EN BANC[ G.R. No. L-23733, October 31, 1969 ]

HERMINIO L. NOCUM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DECISIONBARREDO, J.:

Appeal of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., defendant in the court below, from a judgment of the said court (Court of First Instance of Batangas) in its Civil Case No. 834, wherein appellee Herminio L. Nocum was plaintiff, sentencing appellant to pay appellee the sum of P1,351.00 for actual damages and P500.00 as attorney's fees, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint plus costs. Appellee, who was a passenger in appellant's Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the barrio of Dita, Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers, contained in a box, loaded in said bus and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous items by a co-passenger. The findings of fact of the trial court are not assailed. The appeal is purely on legal questions.

Appellee has not filed any brief. All that We have before Us is appellant's brief with the following assignment of errors:

“I"BASED ON THE FACTS THE LOWER COURT FOUND AS ESTABLISHED, IT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN NOT ABSOLVING APPELLANT FROM LIABILITY RESULTING FROM THE EXPLOSION OF FIRECRACKERS CONTAINED IN A PACKAGE, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH WERE MISREPRESENTED BY A PASSENGER."II

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN AWARDING DAMAGES WITH LEGAL INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEE."III

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, WITH COSTS AGAINST THE APPELLEE."Upon consideration of the points raised and discussed by appellant, We find the appeal to be well taken.

The main basis of the trial court's decision is that appellant did not observe the extraordinary or utmost diligence of a very cautious person required by the following articles of the Civil Code:

"ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case."Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756."ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances."ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755."Analyzing the evidence presented by the parties, His Honor found:

"According to Severino Andaya, a witness for the plaintiff, a man with a box went up the baggage compartment of the bus where he already was and said box was placed under the seat. They left Azcarraga at about 11:30 in the morning and when the explosion occured, he was thrown out. PC investigation report states that thirty seven (37) passengers were injured (Exhibit 'O’ and '2')."The bus conductor, Sancho Mendoza, testified that the box belonged to a passenger whose name he does not know and who told him that it contained miscellaneous items and clothes. He helped the owner in loading the baggage which weighed about twelve (12) kilos and because of company regulation, he charged him for it twenty-five centavos (P0.25). From its appearance there was no indication at all that the contents were explosives or firecrackers. Neither did he open the box because he just relied on the word of the owner."Dispatcher Nicolas Cornista of defendant company corroborated the testimony of Mendoza and he said, among other things, that he was present when the box was loaded in the truck and the owner agreed to pay its fare. He added that they were not authorized to open the baggages of passengers because instruction from the management was to call the police if there were packages containing articles which were against regulations.x x x x x"There is no question that Bus No. 120 was road worthy when it left its Manila Terminal for Lucena that morning of December 5, 1960. The injuries suffered by the plaintiff were not due to mechanical defects but to the explosion of firecrackers inside the bus which was loaded by a co-passenger.“x x x Turning to the present case, it is quite clear that extraordinary or utmost diligence of a very cautious person was not observed by the defendant company. The service manual, Exhibits '3' and '3-A', prohibits the employees to allow explosives,

such as dynamite and firecrackers to be transported on its buses. To implement this particular rule for the safety of passengers, it was therefore incumbent upon the employees of the company to make the proper inspection of all the baggages which are carried by the passengers."But then, can it not be said that the breach of the contract was due to fortuitous event? The Supreme Court in the case of Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, quoted Escriche's definition of caso fortuito as ‘an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, torrents, shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning, compulsions, insurrections, destructions of buildings by unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of a similar nature.' In other words, the cause of the unexpected event must be independent of the will of man or something which cannot be avoided. This cannot be said of instant case. If proper and rigid inspection were observed by the defendant, the contents of the box could have been discovered and the accident avoided. Refusal by the passenger to have the package opened was no excuse because, as stated by Dispatcher Cornista, employees should call the police if there were package containing articles against company regulations. Neither was failure by employees of defendant company to detect the contents of the packages of passengers because like the rationale in the Necesito vs. Paras case (supra), a passenger has neither choice nor control in the exercise of their discretion in determining what are inside the package of co-passengers which may eventually prove fatal."We cannot agree. No doubt, the views of His Honor do seem to be in line with the reasons that the Code Commission had for incorporating the above-quoted provisions in its draft of the Civil Code. Indeed, in approving the said draft, Congress must have concurred with the Commission that by requiring the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and by creating a presumption of negligence against them, the recklessness of their drivers which is a common sight even in crowded areas and, particularly, on the highways throughout the country may, somehow, if not in a large measure, be curbed. We are not convinced, however, that the exacting criterion of said provisions has not been met by appellant in the circumstances of this particular case.

It is undisputed that before the box containing the firecrackers were allowed to be loaded in the bus by the conductor, inquiry was made with the passenger carrying the same as to what was in it, since its "opening ….. was folded and tied with abaca." (Decision p. 16, Record on Appeal.) According to His Honor, "if proper and rigid inspection were observed by the defendant, the contents of the box could have been discovered and the accident avoided. Refusal by the passenger to have the package opened was no excuse because, as stated by Dispatcher Cornista, employees should call the police if there were packages containing articles against company regulations." That may be true, but it is Our considered opinion that the law does not require as much. Article 1733 is not as unbending as His Honor has held, for it reasonably qualifies the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the safety of the passengers transported by them to be "according to all the circumstances of each case." In fact, Article 1755 repeats this same qualification: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances."

