FACTS:

The case involves a vehicular collision between a Fuso truck and a Nissan Pathfinder on a dark and slippery highway. The collision resulted in the deaths of Spouses Roberto and Josephine Mangalinao and their daughter Marianne Mangalinao. It was found that the Fuso truck swerved into the lane of the Pathfinder, causing the collision. Both truck drivers were found to be at fault and reckless in their driving. The registered owner of the Fuso truck, Orix, was held liable for the deaths of the Pathfinder passengers. Orix appealed the decision, arguing that it was not the owner and operator of the Fuso at the time of the collision and should not be held responsible for compensating the minors. Orix also argued that the swerving of the Fuso truck was due to adverse driving conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings of reckless driving and held Orix liable for the deaths. The CA modified the damages awarded by the trial court. Orix and the other parties filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied. They then filed separate petitions for review. Orix argued that it should not be held responsible for compensating the minors. Orix also challenged the computation of loss of earning capacity.

The case involves a vehicular accident that resulted in the death of three individuals. The accident occurred when a truck owned by Orix and driven by Sonny collided with a truck driven by Loreto. Loreto's truck then collided with a car driven by Alfredo. As a result of the collision, the car was pushed into a deep canal, causing the death of Alfredo and two other passengers. The children of Alfredo filed a complaint for damages against Orix, Sonny, and Loreto.

The trial court found both Sonny and Loreto negligent in the operation of their respective trucks. It also held Orix solidarily liable as the registered owner of the truck driven by Sonny. The trial court awarded damages to the children of Alfredo and attorney's fees.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court's finding of negligence and solidary liability. However, the CA modified the damages awarded, increasing the amount. Both parties filed separate petitions for review before the Supreme Court.

The children of Alfredo argue in their petition that the CA erred in not considering the following: (a) the evidence on record shows that the truck driven by Sonny was tailgating; (b) the truck driven by Loreto was improperly loaded, which contributed to the accident; (c) the trial court should have considered the testimony of a certain witness, Mrs. Pineda, even if the witness did not personally see the accident; (d) the marriage contract between Loreto and his wife, Lizette, is inadmissible since it was a photocopy and inconsistent with the original marriage contract presented by Alfredo for the year 1989; and (e) the award of attorney's fees sustained by the CA is not justified and is exorbitant.

Sonny and Antonio, on the other hand, argue in their petition that the CA erred: (a) in affirming the trial court's finding that the Isuzu was tailgating, which is contradicted by the material evidence on record; (b) in not considering that Loreto's gross negligence was the proximate cause of the victims' death; (c) in not applying the 'emergency rule' which should have absolved Antonio from liability; and (d) in awarding damages and attorney's fees without evidence to substantiate them.

Both sets of petitioners seek the review of the CA's finding of negligence by both truck drivers, the solidary liability of Orix, and the damages awarded in favor of the Mangalinao children.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the finding of negligence against the petitioners is binding and not subject to review.

2. Whether the driver of the Isuzu truck was also negligent in the collision.

3. Whether the Isuzu truck is without fault in the collision.

4. Whether Orix, as the operator on record of the Fuso Truck, is liable for the damages caused by the truck.

5. Whether the formula for computing the loss of earning capacity can be used using the 1989 income statement alone.

6. Whether the award of temperate damages is reasonable.

7. Whether the award of moral damages is justified.

8. Whether the award of exemplary damages is proper.

9. Whether the award of attorney's fees is reasonable.

RULING:

1. The finding of negligence against the petitioners is binding and not subject to review. Negligence and proximate cause are factual issues, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The concurrence of the findings of fact of the lower courts is conclusive. Questions of law, not questions of fact, are reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari.

2. The driver of the Isuzu truck was also negligent in the collision. The helper's statement given to the police indicated that the Fuso truck lost control and skidded to the left, blocking the way of the Pathfinder. The Isuzu driver's claim that he was three cars away from the Pathfinder and traveling at 50-60 kph does not absolve him from negligence. Abruptly hitting the brakes in a major highway without slowing down or moving to the shoulder was negligent, especially considering that vehicles are highly likely to be at the driver's rear. The collision was a natural consequence of the Isuzu driver's negligence.

3. The Isuzu truck is not without fault in the collision. The evidence shows that the front of the Isuzu truck was smashed into the rear of the Nissan Pathfinder with strong impact, causing extensive damage to both vehicles. The driver admitted that despite stepping on the brakes, the collision still occurred. Therefore, the driver failed to exercise proper care in driving and is liable for the collision.

4. Orix, as the operator on record of the Fuso Truck, is liable for the damages caused by the truck. Regardless of whoever Orix claims to be the actual owner of the truck, it is primarily responsible for the damages or injuries caused by the truck. The registered owner cannot evade responsibility by proving the alleged real owner. The law aims to protect victims of recklessness on the roads, and allowing registered owners to escape liability would render that protection illusory. Orix can seek indemnity from the real owner, but it is ultimately responsible for the damages.

5. The formula for computing the loss of earning capacity cannot be used using the 1989 income statement alone, especially when it was not authenticated by the proper party. The Court of Appeals (CA) recognized this and did not solely rely on the income statement.

6. The award of temperate damages for loss of earning capacity is reasonable considering that the Mangalinao heirs suffered loss deserving of compensation, even if the net income was not sufficiently established.

7. The award of moral damages is justified since the children of the deceased suffered the pain and ordeal of losing their parents and sibling. However, the amount is reduced to P500,000.00.

8. Exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Since the reckless driving of the trucks caused the deaths of the victims, the award of exemplary damages is proper but reduced to P200,000.00.

9. Attorney's fees of P50,000.00 are deemed sufficient and reasonable since exemplary damages are awarded and in consideration of the equity that expenses of litigation should be recovered.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the concurrence of the findings of fact of the lower courts is conclusive.

• Negligence and proximate cause are factual issues.

• Questions of law, not questions of fact, are reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari.

• Abruptly hitting the brakes in a major highway without slowing down or moving to the shoulder can be considered negligent.

• The "Emergency Rule" states that a person who suddenly finds themselves in a place of danger and has no time to consider the best means to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if they fail to adopt what may later appear to be a better method, unless the emergency is brought about by their own negligence.

• Registered owners of vehicles are primarily liable for damages or injuries caused by their vehicles, regardless of who the actual owner may be. They cannot evade responsibility by disproving ownership. They have a right to seek indemnity from the real owner.

• Formula for computing loss of earning capacity cannot be used if income statement is not sufficiently established and authenticated by the proper party.

• Temperate damages may be awarded in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where there is plain establishment of earning capacity but no evidence presented to support the actual income.

• Moral damages are awarded to alleviate the moral suffering of the injured party and must be proportional to the suffering inflicted.

• Exemplary damages may be granted in quasi-delicts if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

• Attorney's fees may be granted if exemplary damages are awarded and in consideration of the recovery of litigation expenses.