Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 147791 September 8, 2006CONSTRUCTION DEE!OPMENT CORPOR"TION O# T$E P$I!IPPINES, petitioner, vs.RE%ECC" G. ESTRE!!", R"C$E! E. #!ETC$ER, P$I!IPPINE P$OENI& SURET' ( INSUR"NCE INC., %"T"NG"S !"GUN" T"'"%"S %US CO., )*+ ,I!#REDO D"TINGUINOO, respondents.D! I S I O N'N"RES-S"NTI"GO, J..This petition for revie" assails the March #$, #%%& Decision& of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'().R. !V No. *+,$+, "hich affir-ed "ith -odification the Februar. $, &$$/ Decision# of the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 1ranch &/, in !ivil !ase No. R(,#(#&/2, findin0 1atan0as 3a0una Ta.abas 1us !o. 413T15 and !onstruction Develop-ent !orporation of the Philippines 4!D!P5 liable for da-a0es.The antecedent facts are as follo"s6On Dece-ber #$, &$2,, respondents Rebecca ). strella and her 0randdau0hter, Rachel . Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo !it., a 13T1 bus bound for Pasa. !it.. 7o"ever, the. never reachedtheir destination because their bus "as ra--ed fro- behind b. a tractor(truc8 of !D!P in the South9press"a.. The stron0 i-pact pushed for"ard their seats and pinned their 8nees to the seats in front of the-. The. re0ained consciousness onl. "hen rescuers created a hole in the bus and e9tricated their le0s fro- under the seats. The. "ere brou0ht to the Ma8ati Medical !enter "here the doctors dia0nosed their in:uries to be as follo"s6Medical !ertificate of Rebecca strellaFracture, left tibia -id /rd3acerated "ound, chin!ontusions "ith abrasions, left lo"er le0Fracture, +th and 2th ribs, ri0ht/Medical !ertificate of Rachel Fletcher9tensive lacerated "ounds, ri0ht le0 posterior aspect popliteal areaand antero(lateral aspect -id lo"er le0 "ith severance of -uscles.Partial a-putation 1; left le0 "ith severance of 0astro(soleus andantero(lateral co-part-ent of lo"er le0.Fracture, open co--inuted, both tibial*Thereafter, respondents filed a !o-plaint< for da-a0es a0ainst !D!P, 13T1, spiridion Pa.unan, =r. and >ilfredo Datin0uinoo before the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 1ranch &/. The. alle0ed 4&5 that Pa.unan, =r. and Datin0uinoo, "ho "ere the drivers of !D!P and 13T1 buses, respectivel., "ere ne0li0ent and did not obe. traffic la"s? 4#5 that 13T1 and !D!P did not e9ercise the dili0ence of a 0ood father of a fa-il. in the selection and supervision of their e-plo.ees? 4/5 that 13T1 allo"ed its bus to operate 8no"in0 that it lac8ed proper -aintenance thus e9posin0 its passen0ers to 0rave dan0er? 4*5 that the. suffered actual da-a0es a-ountin0 to P#6e 2176 o7 t2e C3536 Co+e.1? I* t234 re8)r+, "rt3>6e 2180 pro53+e4 t2)t t2e ob638)t3o* 3mpo4e+ b: "rt3>6e 2176 34 +em)*+)b6e 7or t2e )>t4 or om3443o*4 o7 t2o4e per4o*4 7or 12om o*e 34 re4po*43b6e. Co*4eA9e*t6:, )* )>t3o* b)4e+ o* A9)43-+e63>t m): be 3*4t3t9te+ )8)3*4t t2e emp6o:er 7or )* emp6o:eet or om3443o*. T2e 63)b363t: 7or t2e *e8638e*t >o*+9>t o7 t2e 49bor+3*)te 34 direct )*+ primary, b9t 34 49bBe>t to t2e +e7e*4e o7 +9e +3638e*>e 3* t2e 4e6e>t3o* )*+ 49per5343o* o7 t2e emp6o:ee.14 I* t2e 3*4t)*t >)4e, t2e tr3)6 >o9rt 7o9*+ t2)t pet3t3o*er 7)36e+ to pro5e t2)t 3t e=er>34e+ t2e +3638e*>e o7 ) 8oo+ 7)t2er o7 ) 7)m36: 3* t2e 4e6e>t3o* )*+ 49per5343o* o7 P):9*)*, Cr.The trial court and the !ourt of 'ppeals found petitioner solidaril. liable "ith 13T1 for the actual da-a0es suffered b. respondents because of the in:uries the. sustained. It "as established that Pa.unan, =r. "as drivin0 rec8lessl. because of the s8id -ar8s as sho"n in the s8etch of the police investi0ator.It is "ell(settled in Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,&< that the o"ner of the other vehicle "hich collided "ith a co--on carrier is solidaril. liable to the in:ured passen0er of the sa-e. >e held, thus6The sa-e rule of liabilit. "as applied in situations "here the ne0li0ence of the driver of the bus on "hich plaintiff "as ridin0 concurred "ith the ne0li0ence of a third part. "ho "as the driver of another vehicle, thus causin0 an accident. In Anuran v. Buo, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermeiate Appellate Court, and !etro !anila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, t2e b94 >omp)*:, 3t4 +r35er, t2e oper)tor o7 t2e ot2er 5e23>6e )*+ t2e +r35er o7 t2e 5e23>6e 1ere Bo3*t6: )*+ 4e5er)66: 2e6+ 63)b6e to t2e 3*B9re+ p)44e*8er or t2e 6)ttere t2)t t2e 63)b363t: o7 pet3t3o*er Db94 o1*erE 4pr3*84 7rom >o*tr)>t 1236e t2)t o7 re4po*+e*t4 Do1*er )*+ +r35er o7 ot2er 5e23>6eE )r34e4 7rom quasi-delict.'s earl. as &$&/, "e alread. ruled in )utierreH vs. )utierreH, )94e4 o7 )>t3o* )*+ Bo3* )4 m)*: p)rt3e4 )4 m): be 63)b6e o* 49>2 >)94e4 o7 )>t3o* 4o 6o*8 )4 pr35)te re4po*+e*t )*+ 2er >o-p6)3*t3774 +o *ot re>o5er t13>e 7or t2e 4)me 3*B9r:. >hat is clear fro- the cases is the intent of the plaintiff there to recover fro- both thecarrier and the driver, thus :ustif.in0 the holdin0 that the carrier and the driver "ere :ointl. and severall. liable because their separate and distinct acts concurred to produce the sa-e in:ur..&+4-phasis supplied5In a I:ointI obli0ation, each obli0or ans"ers onl. for a part of the "hole liabilit.? in a Isolidar.I or I:oint and severalI obli0ation, the relationship bet"een the active and the passive sub:ects is so close that each of the- -ust co-pl. "ith or de-and the fulfill-ent of the "hole obli0ation. In Lafarge Cement v. Continental Cement Corporation,&2 "e reiterated that :oint tort feasors are :ointl. and severall. liable for the tort "hich the. co--it. !itin0 #orcester v. $campo,&, "e held that69 9 9 The difficult. in the contention of the appellants is that the. fail to reco0niHe that the basis of the present action is tort. The. fail to reco0niHe the universal doctrine that each :oint tort feasor is not onl. individuall. liable for the tort in "hich he participates, but is also :ointl. liable "ith his tort feasors. 9 9 9It -a. be stated as a 0eneral rule that :oint tort feasors are all the persons "ho co--and, insti0ate, pro-ote, encoura0e, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the co--ission of a tort, or "ho approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. The. are each liable as principals, to the sa-e e9tent and in the sa-e -anner as if the. had perfor-ed the "ron0ful act the-selves. 9 9 9=oint tort feasors are :ointl. and severall. liable for the tort "hich the. co--it. The persons in:ured -a. sue all of the- or an. nu-ber less than all. ach is liable for the "hole da-a0escaused b. all, and all to0ether are :ointl. liable for the "hole da-a0e. It is no defense for onesued alone, that the others "ho participated in the "ron0ful act are not :oined "ith hi- as defendants? nor is it an. e9cuse for hi- that his participation in the tort "as insi0nificant as co-pared to that of the others. 