In this particular case before Us, it must be considered that while it is true the passengers of appellant's bus should not be made to suffer for something over which they had no control, as enunciated in the decision of this Court cited by His Honor, fairness demands that in measuring a common carrier's duty towards its passengers, allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the passengers in regard to their common safety. It is to be presumed that a passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-passengers, not to speak of his own. Not to be lightly considered must be the right to privacy to which each passenger is entitled. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search, when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate the contrary, as in the case at bar. In other words, inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger's baggage when such is not outwardly perceptible, but beyond this, constitutional boundaries are already in danger of being transgressed. Calling a policeman to his aid, as suggested by the service manual invoked by the trial judge, in compelling the passenger to submit to more rigid inspection, after the passenger had already declared that the box contained mere clothes and other miscellanies, could not have justified invasion of a constitutionally protected domain. Police officers acting without judicial authority secured in the manner provided by law are not beyond the pale of constitutional inhibitions designed to protect individual human rights and liberties. Withal, what must be importantly considered here is not so much the infringement of the fundamental sacred rights of the particular passenger herein involved, but the constant threat any contrary ruling would pose on the right of privacy of all passengers of all common carriers, considering how easily the duty to inspect can be made an excuse for mischief and abuse. Of course, when there are sufficient indications that the representations of the passenger regarding the nature of his baggage may not be true, in the interest of the common safety of all, the assistance of the police authorities may be solicited, not necessarily to force the passenger to open his baggage, but to conduct the needed investigation consistent with the rules of propriety and, above all, the constitutional rights of the passenger. It is in this sense that the mentioned service manual issued by appellant to its conductors must be understood.

Decisions in other jurisdictions cited by appellant in its brief, evidently because of the paucity of local precedents squarely in point, emphasize that there is

1

need, as We hold here, for evidence of circumstances indicating cause or causes for apprehension that the passenger's baggage is dangerous and that it is failure of the common carrier's employee to act in the face of such evidence that constitutes the cornerstone of the common carrier's liability in cases similar to the present one.

"The principle that must control the servants of the carrier in a case like the one before us is correctly stated in the opinion in the case of Clarke v. Louisville & N.R. Co. 20 Ky. L. Rep. 839, 49 S. W. 1120. In that case Clarke was a passenger on the defendant's train. Another passenger took a quantity of gasoline into the same coach in which Clarke was riding. It ignited and exploded, by reason of which he was severely injured. The trial court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendant. In the opinion, affirming the judgment, it is said: 'It may be stated briefly, in assuming the liability of a railroad to its passengers for injury done by another passenger, only where the conduct of this passenger had been such before the injury as to induce a reasonably prudent and vigilant conductor to believe that there was reasonable ground to apprehend violence and danger to the other passengers, and in that case asserting it to be the duty of the conductor of the railroad train to use all reasonable means to prevent such injury, and if he neglects this reasonable duty, and injury is done, that then the company is responsible; that otherwise the railroad is not responsible.'"The opinion quotes with approval from the case of Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. vs. Shields, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 652, 29 S. W. 652, in which case the plaintiff was injured by alcohol which had been carried upon the train by another passenger. In the opinion in that case it is said: 'It was but a short period of time after the alcohol was spilt when it was set on fire and the accident occurred, and it was not shown that appellant's employees knew that the jug contained alcohol. In fact, it is not shown that the conductor or any other employee knew that Harris had a jug with him until it fell out of the sack, though the conductor had collected … (his) fare, and doubtless knew that he had the sack on the seat with him ... It cannot be successfully denied that Harris had the right as a passenger to carry baggage on the train, and that he had a right to carry it in a sack if he chose to do so. We think it is equally clear that, in the absence of some intimation or circumstance indicating that the sack contained something dangerous to other passengers, it was not the duty of appellant's conductor or any other employee to open the sack and examine its contents.' Quinn v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 98 Ky. 231, 32 S. W. 742; Wood v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 101 Ky. 703, 42 S. W. 349; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Vincent, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1049, 96 S. W. 898; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Renfro, 142 Ky. 590, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 133, 135 S. W. 266." (Underscoring supplied.)"Explosive or Dangerous Contents. - A carrier is ordinarily not liable for injuries to passengers from fires or explosions caused by articles brought into its conveyances by other passengers, in the absence of any evidence that the carrier, through its employees, was aware of the nature of the article or had any reason to anticipate danger therefrom. (Bogard v. Illinois C. R. Co. 144 Ky. 649, 139 S. W. 855, 36 L. R. A. [N. S.] 337; Clarke v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 101 Ky. 34, 39 S. W. 840, 36 L. R. A. 123 [explosion of can of gasoline]; East Indian R. Co. v. Mukerjee [1901] A. C. [Eng.] 396, 3 B. R. C. 420 - P. C. [explosion of fireworks]; Annotation: 37 L. R. A. [N. S.] 725.)"Appellant further invokes Article 1174 of the Civil Code which relieves all obligors, including, of course, common carriers like appellant, from the consequence of fortuitous events. The court a quo held that "the breach of contract (in this case) was not due to fortuitous event and that, therefore, the defendant is liable in damages." Since We hold that appellant has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of negligence by showing that it has exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers, "according to the circumstances of the (each) case", We deem it unnecessary to rule whether or not there was any fortuitous event in this case.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is dismissed, without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Fernando, JJ., concur.Castro, J., in the result.Teehankee, J., reserves his vote.

SECOND DIVISION[ G.R. No. 110398, November 07, 1997 ]

NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., PETITIONER,

VS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO AND VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISIONMENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the Regional Trial Court’s award of damages to

private respondents for the death of relatives as a result of the sinking of petitioner’s vessel.

