ROSITA V. LIM, ON HER BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN JENNIFER, LYSANDER AND BEVERLIE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. LUIS TAN, ALFONSO TAN, EUSEBIO TAN, WILLIAM TAN, VICE…

Lim versus Tan

The Case

This is Lim versus Tan, a civil action for damages arising from the killing of Florentino Lim in Cagayan de Oro City in August 1973. Rosita Lim, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children Jennifer, Lysander and Beverlie, sued the Tan brothers and their co-accused for the death of her husband. The case matters because it draws the boundary between criminal and civil liability: it asks whether persons acquitted of murder may still be held civilly liable for the same killing, and it shows how the Supreme Court treats a trial court's findings of conspiracy when those findings rest on conjecture rather than competent evidence. It is also a working lesson on the proof required for actual, moral, exemplary and temperate damages.

Procedural History

The criminal case for murder and illegal possession of firearms was tried by Military Commission Number One, which in June 1976 convicted Luis Tan, Ang Tiat Chuan, Mariano Velez, Jr., Antonio Ocasiones, Leopoldo Nicolas and Marciano Benemerito, and acquitted Alfonso Tan, Eusebio Tan, William Tan, Vicente Tan, Joaquin Tan, Enrique Labita and Oscar Yaun. In February 1983 Rosita Lim filed the civil action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37. The Tan brothers moved to dismiss on grounds of improper venue and extinction of civil liability by reason of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals denied their petition for certiorari; and the Supreme Court affirmed. The case was later transferred to Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City for joint hearing with reopened criminal informations, but those proceedings were suspended when the Supreme Court, in Tan versus Barrios, ruled that the acquittal by the Military Commission could no longer be disturbed. The case returned to the Manila court, which rendered judgment in June 1999 awarding damages, and denied reconsideration in February 2000. The Tan brothers and Ang Tiat Chuan appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Florentino Lim was gunned down in Cagayan de Oro City on August 25, 1973. Criminal informations for murder and illegal possession of firearms were filed against several accused, including the Tan brothers, before the military courts, and the case was assigned to Military Commission Number One. After trial, the Military Commission convicted Luis Tan, Ang Tiat Chuan, Mariano Velez, Jr., Antonio Ocasiones, Leopoldo Nicolas and Marciano Benemerito, and acquitted the rest, among them Alfonso, Eusebio, William, Vicente and Joaquin Tan, Enrique Labita and Oscar Yaun.

In February 1983 Rosita Lim and her children sued for damages. The parties agreed to adopt the entire record of the criminal case, and no additional evidence was presented except the deposition of Rosita Lim. On that record the trial court found that all the Tan brothers took part in a grand conspiracy to kill Florentino Lim, reasoning that the Tan family was a closely-knit group that decided major matters only after consultation, that Manuel Wee overheard a meeting and saw Alfonso Tan press a finger to his lips for silence, that the state witness Manuel Beleta implicated Alfonso and Eusebio Tan, that Eusebio Tan asked investigators to drop the brothers' names, and that William Tan, though in Manila, could have been consulted by telephone.

The trial court held all the defendants solidarily liable and awarded fifteen million one hundred thousand pesos in actual and compensatory damages, twenty-five million pesos in moral damages, ten million pesos in exemplary damages, one million pesos in attorney's fees, five hundred thousand pesos for litigation expenses, and costs. The appellants raised five assigned errors, questioning the use of the military records, the finding of liability despite acquittal, the failure to distinguish among the defendants, the finding of motive, and the excessive awards.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence received by the Military Commission was admissible in the civil action for damages.
• Whether or not the Tan brothers who were acquitted by the Military Commission may be held civilly liable for the death of Florentino Lim.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly found that all the appellants were part of a conspiracy to kill Florentino Lim.
• Whether or not the awards of damages were proper in kind and in amount.
• Whether or not the heirs of deceased defendants may be held solidarily liable with the surviving defendants.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides:

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

This governs the claim for funeral and burial expenses, which the Court disallowed for want of receipts.

Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides:

Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

This supports the award of temperate damages in place of unproven actual damages.

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides:

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

This is the basis for exemplary damages, which the Court reduced as excessive.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court properly considered the military records. The parties had adopted the evidence adduced before the Military Commission, the defendants cross-examined the stenographers who took those proceedings, and that cross-examination waived their earlier objection. The Court also noted that the supposed extrajudicial confessions were confirmed by the declarants themselves on the witness stand, assisted by counsel.

On the second issue, the Court held that acquittal in the criminal case does not bar civil liability, but such liability must rest on competent evidence. The Court sustained the liability of Luis Tan, Ang Tiat Chuan, Mariano Velez, Jr., Antonio Ocasiones, Leopoldo Nicolas and Marciano Benemerito, who were convicted, and of Oscar Yaun, whom the trial court found to have driven the getaway vehicle, so that his participation in the conspiracy could not be doubted.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the finding of conspiracy as to the other acquitted appellants. It held that factual findings must rest on evidence, not conjecture. The presumption that a closely-knit family consults on every major decision had no evidentiary basis. Manuel Wee's testimony proved nothing about the subject of the meeting, since he was not part of it. Beleta's testimony came from a polluted source, was uncorroborated, and was contained in five varying affidavits. Eusebio Tan's plea to investigators, made during custodial investigation when only Luis Tan was implicated, was not proof of conspiracy. The possibility that William Tan was consulted by telephone was a mere possibility. The claims against Alfonso, Eusebio, William, Vicente and Joaquin Tan and Enrique Labita were therefore denied.

On the fourth issue, the Court modified the damages. Civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos was proper. Funeral expenses were disallowed for want of receipts, and loss of earning capacity was not proved by documentary evidence, the case falling outside the recognized exceptions. The Court awarded temperate damages of three hundred fifty thousand pesos instead. Moral damages were reduced to one hundred fifty thousand pesos, exemplary damages to one hundred fifty thousand pesos, attorney's fees to one hundred fifty thousand pesos, and litigation expenses to one hundred thousand pesos.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the heirs of deceased defendants cannot be held solidarily liable with the surviving defendants, since they committed no wrongful act. Only the estates of the deceased are liable, and the heirs only to the extent of what they received by inheritance.

Doctrine

• Acquittal in a criminal case does not extinguish civil liability, but the civil liability of an acquitted accused must be proved by competent evidence, not by presumption or conjecture.
• Conspiracy must be established by proof of a common design and concerted action; family closeness, silence, and unverified possibilities are not competent evidence of conspiracy.
• Actual damages require proof of the pecuniary loss, and funeral expenses must be supported by receipts, under Article 2199 of the Civil Code.
• Where a pecuniary loss is shown but its amount cannot be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be awarded under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.
• Moral and exemplary damages are not meant to enrich the claimant; they are reduced when excessive, exemplary damages being imposed by way of example for the public good under Article 2229 of the Civil Code.
• The heirs of a deceased tortfeasor are not solidarily liable with surviving tortfeasors; only the estate is liable, and the heirs only to the extent of their inheritance.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment, ordering Luis Tan, Ang Tiat Chuan, Mariano Velez, Jr., Antonio Ocasiones, Leopoldo Nicolas, Marciano Benemerito and Oscar Yaun to pay the reduced damages jointly and severally, and dismissed the claims against Alfonso, Eusebio, William, Vicente and Joaquin Tan and Enrique Labita for lack of merit.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: acquittal does not extinguish civil liability, but conspiracy and damages must be proved by competent evidence, never by conjecture. Examiners use this case for the civil liability of an acquitted accused, the proof required for conspiracy, and the rules on actual, temperate, moral and exemplary damages.