9 9 9=oint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The da-a0es cannot be apportioned a-on0 the-, e9cept a-on0 the-selves. The. cannot insist upon an apportion-ent, for the purpose of each pa.in0 an aliCuot part. The. are :ointl. and severall. liable for the "hole a-ount. 9 9 9' pa.-ent in full for the da-a0e done, b. one of the :oint tort feasors, of course satisfies an.clai- "hich -i0ht e9ist a0ainst the others. There can be but satisfaction. The release of one of the :oint tort feasors b. a0ree-ent 0enerall. operates to dischar0e all. 9 9 9Of course the court durin0 trial -a. find that so-e of the alle0ed tort feasors are liable and that others are not liable. The courts -a. release so-e for lac8 of evidence "hile conde-nin0 others of the alle0ed tort feasors. 'nd this is true even thou0h the. are char0ed :ointl. and severall..&$Petitioner@s clai- that para0raph # of the dispositive portion of the trial court@s decision is a-bi0uous and arbitrar. and also entitles respondents to recover t"ice is "ithout basis. In the bod. of the trial court@s decision, it "as clearl. stated that petitioner and its driver Pa.unan, =r., are :ointl. and solidaril. liable for -oral da-a0es in the a-ount of Po*>ept, )* )ttor*e:o9rt to be p)3+ b: t2e 6o43*8 p)rt: 3* ) 63t38)t3o*. The basis of this is an. of the cases provided b. la" "here such a"ard can be -ade, such as those authoriHed in 'rticle ##%,, !ivil !ode, and 34 p):)b6e *ot to t2e 6)1:er b9t to t2e >63e*t, 9*6e44 t2e: 2)5e )8ree+ t2)t t2e )1)r+ 42)66 pert)3* to t2e 6)1:er )4 )++3t3o*)6 >ompe*4)t3o* or )4 p)rt t2ereo7.#, 4-phasis supplied5In the instant case, the !ourt of 'ppeals correctl. a"arded attorne.@s fees and other e9penses of liti0ation as the. -a. be recovered as actual or co-pensator. da-a0es "hen e9e-plar. da-a0es are a"arded? "hen the defendant acted in 0ross and evident bad faith in refusin0 to satisf. the plaintiff@s valid, :ust and de-andable clai-? and in an. other case "here the court dee-s it :ust and eCuitable that attorne.@s fees and e9penses of liti0ation should be recovered.#$Re0ardin0 the i-position of le0al interest at the rate of +D fro- the ti-e of the filin0 of the co-plaint, "e held in'astern ()ipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,/% that "hen an obli0ation, re0ardless of its source, i.e., la", contracts, Cuasi(contracts, delicts or Cuasi(delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for pa.-ent of interest in the concept of actual and co-pensator. da-a0es,/& sub:ect to the follo"in0 rules, to "it A&. >hen the obli0ation is breached, and it consists in the pa.-ent of a su- of -one., i.e., a loan or forbearance of -one., the interest due should be that "hich -a. have been stipulated in "ritin0. Further-ore, the interest due shall itself earn le0al interest fro- the ti-eit is :udiciall. de-anded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be D per annu- to be co-puted fro- default, i.e., fro- :udicial or e9tra:udicial de-and under and sub:ect to the provisions of 'rticle &&+$ of the !ivil !ode.