In April of 1980, private respondent Ramon Miranda purchased from the Negros Navigation Co., Inc. four special cabin tickets (#74411, 74412, 74413 and 74414) for his wife, daughter, son and niece who were going to Bacolod City to attend a family reunion. The tickets were for Voyage No. 457-A of the M/V Don Juan, leaving Manila at 1:00 p.m. on April 22, 1980.

The ship sailed from the port of Manila on schedule.

At about 10:30 in the evening of April 22, 1980, the Don Juan collided off the Tablas Strait in Mindoro, with the M/T Tacloban City, an oil tanker owned by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC). As a result, the M/V Don Juan sank. Several of her passengers perished in the sea tragedy. The bodies of some of the victims were found and brought to shore, but the four members of private respondents’ families were never found.

Private respondents filed a complaint on July 16, 1980 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34, against the Negros Navigation, the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), and the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC), seeking damages for the death of Ardita de la Victoria Miranda, 48, Rosario V. Miranda, 19, Ramon V. Miranda, Jr., 16, and Elfreda de la Victoria, 26.

In its answer, petitioner admitted that private respondents purchased ticket numbers 74411, 74412, 74413 and 74414; that the ticket numbers were listed in the passenger manifest; and that the Don Juan left Pier 2, North Harbor, Manila on April 22, 1980 and sank that night after being rammed by the oil tanker M/T Tacloban City, and that, as a result of the collision, some of the passengers of the M/V Don Juan died. Petitioner, however, denied that the four relatives of private respondents actually boarded the vessel as shown by the fact that their bodies were never recovered. Petitioner further averred that the Don Juan was seaworthy and manned by a full and competent crew, and that the collision was entirely due to the fault of the crew of the M/T Tacloban City.

On January 20, 1986, the PNOC and petitioner Negros Navigation Co., Inc. entered into a compromise agreement whereby petitioner assumed full responsibility for the payment and satisfaction of all claims arising out of or in connection with the collision and releasing the PNOC and the PNOC/STC from any liability to it. The agreement was subsequently held by the trial court to be binding upon petitioner, PNOC and PNOC/STC. Private respondents did not join in the agreement.

After trial, the court rendered judgment on February 21, 1991, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering all the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs damages as follows:

To Ramon Miranda:

P42,025.00 for actual damages;P152,654.55 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity of his wife;P90,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death of three (3) victims;P300,000.00 as moral damages;P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all in the total amount of P634,679.55; andP40,000.00 as attorney’s fees.To Spouses Ricardo and Virginia de la Victoria:P12,000.00 for actual damages;P158,899.00 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity;P30,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death;P100,000.00 as moral damages;P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, all in the total amount of P320,899.00; andP15,000.00 as attorney’s fees.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modification –1. Ordering and sentencing defendants-appellants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff-appellee Ramon Miranda the amount of P23,075.00 as actual damages instead of P42,025.00;2. Ordering and sentencing defendants-appellants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff-appellee Ramon Miranda the amount of P150,000.00, instead of P90,000.00, as compensatory damages for the death of his wife and two children;3. Ordering and sentencing defendants-appellants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs-appellees Dela Victoria spouses the amount of P50,000.00, instead of P30,000.00, as compensatory damages for the death of their daughter Elfreda Dela Victoria;Hence this petition, raising the following issues:

2

(1) whether the members of private respondents’ families were actually passengers of the Don Juan;

(2) whether the ruling in Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, finding the crew members of petitioner to be grossly negligent in the performance of their duties, is binding in this case;

(3) whether the total loss of the M/V Don Juan extinguished petitioner’s liability; and

(4) whether the damages awarded by the appellate court are excessive, unreasonable and unwarranted.

First. The trial court held that the fact that the victims were passengers of the M/V Don Juan was sufficiently proven by private respondent Ramon Miranda, who testified that he purchased tickets numbered 74411, 74412, 74413, and 74414 at P131.30 each from the Makati office of petitioner for Voyage No. 47-A of the M/V Don Juan, which was leaving Manila on April 22, 1980. This was corroborated by the passenger manifest (Exh. E) on which the numbers of the tickets and the names of Ardita Miranda and her children and Elfreda de la Victoria appear.

Petitioner contends that the purchase of the tickets does not necessarily mean that the alleged victims actually took the trip. Petitioner asserts that it is common knowledge that passengers purchase tickets in advance but do not actually use them. Hence, private respondent should also prove the presence of the victims on the ship. The witnesses who affirmed that the victims were on the ship were biased and unreliable.

This contention is without merit. Private respondent Ramon Miranda testified that he personally took his family and his niece to the vessel on the day of the voyage and stayed with them on the ship until it was time for it to leave. There is no reason he should claim members of his family to have perished in the accident just to maintain an action. People do not normally lie about so grave a matter as the loss of dear ones. It would be more difficult for private respondents to keep the existence of their relatives if indeed they are alive than it is for petitioner to show the contrary. Petitioner’s only proof is that the bodies of the supposed victims were not among those recovered from the site of the mishap. But so were the bodies of the other passengers reported missing not recovered, as this Court noted in the Mecenas case.

Private respondent Miranda’s testimony was corroborated by Edgardo Ramirez. Ramirez was a seminarian and one of the survivors of the collision. He testified that he saw Mrs. Miranda and Elfreda de la Victoria on the ship and that he talked with them. He knew Mrs. Miranda who was his teacher in the grade school. He also knew Elfreda who was his childhood friend and townmate. Ramirez said he was with Mrs. Miranda and her children and niece from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. when the collision happened and that he in fact had dinner with them. Ramirez said he and Elfreda stayed on the deck after dinner and it was there where they were jolted by the collision of the two vessels. Recounting the moments after the collision, Ramirez testified that Elfreda ran to fetch Mrs. Miranda. He escorted her to the room and then tried to go back to the deck when the lights went out. He tried to return to the cabin but was not able to do so because it was dark and there was a stampede of passengers from the deck.

