Why Wrongful Death Damages results differ in Philippines

The top 5 reasons results differ

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Wrongful Death Damages calculator.

Wrongful-death damages results in the Philippines often diverge—not because courts “disagree on the same facts,” but because the numbers are highly sensitive to how key inputs are interpreted and which assumptions are applied. DocketMath (jurisdiction-aware for PH) helps surface those sensitivities inside the wrongful-death-damages calculator, but it’s still easy for two runs to produce different totals if any one variable shifts.

Here are the five most common drivers of different results:

1. **Whether the claim is anchored on Article 2206 vs. Article 1764 (and related provisions)

   • Different legal bases map to different categories of recoverable damages and different computation styles (for example, how expenses vs. indemnities vs. other death-related recoveries are handled).
   • In DocketMath’s PH workflow, selecting the wrong basis (or using a mismatched template) can change the output even when the underlying facts look identical.

2. Different “starting points” for recoverable losses

   • Some inputs are document-backed (funeral costs, medical bills, receipts).
   • Others are model-backed (projected loss of earnings, future assumptions, and how far the computation horizon runs).
   • Two analysts can enter the same case facts, yet still differ because one starts from actual expenses while the other starts from a projected earnings model earlier in the workflow.

3. Life expectancy and work-life horizon assumptions

   • Small changes—like using a shorter vs. longer remaining working period—can materially affect the present value of projected income.
   • Results differ especially when one workflow uses “years remaining” from a life-expectancy style input while another uses a fixed period (or a different horizon rule).

4. Income inputs: gross vs. net, and stable vs. fluctuating income

   • Wage earners can be entered as:

     • monthly gross salary vs. net take-home, or
     • employer-provided figures vs. self-reported estimates,
     • stable monthly income vs. variable income (overtime/irregular work).
   • Mixing these approaches across runs will change the computed loss of earnings in DocketMath—sometimes more than any other single factor.

5. **Credibility and consistency of damages evidence (and how the tool reflects your entries)

   • If evidence is incomplete, teams often make different “fill-in-the-blank” assumptions:

     • estimating missing months,
     • interpolating wage history,
     • or capping certain categories.
   • When entered evidence differs in completeness, DocketMath will follow the assumptions implied by those inputs, which can produce different totals even under the same general scenario.

Practical takeaway: Two computations can both be defensible under their own assumptions—yet differ because one uses projected income for a longer horizon, a different income basis (gross/net), or a different mapping of recoverable categories.

How to isolate the variable

To determine which input drove the difference, run a controlled comparison in DocketMath (PH) using the wrongful-death-damages calculator at /tools/wrongful-death-damages.

Step-by-step isolate method (PH):

1. Create a baseline scenario

   • Enter the most document-supported values first:

     • funeral and medical expenses (actuals where available),
     • known or verifiable earnings figures,
     • the beneficiary/damages structure the workflow requests (if applicable in your setup).

2. Freeze everything except one input

   • Change only one variable per run. Common “one-change” candidates:

     • time horizon years,
     • income basis (gross vs. net),
     • monthly income amount,
     • a specific expense category total.

3. Record the delta

   • Note how the DocketMath output changes immediately after the single modification (the “before vs after” difference).

4. Use a simple sensitivity table

   • Copy/paste this structure into your notes:

1. Validate the PH mapping

   • In DocketMath’s PH workflow, double-check that the calculator is using the wrongful-death damages structure intended for your scenario.
   • Even if the facts are identical, a different category mapping can shift the output.

Gentle reminder: This is an analytics workflow, not legal advice. Treat the output as a model of assumptions you entered, and keep your input log so you can explain why results differ.

Next steps

To make your results comparable (especially when coordinating with another analyst or reviewer), do the following:

• Standardize your input policy

  • Decide once: gross vs. net, and what supports each figure (receipt, payslip, employer statement, estimate).
• Lock the horizon rule

  • Use the same life/work horizon approach across runs for projected earnings categories.
• Separate “actuals” from “model assumptions”

  • Keep funeral/medical as actual totals where supported.
  • Treat projected earning components as assumptions with explicit parameters.
• Run 3 scenarios

  • Baseline (document-backed),
  • Conservative (shorter horizon / lower income basis),
  • Upside (longer horizon / different income basis).
• Document assumptions in one checklist

Finally, if you’re comparing with another party’s numbers, ask for their input list (not only the output total). That’s usually where the divergence starts.

Related reading

• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Alabama
• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Arizona
• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Colorado