561 Phil. 739
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
WHEREFORE, the trial Court's decision dated March 9, 2001 is affirmed, subject to the modification that the amount of actual damages, for which both defendants-appellees are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs-appellants, is increased to P16,069.40. Furthermore, defendant-appellee Dr. Ilao-Oreta is also held liable to pay plaintiff-appellants the following:Hence, the present Petition for Review[9] of Dr. Ilao-Oreta raising the following arguments:
(a) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(b) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(c) P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER TO HAVE ACTED WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS.[10]"Gross negligence" implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[14] It is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.[15]
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN AWARDING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS.[11]
THE COURT A QUO [ERRED] IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES TO RESPONDENTS.[12]
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN INCREASING THE AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.[13]
Noel admitted that indeed Dr. Ilao-Oreta called him up after she arrived in Manila as related by her.[18]
[ATTY SINJAN] Q: So, can you tell us the reason why you missed that operation? [DR. ILAO-ORETA] A: When I scheduled her for the surgery, I looked at my ticket and so I was to leave Hawaii on April 4 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, so I was computing 12 hours of travel including stop-over, then probably I would be in Manila early morning of April 5, then I have so much time and I can easily do the case at 2:00 o'clock, you know it skipped my mind the change in time. Q: So when you arrived at 10:00 [PM] in Manila, what did you do? A: I called immediately the hospital and I talked with the nurses, I asked about the patient, Mrs. Ronquillo, and they told me that she has already left at around 7:00. Q: And after calling the hospital, what happened? A: I wanted to call the plaintiffs, but I didn't have their number at that time, so in the morning I went to my office early at 8:00 and looked for her chart, because her telephone number was written in the chart. So, I called them right away. Q: Were you able to contact them? A: I was able to reach Mr. Ronquillo. Q: In the course of your conversation, what did you tell Mr. Ronquillo? A: I apologized to him, I said I was sorry about the time that I missed the surgery, and I told him that I can do the case right that same day without Mrs. Ronquillo having to undergo another [b]arium enema. Q: What else did you tell him, if any? A: I asked him whether I can talk with Mrs. Ronquillo because I wanted to apologize to her personally. Q: And what did he say? A: I could hear on the background that Mrs. Ronquillo was shouting angrily that she didn't want to talk to me, and that she didn't want re-scheduling of the surgery . . . ATTY LONTOK: May we move, your Honor, for the striking out of the answer, this is purely hearsay. COURT: Remain on the record. WITNESS [DR. ILAO-ORETA]: . . . and then Mr. Ronquillo told me "I'm sorry, Dra., we cannot re-schedule the surgery."[17] (Underscoring supplied)
Although petitioner failed to take into consideration the time difference between the Philippines and Hawaii, the situation then did not present any clear and apparent harm or injury that even a careless person may perceive. Unlike in situations where the Supreme Court had found gross negligence to exist, petitioner could not have been conscious of any foreseeable danger that may occur since she actually believed that she would make it to the operation that was elective in nature, the only purpose of which was to determine the real cause of infertility and not to treat and cure a life threatening disease. Thus, in merely fixing the date of her appointment with respondent Eva Marie Ronquillo, petitioner was not in the pursuit or performance of conduct which any ordinary person may deem to probably and naturally result in injury,[19] (Underscoring in original)thus persuades.
Finally, Dr. Ilao-Oreta's prayer for the reduction of actual damages is well-taken. Article 2201 of the Civil Code provides:
ATTY. SINJIAN: Q: Isn't it true that before instituting this present case, you did not make any demand on Dr. Ilao-Oreta regarding the claims which you have allegedly incurred, because of the failed laparoscopic surgery operation? A [EVA MARIE]: I will tell the truth. Dr. Augusto Reyes of St. Luke's . . . Q: But did you demand? A: No, I did not demand because... ATTY. SINJIAN: That will be all, your Honor. ATTY. LONTOK: The witness is still explaining. WITNESS: I'm explaining first. Dr. Augusto Reyes told me that he will hold the meeting for me and Dr. Oreta to settle things and reimburse all the money that I spent from the hospital, and he even suggested Dr. Oreta to personally talk to me. ATTY. SINJIAN: Q: So it was to Dr. Augusto Reyes that you talked? A: Yes. Q: But you did not demand anything or write to Dr. Oreta? A: No. Q: Before instituting this case? A: No.[23] (Underscoring supplied)
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those which are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.In fixing the amount of actual damages, the Court of Appeals and the trial court included expenses which the spouses incurred prior to April 5, 1999 when the breach of contract complained of occurred.[24] The Court of Appeals also included the alleged P300 spent on fuel consumption from the spouses' residence at San Pascual, Batangas to the St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon City and the alleged P500 spent on food in the hospital canteen, both of which are unsubstantiated by independent or competent proof.[25] The only piece of documentary evidence supporting the food and fuel expenses is an unsigned listing.[26] As the fuel and food expenses are not adequately substantiated, they cannot be included in the computation of the amount of actual damages. So Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[27] instructs:
In the instant case, the actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Themistocles Ruguero, the vice president for administration of Panacor. In his testimony, the witness affirmed that Panacor incurred losses, specifically, in terms of training and seminars, leasehold acquisition, procurement of vehicles and office equipment without, however, adducing receipts to substantiate the same. The documentary evidence marked as Exhibit "W," which was an ordinary private writing allegedly itemizing the capital expenditures and losses from the failed operation of Panacor, was not testified to by any witness to ascertain the veracity of its content. Although the lower court fixed the sum of P4,520,000.00 as the total expenditures incurred by Panacor, it failed to show how and in what manner the same were substantiated by the claimant with reasonable certainty. Hence, the claim for actual damages should be received with extreme caution since it is only based on bare assertion without support from independent evidence. Premiere's failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[28] (Underscoring supplied)The list of expenses cannot replace receipts when they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions[29] as in the case of purchase of gasoline and of food.
x x x x | ||
GROSS HOSPITAL CHARGES | 2,416.50 | |
4/5/1999 | 1699460 DEPOSIT-OFFICIAL | |
RECEIPT | (5,000.00) | |
(5,000.00) | ||
________ | ||
4/5/1999 SECOND 0284893 | UNUSED MED 0439534 (65.55) | |
FLOOR | HINOX 500 MG CAP | |
SECOND 0284894 | UNUSED MED 0439893 (62.25) | |
FLOOR | PHENERGAN 2 ML | |
50MG ______ | (127.80) | |
BALANCE DUE | (2,711.30)[30] | |
======= |