Petitioner casts doubt on Ramirez’ testimony, claiming that Ramirez could not have talked with the victims for about three hours and not run out of stories to tell, unless Ramirez had a “storehouse” of stories. But what is incredible about acquaintances thrown together on a long journey staying together for hours on end, in idle conversation precisely to while the hours away?

Petitioner also points out that it took Ramirez three (3) days before he finally contacted private respondent Ramon Miranda to tell him about the fate of his family. But it is not improbable that it took Ramirez three days before calling on private respondent Miranda to tell him about the last hours of Mrs. Miranda and her children and niece, in view of the confusion in the days following the collision as rescue teams and relatives searched for survivors.

Indeed, given the facts of this case, it is improper for petitioner to even suggest that private respondents’ relatives did not board the ill-fated vessel and perish in the accident simply because their bodies were not recovered.

Second. In finding petitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of it in the carriage of passengers, both the trial court and the appellate court relied on the findings of this Court in Mecenas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, which case was brought for the death of other passengers. In that case it was found that although the proximate cause of the mishap was the negligence of the crew of the M/T Tacloban City, the crew of the Don Juan was equally negligent as it found that

the latter’s master, Capt. Rogelio Santisteban, was playing mahjong at the time of collision, and the officer on watch, Senior Third Mate Rogelio De Vera, admitted that he failed to call the attention of Santisteban to the imminent danger facing them. This Court found that Capt. Santisteban and the crew of the M/V Don Juan failed to take steps to prevent the collision or at least delay the sinking of the ship and supervise the abandoning of the ship.

Petitioner Negros Navigation was found equally negligent in tolerating the playing of mahjong by the ship captain and other crew members while on board the ship and failing to keep the M/V Don Juan seaworthy so much so that the ship sank within 10 to 15 minutes of its impact with the M/T Tacloban City.

In addition, the Court found that the Don Juan was overloaded. The Certificate of Inspection, dated August 27, 1979, issued by the Philippine Coast Guard Commander at Iloilo City stated that the total number of persons allowed on the ship was 864, of whom 810 are passengers, but there were actually 1,004 on board the vessel when it sank, 140 persons more than the maximum number that could be safely carried by it.

Taking these circumstances together, and the fact that the M/V Don Juan, as the faster and better-equipped vessel, could have avoided a collision with the PNOC tanker, this Court held that even if the Tacloban City had been at fault for failing to observe an internationally-recognized rule of navigation, the Don Juan was guilty of contributory negligence. Through Justice Feliciano, this Court held:

The grossness of the negligence of the “Don Juan” is underscored when one considers the foregoing circumstances in the context of the following facts: Firstly, the “Don Juan” was more than twice as fast as the “Tacloban City.” The “Don Juan’s” top speed was 17 knots; while that of the “Tacloban City” was 6.3. knots. Secondly, the “Don Juan” carried the full complement of officers and crew members specified for a passenger vessel of her class. Thirdly, the “Don Juan” was equipped with radar which was functioning that night. Fourthly, the “Don Juan’s” officer on-watch had sighted the “Tacloban City” on his radar screen while the latter was still four (4) nautical miles away. Visual confirmation of radar contact was established by the “Don Juan” while the “Tacloban City” was still 2.7 miles away. In the total set of circumstances which existed in the instant case, the “Don Juan,” had it taken seriously its duty of extraordinary diligence, could have easily avoided the collision with the “Tacloban City.” Indeed, the “Don Juan” might well have avoided the collision even if it had exercised ordinary diligence merely.

It is true that the “Tacloban City” failed to follow Rule 18 of the International Rules of the Road which requires two (2) power-driven vessels meeting end on or nearly end on each to alter her course to starboard (right) so that each vessel may pass on the port side (left) of the other. The “Tacloban City,” when the two (2) vessels were only three-tenths (0.3) of a mile apart, turned (for the second time) 15o to port side while the “Don Juan” veered hard to starboard. . . . [But] “route observance” of the International Rules of the Road will not relieve a vessel from responsibility if the collision could have been avoided by proper care and skill on her part or even by a departure from the rules.

In the petition at bar, the “Don Juan” having sighted the “Tacloban City” when it was still a long way off was negligent in failing to take early preventive action and in allowing the two (2) vessels to come to such close quarters as to render the collision inevitable when there was no necessity for passing so near to the “Tacloban City” as to create that hazard or inevitability, for the “Don Juan” could choose its own distance. It is noteworthy that the “Tacloban City,” upon turning hard to port shortly before the moment of collision, signalled its intention to do so by giving two (2) short blasts with its horn. The “Don Juan” gave no answering horn blast to signal its own intention and proceeded to turn hard to starboard.

We conclude that Capt. Santisteban and Negros Navigation are properly held liable for gross negligence in connection with the collision of the “Don Juan” and “Tacloban City” and the sinking of the “Don Juan” leading to the death of hundreds of passengers. . . .Petitioner criticizes the lower court’s reliance on the Mecenas case, arguing that, although this case arose out of the same incident as that involved in Mecenas, the parties are different and trial was conducted separately. Petitioner contends that the decision in this case should be based on the allegations and defenses pleaded and evidence adduced in it or, in short, on the record of this case.

The contention is without merit. What petitioner contends may be true with respect to the merits of the individual claims against petitioner but not as to the cause of the sinking of its ship on April 22, 1980 and its liability for such accident, of which there can only be one truth. Otherwise, one would be subscribing to the sophistry: truth on one side of the Pyrenees, falsehood on the other!

