Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lamis vs. Ong
Lamis vs. Ong
Same; Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich the Court), and concurred in by Justice Renato C. Dacudao and Justice
claimant and impoverish the defendant but to serve as a Josefina Guevara-Salonga.
deterrent against, or as a negative incentive to curb, socially
deleterious actions.—We are convinced that the award of 513
exemplary damages should be reduced from P30,000.00 to VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 513
P25,000.00. Such damages are imposed not to enrich the Lamis vs. Ong
claimant and impoverish the defendant but to serve as a the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated June 28,
deterrent against, or as a negative incentive to curb, socially 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 61034, entitled “David Y. Ong,
deleterious actions. petitioner, versus Vicente Lamis and Sandigan
Attorney’s Fees; An award of P20,000 as attorney’s fee is Protective & Investigation Agency, Inc., respondents.”
deemed sufficient considering that the suit involved is merely
The facts as shown by the records are:
for damages.—An award of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fee is
Sandigan Protective and Investigation Agency, Inc.
deemed sufficient considering that the suit involved is
merely for damages. Attorney’s fees may be awarded when a (Sandigan), petitioner, was the security agency
party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his providing security services at the Manila Chinese
interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party, as Cemetery. The visiting hours were at 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
in the present case. p.m. Sandigan instructed the security guards not to
allow any one to enter the cemetery from 6:00 p.m. to 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6:00 a.m. ANNOTATED
On September 20, 1994, Vicente Lamis, also a Lamis vs. Ong
petitioner, was the guard assigned at the south gate of Subsequently, Sandigan paid Lamis’ mother the
the cemetery for the 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. slot. amount spent for his medical expenses. Meanwhile, he
Around 3:00 in the morning, a Mitsubishi Lancer, was given another job but he absented from work
with a PSM 679 plate, driven by David Y. Ong, herein without leave. Thus, he was suspended and eventually
respondent, arrived at the south gate of the cemetery. dismissed from the service.
He beeped his car and continued doing so, but Lamis did On March 16, 1994, respondent filed with the
not open the gate. Eventually, he went outside the gate Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Manila a complaint for
and informed respondent that being beyond visiting frustrated homicide against Lamis, docketed as
hours, he cannot enter the cemetery. Suddenly, Criminal Case No. 94-J-27836.
respondent accelerated the speed of his car, trying to Later, or on March 31, 1995, respondent also filed a
enter the cemetery. This irked Lamis. He closed the complaint for damages against both petitioners,
gate and took a shot gun entrusted to him by one of the docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73446. On March 20,
roving guards. 1998, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive
About thirty minutes thereafter, respondent’s car portion of which reads:
returned at full speed toward the closed gate where “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants
Lamis was standing. He fired a warning shot but Vicente Lamis and Sandigan Protective & Investigation
respondent did not stop his car. Lamis fired another Agency, Inc. are ordered to pay jointly and solidarily to
warning shot. Respondent then alighted from his car. plaintiff the following amounts:
Seeing it was closed, he got inside the car, but before he
could do so, Lamis shot him, hitting his right arm, left 1. 1.Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as
hip, and right waist. He managed to drive to the moral damages;
2. 2.Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as
Chinese General Hospital where he was examined and
exemplary damages;
treated. Thereafter, the hospital guard reported the
3. 3.Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as attorney’s
incident to the police who immediately conducted an fees, and;
investigation. 4. 4.The costs of suit.
Petitioner Sandigan conducted its own investigation
but did not turn over to the police the firearm used by The respective counterclaims of the defendants are
Lamis. dismissed for lack of merit.
514 SO ORDERED.” 2
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Our Supreme Court expostulated in ‘Maria A. Dulay, et
Decision affirming the trial court’s judgment, holding al. versus Court of Appeals, et al., 293 SCRA 720’ that the
that: law is not limited, in scope, to acts or omissions resulting
xxx from negligence. It also includes acts committed with
“We do not agree with the appellants (now petitioners). negligence and acts that are voluntary and intentional,
xxx whether such acts are delictual or not and whether or not the
defendant is prosecuted in a criminal case independently and
_______________ separately from the civil action instituted by the aggrieved
party for the recovery of damages against the offending party
2 Rollo at p. 96.
x x x.
515 xxx
VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 515 The next issue that comes to fore is whether or not
Lamis vs. Ong appellant Sandigan mustered the requisite quantum of
Indeed, the acts of appellant Lamis were not the result of evidence to prove that it exercised due diligence of a good
negligence but were deliberate and intentional constituting, father of a family in the selection and its supervision of its
as they were, delictual acts for which he was even charged of employees to prevent damage/injuries.
