Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA v. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION +

digest

Uploaded by

ahdjjava1111
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views2 pages

HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA v. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION +

digest

Uploaded by

ahdjjava1111
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K.

OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY


B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA v. G & S TRANSPORT
CORPORATION +

FACTS:
Jose Marcial K. Ochoa (Jose Marcial) died while on board an Avis taxicab owned
and operated by G & S Transport Corporation (G & S), a common carrier.At the
Manila Domestic Airport, the late Jose Marcial K. Ochoa boarded and rode a
taxicab, a passenger vehicle for hire owned and operated by defendant
corporation under the business name “Avis Coupon Taxi” (Avis) and driven by its
employee and authorized driver Bibiano Padilla, Jr. on his way home to Teacher’s
Village, Diliman, Quezon City. While it was cruising along [EDSA], and while going
up the Boni Serrano (Santolan) fly-over, it overtook another cab driven by Pablo
Clave and tried to pass another vehicle, a ten-wheeler cargo truck. the Avis cab
was unable to pass the narrow road and because of its speed, its driver (Padilla)
was unable to control it. To avoid colliding with the truck, Padilla turned the wheel
to the left causing his taxicab to ram the railing throwing itself off the fly-over and
fell on the middle surface of EDSA below. The forceful drop of the vehicle on the
floor of the road broke and split it into two parts. Both driver Padilla and
passenger Jose Marcial K. Ochoa were injured and rushed to the hospital. At the
East Avenue Medical Center, Ochoa was not as lucky as Padilla who was alive. He
was declared dead on arrival from the accident.
Jose Marcial’s wife, Ruby Bueno Ochoa, and his two minor children, Micaela B.
Ochoa and Jomar B. Ochoa (the heirs), through counsel, sent G & S a letter
demanding that the latter indemnify them for Jose Marcial’s death, his loss of
earning capacity, and funeral expenses in the total amount of P15,000,000.00. As
G & S failed to heed the same, the heirs filed a Complaint for Damages before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for having breached the contract of
common carriage.
In its answer, G & S posited that the proximate cause of Jose Marcial’s death is a
fortuitous event and/or the fault or negligence of the driver of the delivery van
that hit the taxicab.
The trial court rendered decision in favor of the heirs of Marcial Ochoa.
However, for lack of receipts or any proof of funeral expenses and other actual
damages, the trial court denied the heirs’ claim for actual damages. It also denied
them moral and exemplary damages for lack of legal basis.G & S filed a Notice of
Appeal11 while the heirs filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration.The heirs
averred that they are entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 176413 in
relation to Article 2206(3)14 of the Civil Code. They also cited applicable
jurisprudence providing that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit
predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage where the mishap results in the
death of the passenger. With respect to their claim for exemplary damages, the
heirs relied upon Article 2232 of the Civil Code. Trial Court found merit in the
heirs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration and thus declared them entitled to moral
and exemplary damages. And rendered decision:
In an appeal,The CA ruled in favor of the heirs. CA noted that Padilla failed to
employ reasonable foresight, diligence and care needed to exempt G & S from
liability for Jose Marcial’s death.
However, with respect to the award of P6,537,244.96 for Jose Marcial’s loss of
earning capacity, the CA declared the same unwarranted.

ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in removing the award for loss of earning
capacity on the ground that the Certification issued by USAID is self-serving,
unreliable and biased and reducing the amount of moral damages.
RULING: YES. The court disagree with the ruling of the CA.

ANALYSIS: The CA sweepingly concluded that the USAID Certification is self-


serving and unreliable without elaborating on how it was able to arrive at such a
conclusion. A research on USAID reveals that it is the “principal [United States]
agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to
escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.” It is an “independent
federal government agency that receives over-all foreign policy guidance from the
Secretary of the State [of the United States].” Given this background, it is highly
improbable that such an agency will issue a certification containing unreliable
information regarding an employee’s income. Besides, there exists a presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed. Absent any showing to the
contrary, it is presumed that Cruz, as Chief of Human Resources Division of
USAID, has regularly performed his duty relative to the issuance of said
certification and therefore, the correctness of its contents can be relied upon. This
presumption remains especially so where the authenticity, due execution and
correctness of said certification have not been put in issue either before the trial
court or the CA. As to its being self-serving, our discussion on “self-serving
evidence” in Heirs of Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano v. Heirs of Irene B. Bien is
enlightening, viz:‘Self-serving evidence,’ perhaps owing to its descriptive
formulation, is a concept much misunderstood. Not infrequently, the term is
employed as a weapon to devalue and discredit a party’s testimony favorable to
his cause. That, it seems, is the sense in which petitioners are using it now. This is
a grave error. “Self-serving evidence” is not to be taken literally to mean any
evidence that serves its proponent’s interest. The term, if used with any legal
sense, refers only to acts or declarations made by a party in his own interest at
some place and time out of court

Art. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded


in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Articles
2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach
of contract by a common carrier.

Art. 2206. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and the
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

You might also like