3

Adherence to the Mecenas case is dictated by this Court’s policy of maintaining stability in jurisprudence in accordance with the legal maxim “stare decisis et non quieta movere” (Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.) Where, as in this case, the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. In Woulfe v. Associated Realties Corporation, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that where substantially similar cases to the pending case were presented and applicable principles declared in prior decisions, the court was bound by the principle of stare decisis. Similarly, in State ex rel. Tollinger v. Gill, it was held that under the doctrine of stare decisis a ruling is final even as to parties who are strangers to the original proceeding and not bound by the judgment under the res judicata doctrine. The Philadelphia court expressed itself in this wise: “Stare decisis simply declares that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.” Thus, in J. M. Tuason v. Mariano, supra, this Court relied on its rulings in other cases involving different parties in sustaining the validity of a land title on the principle of “stare decisis et non quieta movere.”

Indeed, the evidence presented in this case was the same as those presented in the Mecenas case, to wit:

DocumentMecenas caseThis caseDecision of CommandantPhil. Coast Guard in BMI Case No. 415-80 dated 3/26/81Exh. 10

Exh. 11-B-NN/XDecision of the Minister of National Defense dated 3/12/82Exh. 11Exh. ZZResolution on the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Minister of National Defense dated 7/24/84

Exh. 13

Exh. AAA (private respondents)

Certificate of inspection dated 8/27/79Exh. 1-AExh. 19-NNCertificate of Stability dated 12/16/76Exh. 6-AExh. 19-D-NN

Nor is it true that the trial court merely based its decision on the Mecenas case. The trial court made its own independent findings on the basis of the testimonies of witnesses, such as Senior Third Mate Rogelio de Vera, who incidentally gave substantially the same testimony on petitioner’s behalf before the Board of Marine Inquiry. The trial court agreed with the conclusions of the then Minister of National Defense finding both vessels to be negligent.

Third. The next issue is whether petitioner is liable to pay damages notwithstanding the total loss of its ship. The issue is not one of first impression. The rule is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a shipowner may be held liable for injuries to passengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and hypothecary nature of maritime law if fault can be attributed to the shipowner.

In Mecenas, this Court found petitioner guilty of negligence in (1) allowing or tolerating the ship captain and crew members in playing mahjong during the voyage, (2) in failing to maintain the vessel seaworthy and (3) in allowing the ship to carry more passengers than it was allowed to carry. Petitioner is, therefore, clearly liable for damages to the full extent.

Fourth. Petitioner contends that, assuming that the Mecenas case applies, private respondents should be allowed to claim only P43,857.14 each as moral damages because in the Mecenas case, the amount of P307,500.00 was awarded to the seven children of the Mecenas couple. Under petitioner’s formula, Ramon Miranda should receive P43,857.14, while the De la Victoria spouses should receive P97,714.28.

Here is where the principle of stare decisis does not apply in view of differences in the personal circumstances of the victims. For that matter, differentiation would be justified even if private respondents had joined the private respondents in the Mecenas case. The doctrine of stare decisis works as a bar only against issues litigated in a previous case. Where the issue involved was not raised nor presented to the court and not passed upon by the court in the previous case, the decision in the previous case is not stare decisis of the question presently presented. The decision in the Mecenas case relates to damages for which petitioner was liable to the claimants in that case.

In the case at bar, the award of P300,000.00 for moral damages is reasonable considering the grief petitioner Ramon Miranda suffered as a result of the loss of his entire family. As a matter of fact, three months after the collision, he developed a heart condition undoubtedly caused by the strain of the loss of his family. The P100,000.00 given to Mr. and Mrs. de la Victoria is likewise reasonable and should be affirmed.

As for the amount of civil indemnity awarded to private respondents, the appellate court’s award of P50,000.00 per victim should be sustained. The amount of P30,000.00 formerly set in De Lima v. Laguna Tayabas Co., Heirs of Amparo delos Santos v. Court of Appeals, and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court as benchmark was subsequently increased to P50,000.00 in the case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which involved the sinking of another interisland ship on October 24, 1988.

We now turn to the determination of the earning capacity of the victims. With respect to Ardita Miranda, the trial court awarded damages computed as follows:

In the case of victim Ardita V. Miranda whose age at the time of the accident was 48 years, her life expectancy was computed to be 21.33 years, and therefore, she could have lived up to almost 70 years old. Her gross earnings for 21.33 years based on P10,224.00 per annum, would be P218,077.92. Deducting therefrom 30% as her living expenses, her net earnings would be P152,654.55, to which plaintiff Ramon Miranda is entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of earning capacity of his wife. In considering 30% as the living expenses of Ardita Miranda, the Court takes into account the fact that plaintiff and his wife were supporting their daughter and son who were both college students taking Medicine and Law respectively.In accordance with the ruling in Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we think the life expectancy of Ardita Miranda was correctly determined to be 21.33 years, or up to age 69. Petitioner contends, however, that Mrs. Miranda would have retired from her job as a public school teacher at 65, hence her loss of earning capacity should be reckoned up to 17.33 years only.

The accepted formula for determining life expectancy is 2/3 multiplied by (80 minus the age of the deceased). It may be that in the Philippines the age of retirement generally is 65 but, in calculating the life expectancy of individuals for the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity under Art. 2206(1) of the Civil Code, it is assumed that the deceased would have earned income even after retirement from a particular job. In this case, the trial court took into account the fact that Mrs. Miranda had a master’s degree and a good prospect of becoming principal of the school in which she was teaching. There was reason to believe that her income would have increased through the years and she could still earn more after her retirement, e.g., by becoming a consultant, had she not died. The gross earnings which Mrs. Miranda could reasonably be expected to earn were it not for her untimely death was, therefore, correctly computed by the trial court to be P218,077.92 (given a gross annual income of P10,224.00 and life expectancy of 21.33 years).