‘Frustrated Homicide’ in ‘People versus Vicente xxx
Lamis, Criminal Case No. 94-J-27836’ (Exhibit ‘H’). Hence, In the present recourse, appellant Sandigan failed to
we agree with the court a quo that appellant Lamis’ plea of discharge its burden. The appellant relied solely on a copy of
having acted in complete self-defense in shooting the its Rules and Regulations, Exhibit ‘1,’ and the testimony of
appellee with two (2) guns and, hence, not civilly liable to the Salvador Manansala to discharge its burden.
appellee, is barren of merit. xxx
xxx 516
The appellants fault the court a quo for not giving 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
approbation to appellant Lamis’ plea of having acted in self- ANNOTATED
defense. But, then, case law has it that the findings of facts
of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence
Lamis vs. Ong
of the parties, the probative weight accorded by the court a Appellant Sandigan’s utter neglect was made more
quo of the evidence of the parties and its conclusions pronounced when it failed to adduce in evidence any copy of
anchored on its findings, are accorded by the Appellate its Report on the shooting incident involving appellant
Court, high respect, if not, conclusive effect, because of the Lamis. Neither did it surrender to the police authorities the
unique advantage of the trial court of observing, at close, .38 caliber gun and shotgun used by appellant Lamis in
range, the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses as they shooting the appellee.
regale the court with their respective testimonies. xxx
xxx
The appellants, however, plead that the awards for Anent the first and second issues, petitioners contend
damages be reduced because of the flagrant violation by the that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that: (a)
appellee of the curfew imposed by the management of the petitioner Lamis
cemetery. We are not inclined to agree to appellant’s plea. 517
We find and consider the awards by the court a VOL. 466, AUGUST 11, 2005 517
quo reasonable in the light of the factual milieu in the
Lamis vs. Ong
present recourse.”
did not act in self-defense, and (b) petitioner Sandigan
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the failed to prove that it exercised due diligence in the
Appellate Court denied the same in its Resolution dated selection and supervision of its security guards.
June 28, 2001. The first two issues are obviously questions of fact.
Hence, the instant petition for review Certainly, such matters mainly require a calibration of
on certiorari raising the following issues: the evidence or a determination of the credibility of the
“I witnesses presented by the parties and the existence
and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances,
WHETHER, CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON their relation to each other and to the whole, and the
RECORD, THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY
probabilities of the situation.
3
HELD PETITIONER SANDIGAN LIABLE DESPITE THE jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is
FACT THAT SANDIGAN EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE limited to the review and rectification of errors of law
IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS committed by the lower court.
SECURITY GUARDS.
Moreover, it is doctrinally-settled that where the
III trial court’s factualfindings are adopted and affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, the same are
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS, DESPITE final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by this
LACK OF BASIS TO SUPPORT ANY FINDING OF Court. It bears emphasis that in the appreciation of
5
LIABILITY AGAINST PETITIONERS, CORRECTLY evidence, the Appellate Court accords due deference to
AWARDED DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT.” the trial court’s factual findings because the latter had
the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses when they testified during the trial and, one is responsible.” Thus, petitioner Sandigan, being
7
therefore, is in a better position to determine their the employer of petitioner Lamis, is likewise liable for
credibility. Thus, we find no compelling reason to
6 damages caused by the latter. 8
SCRA 145.
attorney’s fee in the amount of P50,000.00. These
6 Bañas vs. Asia Pacific Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 128703, amounts are quite excessive. We have held that
October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 527; Philippine National Bank vs. Court although the trial court is given the discretion to
of Appeals, G.R. No. 81524, February 4, 2000, 324 SCRA 714, citing determine the amount of such damages, the appellate
518 court may modify or change the amount awarded when
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS it is inordinate, as in this case.
9
_______________
ANNOTATED
Lamis vs. Ong People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 (1997); People vs.
tual findings and conclusion of law by the Court of Topaguen, 269 SCRA 601 (1997).
7 Paragraph 1, Article 2180, Civil Code of the Philippines.
Appeals relative to the first and second issues. 8 Paragraphs 4 & 5, Id.
With respect to the third issue, petitioners maintain 9 YHT Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126780,
that there is no legal basis for the trial court’s award of February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 638; Leyson vs. Bontuyan, G.R. No.
damages. 156357, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 94; De Castro vs. Court of
As earlier stated, the trial court found that Lamis’ Appeals, 384 SCRA 607(2002).
hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair Finally, an award of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fee is
and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each deemed sufficient considering that the suit involved is
case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. Trial merely for damages. Attorney’s fees may be awarded
courts are given discretion in determining the amount, when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses
with the limitation that it should not be palpably and to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of
scandalously excessive. We hold that an award to
14 the other party, as in the present case.
16
521