#. >hen an obli0ation, not constitutin0 a loan or forbearance of -one., is breached, an interest on the a-ount of da-a0es a"arded -a. be i-posed at the discretion of the court atthe rate of +D per annum. No interest, ho"ever, shall be ad:ud0ed on unliCuidated clai-s or da-a0es e9cept "hen or until the de-and can be established "ith reasonable certaint.. 'ccordin0l., "here the de-and is established "ith reasonable certaint., the interest shall be0in to run fro- the ti-e the clai- is -ade :udiciall. or e9tra:udiciall. 4'rt. &&+$, !ivil !ode5but "hen such certaint. cannot be so reasonabl. established at the ti-e the de-and is -ade,t2e 3*tere4t 42)66 be83* to r9* o*6: 7rom t2e +)te t2e B9+8me*t o7 t2e >o9rt 34 m)+e /)t 123>2 t3me t2e A9)*t373>)t3o* o7 +)m)8e4 m): be +eeme+ to 2)5e bee* re)4o*)b6: )4>ert)3*e+0. The actual base for the co-putation of le0al interest shall, in an. case, be on the a-ount finall. ad:ud0ed./. ,2e* t2e B9+8me*t o7 t2e >o9rt )1)r+3*8 ) 49m o7 mo*e: be>ome4 73*)6 )*+ e=e>9tor:, t2e r)te o7 6e8)6 3*tere4t, 12et2er t2e >)4e 7)664 9*+er p)r)8r)p2 1 or p)r)8r)p2 2, )bo5e, 42)66 be 12F per )**9m 7rom 49>2 73*)63t: 9*t36 3t4 4)t347)>t3o*, t234 3*ter3m per3o+ be3*8 +eeme+ to be b: t2e* )* eA935)6e*t to ) 7orbe)r)*>e o7 >re+3t./# 4-phasis supplied5'ccordin0l., the le0al interest of +D shall be0in to run on Februar. $, &$$/ "hen the trial court rendered :ud0-ent and not on Februar. *, &$,% "hen the co-plaint "as filed. This is because at the ti-e of the filin0 of the co-plaint, the a-ount of the da-a0es to "hich plaintiffs -a. be entitled re-ains unliCuidated and un8no"n, until it is definitel. ascertained, assessed and deter-ined b. thecourt and onl. upon presentation of proof thereon.//Fro- the ti-e the :ud0-ent beco-es final and e9ecutor., the interest rate shall be D until its satisfaction.'nent the last issue of "hether petitioner can recover under its insurance polic. fro- Phoeni9, "e affir- the findin0s of both the trial court and the !ourt of 'ppeals, thus6's re0ards the liabilit. of Phoeni9, the court a Cuo correctl. ruled that defendant(appellant !D!P@s clai- a0ainst Phoeni9 alread. prescribed pursuant to Section /,* of P.D. +, as a-ended, "hich provides6'n. person havin0 an. clai- upon the polic. issued pursuant to this chapter shall, "ithout an. unnecessar. dela., present to the insurance co-pan. concerned a "ritten notice of clai- settin0 forth the nature, e9tent and duration of the in:uries sustained as certified b. a dul. licensed ph.sician. Notice of clai- -ust be filed "ithin si9 -onths fro- date of the accident, other"ise, the clai- shall be dee-ed "aived. 'ction or suit for recover. of da-a0e due to loss or in:ur. -ust be brou0ht inproper cases, "ith the !o--issioner or !ourts "ithin one .ear fro- denial of the clai-, other"ise, the clai-ant@s ri0ht of action shall prescribe. 4's a-ended b. PD &,&*, 1P ,2*.5/*The la" is clear and leaves no roo- for interpretation. ' "ritten notice of clai- -ust be filed "ithin si9 -onths fro- the date of the accident. Since petitioner never -ade an. clai- "ithin si9 -onths fro- the date of the accident, its clai- has alread. prescribed.,$ERE#ORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'().R. !V No. *+,$+ dated March #$, #%%&, "hich -odified the Decision of the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 1ranch &/, in !ivil !ase No. R(,#(#&/2, is "##IRMED 13t2 t2e MODI#IC"TIONS that petitioner is held :ointl. and severall. liable to pa. 4&5 actual da-a0es in the a-ount of P2$,/