Petitioner contends that from the amount of gross earnings, 60% should be deducted as necessary living expenses, not merely 30% as the trial court allowed. Petitioner contends that 30% is unrealistic, considering that Mrs. Miranda’s earnings would have been subject to taxes, social security deductions and inflation.

We agree with this contention. In Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court allowed a deduction of P1,184.00 for living expenses from the P2,184.00 annual salary of the victim, which is roughly 54.2% thereof. The deceased was 29 years old and a training assistant in the Bacnotan Cement Industries. In People v. Quilaton, the deceased was a 26-year old laborer earning a daily wage. The court allowed a deduction of P120,000.00 which was 51.3% of his annual gross earnings of P234,000.00. In People v. Teehankee, the court allowed a deduction of P19,800.00, roughly 42.4% thereof from the deceased’s annual salary of P46,659.21. The deceased, Maureen Hultman, was 17 years old and had just received her first paycheck as a secretary. In the case at bar, we hold that a deduction of 50% from Mrs. Miranda’s gross earnings (P218,077.92) would be reasonable, so that her net earning capacity should be P109,038.96. There is no basis for supposing that her living expenses constituted a smaller percentage of her gross income than the living expenses in the decided cases. To hold that she would have used only a small part of her income for herself, a larger part going to the support of her children would be conjectural and unreasonable.

As for Elfreda de la Victoria, the trial court found that, at the time of her death, she was 26 years old, a teacher in a private school in Malolos, Bulacan, earning P6,192.00 per annum. Although a probationary employee, she had already been working in the school for two years at the time of her death and she had a general efficiency rating of 92.85% and it can be presumed that, if not for her untimely death, she would have become a regular teacher. Hence, her loss of earning capacity is P111,456.00, computed as follows:

4

net earning capacity (x) = life expectancy x[ gross annual income less reasonable & necessary living expenses (50%) ]x = [ 2 (80-26) ] x[P6,192.00 - P3,096.00]3= 36 x 3,096.00= P111,456.00

On the other hand, the award of actual damages in the amount of P23,075.00 was determined by the Court of Appeals on the basis of receipts submitted by private respondents. This amount is reasonable considering the expenses incurred by private respondent Miranda in organizing three search teams to look for his family, spending for transportation in going to places such as Batangas City and Iloilo, where survivors and the bodies of other victims were found, making long distance calls, erecting a monument in honor of the four victims, spending for obituaries in the Bulletin Today and for food, masses and novenas.

Petitioner’s contention that the expenses for the erection of a monument and other expenses for memorial services for the victims should be considered included in the indemnity for death awarded to private respondents is without merit. Indemnity for death is given to compensate for violation of the rights of the deceased, i.e., his right to life and physical integrity. On the other hand, damages incidental to or arising out of such death are for pecuniary losses of the beneficiaries of the deceased.

As for the award of attorney’s fees, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the amount of P40,000.00 for private respondent Ramon Miranda and P15,000.00 for the de la Victoria spouses is justified. The appellate court correctly held:The Mecenas case cannot be made the basis for determining the award for attorney’s fees. The award would naturally vary or differ in each case. While it is admitted that plaintiff-appellee Ramon Miranda who is himself a lawyer, represented also plaintiffs-appellees Dela Victoria spouses, we note that separate testimonial evidence were adduced by plaintiff-appellee Ramon Miranda (TSN, February 26, 1982, p. 6) and plaintiffs-appellees spouses Dela Victoria (TSN, August 13, 1981, p. 43). Considering the amount of work and effort put into the case as indicated by the voluminous transcripts of stenographic notes, we find no reason to disturb the award of P40,000.00 for plaintiff-appellee Ramon Miranda and P15,000.00 for plaintiffs-appellees Dela Victoria spouses.The award of exemplary damages should be increased to P300,000.00 for Ramon Miranda and P100,000.00 for the de la Victoria spouses in accordance with our ruling in the Mecenas case:Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behaviour. In requiring compliance with the standard of extraordinary diligence, a standard which is in fact that of the highest possible degree of diligence, from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them, the law seeks to compel them to control their employees, to tame their reckless instincts and to force them to take adequate care of human beings and their property. The Court will take judicial notice of the dreadful regularity with which grievous maritime disasters occur in our waters with massive loss of life. The bulk of our population is too poor to afford domestic air transportation. So it is that notwithstanding the frequent sinking of passenger vessels in our waters, crowds of people continue to travel by sea. This Court is prepared to use the instruments given to it by the law for securing the ends of law and public policy. One of those instruments is the institution of exemplary damages; one of those ends, of special importance in an archipelagic state like the Philippines, is the safe and reliable carriage of people and goods by sea.WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification and petitioner is ORDERED to pay private respondents damages as follows:

To private respondent Ramon Miranda:P23,075.00 for actual damages;P109,038.96 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity of his wife; P150,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death of three (3) victims;P300,000.00 as moral damages;P300,000.00 as exemplary damages, all in the total amount of P882,113.96; andP40,000.00 as attorney’s fees.To private respondents Spouses Ricardo and Virginia de la Victoria:P12,000.00 for actual damages;P111,456.00 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity;P50,000.00 as compensatory damages for wrongful death;P100,000.00 as moral damages;P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all in the total amount of P373,456.00; andP15,000.00 as attorney’s fees.Petitioners are further ordered to pay costs of suit.

