instituted for indemnity for the death of my
son the late Mario Castillo
·
The Amended
Complaint was admitted by the TC for lack of objection thereto on August 20,
1966.
·
Trial proceeded
with defendants closing their evidence on Nov 25, 1966.
·
RTC: rendered
judgment in defendants' favor dismissing the original and the amended
Complaints:
o
Since Severo died
before the conclusion of this case, this action died with him. Haloc is without
personality to continue this case. He is not even an heir of Severo del
Castillo.
·
Haloc appealed as
a pauper directly to this Court contending that the Decision is "contrary
to law."
·
Before this
instance, it is urged that the TC erred:
issues/ruling
won the case should be dismissed by virtue of
the death of Severo? no!
This is not a
case where the provisions of Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on
"death of a party" are applicable. Rather, it is a situation where plaintiff, while alive, had assigned his
rights to another, in which case, the proper procedure would have been
for the transferee to have been
substituted for the transferor as plaintiff.
The rights of
Severo to claim damages for his son were transferable. Severo had transferred his rights as plaintiff to Wenceslao Peaches Haloc
but after the assignment the case continued in Severo's name and there was no
immediate and formal substitution of party plaintiff. This is but a formality,
however, and the fact remains that, after the assignment, the substantial
plaintiff and real party in interest became Haloc, with Severo as a sort of
trustee of whatever fruits the litigation would bring.
The action did
not die with him: ... where an assignable right has been transferred before
action brought, the proceeding ought to be instituted in the name of the
assignee; and where an assignment is effect pendente lite, it is proper to have the assignee substituted for the
original plaintiff. If such substitution
should not be effected and the transfer of the right of action should not be
brought to the attention of the court, the original plaintiff, if successful in
the litigation, would hold the fruits of the action as a sort of trustee for
the use and benefit of his assignee
re: damages
Common carriers
are responsible for the death of their passengers (Arts 1764 and 2206 of the Civil
Code). This liability includes the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased. It appears proven that the defendant corporations failed to exercise
the diligence that was their duty to observe according to Arts 1733 and 1755.
The conductor was apprised of the fact that Mario del Castillo was deaf and
dumb. With this knowledge the conductor should have taken extra-ordinary care
for the safety of the said passenger. In this he failed.
The TC then
concluded that "under the circumstances obtaining in the case, the Severo
would be entitled to actual and moral damages but did not determine the amount
of damages because it dismissed the case.
Technicality
would require a remand of this case, for a determination of the amount of
damages [the total amount of P41K (P6K for death, and P35K for loss of earning
capacity), and AFs of P5K, were claimed].
But in order to
put an end to the controversy, we determine
the damages at P12K for the death of the victim, without interest, and P2K for AFs. Loss of earning capacity
in the amount of P35K has not been
proven specially considering that the victim was a deaf-mute.
dispositive
Defendants
ordered to pay Wenceslao Haloc, the amount of P12K as damages for death,
without interest, and P2K as attorney's fees.
0 comments:
Post a Comment