In the event the Philippine National Oil Company and/or the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation pay or are required to pay all or a portion of the amounts adjudged, petitioner Negros Navigation Co., Inc. shall reimburse either of them such amount or amounts as either may have paid, and in the event of failure of Negros Navigation Co., Inc., to make the necessary reimbursement, PNOC and/or PNOC/STC shall be entitled to a writ of execution without need of filing another action.SO ORDERED.

Regalado, (Chairman), and Puno, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. No. 114061, August 03, 1994 ]

KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD., PETITIONER,

VS.

COURT OF APPEALS AND JUANITO C. LAPUZ, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 113842. AUGUST 03, 1994]

JUANITO C. LAPUZ, PETITIONER,

VS.

COURT OF APPEALS AND KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS.

DECISIONCRUZ, J.:

Sometime in 1980, Juanito C. Lapuz, an automotive electrician, was contracted for employment in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for a period of one year through Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc. Lapuz was supposed to leave on November 8, 1980, via Korean Airlines. Initially, he was "wait-listed," which meant that he could only be accommodated if any of the confirmed passengers failed to show up at the airport before departure. When two of such passengers did not appear, Lapuz and another person by the name of Perico were given the two unclaimed seats.

According to Lapuz, he was allowed to check in with one suitcase and one shoulder bag at the check-in counter of KAL. He passed through the customs and immigration sections for routine check-up and was cleared for departure as Passenger No. 157 of KAL Flight No. KE 903. Together with the other passengers, he rode in the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of the KAL aircraft for boarding. However, when he was at the third or fourth rung of the stairs, a KAL officer pointed to him and shouted "Down! Down!" He was thus barred from taking the flight. When he later asked for another booking, his ticket was canceled by KAL. Consequently, he was unable to report for his work in Saudi Arabia within the stipulated 2-week period and so lost his employment.

KAL, on the other hand, alleged that on November 8, 1980, Pan Pacific Recruiting Services Inc. coordinated with KAL for the departure of 30 contract workers, of whom only 21 were confirmed and 9 were wait-listed passengers. The agent of Pan Pacific, Jimmie Joseph, after being informed that there was a possibility of having one or two seats becoming available, gave priority to Perico, who was one of the supervisors of the hiring company in Saudi Arabia. The other seat was won through lottery by Lapuz. However, only one seat became available and so, pursuant to the earlier agreement that Perico was to be given priority, he alone was allowed to board.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, adjudged KAL liable for damages, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the defendant Korean Air Lines to pay plaintiff Juanito C. Lapuz the following:1. The amount of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (P272,160.00) PESOS as actual/ compensatory damages, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid.2. The sum of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P25,000.00) PESOS as and for attorney's fees; and3. The costs of suit.The case is hereby dismissed with respect to defendant Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc.The counterclaims and cross-claim of defendant Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. are likewise dismissed.On appeal, this decision was modified by the Court of Appeals as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modifications: the amount of actual damages and compensatory damages is reduced to P60,000.00 and defendant-appellant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) by way of moral and exemplary damages, at 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the Complaint until fully paid.KAL and Lapuz filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which

5

were both denied for lack of merit. Hence, the present petitions for review which have been consolidated because of the identity of the parties and the similarity of the issues.

In G.R. No. 114061, KAL assails the decision of the appellate court on the following grounds:

1. That the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner committed a breach of contract of carriage notwithstanding lack of proper, competent and sufficient evidence of the existence of such contract.2. That the Court of Appeals erred in not according the proper evidentiary weight to some evidence presented and the fact that private respondent did not have any boarding pass to prove that he was allowed to board and to prove that his airline ticket was confirmed.3. That the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the standby passenger status of private respondent Lapuz was changed to a confirmed status when his name was entered into the passenger manifest.4. That the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in awarding moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 in favor of private respondent notwithstanding its lack of basis and private respondent did not state such amount in his complaint nor had private respondent proven the said damages.5. That the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the counterclaims.6. That the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the counterclaim of petitioner against Pan Pacific.7. That the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the 6% per annum legal interest on the judgment shall be computed from the filing of the complaint.In G.R. No. 113842, Lapuz seeks: (a) the setting aside of the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it modifies the award of damages; b) actual and compensatory damages in the sum equivalent to 5 years' loss of earnings based on the petitioner's monthly salary of 1,600 Saudi rials at the current conversion rate plus the cost of baggage and personal belongings worth P2,000 and the service fee of P3,000 paid to the recruiting agency, all with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; c) moral damages of not less than P1 million and exemplary damages of not less than P500,000.00, both with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint; and d) attorney's fees in the sum equivalent to 30% of the award of damages.

It is evident that the issues raised in these petitions relate mainly to the correctness of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the award of damages. The Court has consistently affirmed that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the other lower courts are as a rule binding upon it, subject to certain exceptions. As nothing in the record indicates any of such exceptions, the factual conclusions of the appellate court must be affirmed.

The status of Lapuz as standby passenger was changed to that of a confirmed passenger when his name was entered in the passenger manifest of KAL for its Flight No. KE 903. His clearance through immigration and customs clearly shows that he had indeed been confirmed as a passenger of KAL in that flight. KAL thus committed a breach of the contract of carriage between them when it failed to bring Lapuz to his destination.

This Court has held that a contract to transport passengers is different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. The business of the carrier is mainly with the traveling public. It invites people to avail themselves of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty. Passengers have the right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is that any discourteous conduct on the part of these employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.

The breach of contract was aggravated in this case when, instead of courteously informing Lapuz of his being a "wait-listed" passenger, a KAL officer rudely shouted "Down! Down!" while pointing at him, thus causing him embarrassment and public humiliation.

KAL argues that "the evidence of confirmation of a chance passenger status is not through the entry of the name of a chance passenger in the passenger manifest nor the clearance from the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, because they are merely means of facilitating the boarding of a chance passenger in case his status is confirmed." We are not persuaded.

The evidence presented by Lapuz shows that he had indeed checked in at the departure counter, passed through customs and immigration, boarded the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of KAL's aircraft. In fact, his baggage had already been loaded in KAL' s aircraft, to be flown with him to Jeddah. The contract of carriage between him and KAL had already been perfected when he was summarily and insolently prevented from boarding the aircraft.

KAL's allegation that the respondent court abused its discretion in awarding moral and exemplary damages is also not tenable.

The Court of Appeals granted moral and exemplary damages because:

The findings of the court a quo that the defendant-appellant has committed breach of contract of carriage in bad faith and in wanton, disregard of plaintiff-appellant's rights as passenger laid the basis and justification of an award for moral damages.x x xIn the instant case, we find that defendant-appellant Korean Air Lines acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner when it "bumped off" plaintiff-appellant on November 8, 1980, and in addition treated him rudely and arrogantly as a "patay gutom na contract worker fighting Korean Air Lines," which clearly shows malice and bad faith, thus entitling plaintiff-appellant to moral damages.x x xConsidering that the plaintiff-appellant's entitlement to moral damages has been fully established by oral and documentary evidence, exemplary damages may be awarded. In fact, exemplary damages may be awarded, even though not so expressly pleaded in the complaint (Kapoe vs. Masa, 134 SCRA 231). By the same token, to provide an example for the public good, an award of exemplary damages is also proper (Armovit vs. Court of Appeals, supra).On the other hand, Lapuz's claim that the award of P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is inadequate is not acceptable either. His prayer for moral damages of not less than P1 million and exemplary damages of not less than P500,000.00 is overblown.

The well-entrenched principle is that moral damages depend upon the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the "amount awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive" as to indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. Damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to alleviate the moral suffering that the injured party had undergone by reason of the defendant's culpable action. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.

A review of the record of this case shows that the injury suffered by Lapuz is not so serious or extensive as to warrant an award of P1.5 million. The assessment of P100,000 as moral and exemplary damages in his favor is, in our view, reasonable and realistic.

Lapuz likewise claims that the respondent court could not rule upon the propriety of the award of actual damages because it had not been assigned as an error by KAL. Not so. The rule is that only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief will be considered except errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter and plain as well as clerical errors. But this is not without qualification for, as the Court held in Vda. de Javellana vs. Court of Appeals:

x x x [T]he Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.A similar pronouncement was made in Baquiran vs. Court of Appeals in this wise:

Issues, though not specifically raised in the pleading in the appellate court, may, in the interest of justice, be properly considered by said court in deciding a case, if they are questions raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or the lower court ignored.The Court of Appeals was therefore justified in decreasing the award of actual damages even if the issue was not assigned as an error by KAL. Consideration of this question was necessary for the just and complete resolution of the present case. Furthermore, there was enough evidence to warrant the reduction of the original award, as the challenged decision correctly observed:

A perusal of the plaintiff-appellant's contract of employment shows that the effectivity of the contract is for only one year, renewable every year for five years. Although plaintiff-appellant intends to renew his contract, such renewal will still be subject to his foreign employer. Plaintiff-appellant had not yet started working with his foreign employer, hence, there can be no basis as to whether his contract will be renewed by his foreign employer or not. Thus, the damages representing the loss of earnings of plaintiff-appellant in the renewal of the contract of employment is at most speculative. Damages may not be awarded on the basis of speculation or conjecture (Gachalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126). Hence, defendant-appellant's liability is limited to the one year contract only. Plaintiff-appellant is, therefore, entitled only to his lost earnings for one year, i.e., P60,000.00, which is 1/5 of P300,000.00, the total amount of actual damages, representing lost earnings for five years prayed for in the Complaint.Plaintiff-appellant's contention that in computing his lost earnings, the current rate of the Saudi Rial to the Philippine Peso at the time of payment should be used, is untenable, considering that in his Complaint, plaintiff-appellant has quantified in Philippine Peso his lost earnings for five years.We disagree with the respondent court, however, on the date when the legal interest should commence to run. The rule is that the legal interest of six percent (6%) on the amounts adjudged in favor of Lapuz should resume from the time of the rendition of the trial court's decision instead of November 28, 1980, the date of the filing of the complaint.

6

On this matter, the Court has held:

If suit were for payment of a definite sum of money, the contention might be tenable. However, if it is for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest should be from the date of the decision.x x xThe obligation to pay interest on a sum filed in a judgment exists from the date of the sentence, when so declared; for until the net amount of the debtor's liability has been determined, he cannot he considered delinquent in the fulfillment of his obligation to pay the debt with interest thereon.Finally, we find that the respondent court did not err in sustaining the trial court's dismissal of KAL's counterclaim against Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Recruiting Services Inc., whose responsibility ended with the confirmation by KAL of Lapuz as its passenger in its Flight No. 903.

This is still another case of the maltreatment of our overseas contract workers, this time by the airline supposed to bring the passenger to his foreign assignment. Our OCWs sacrifice much in seeking employment abroad, where they are deprived of the company of their loved ones, the direct protection of our laws, and the comfort of our own native culture and way of life. This Court shall exert every effort to vindicate their rights when they are abused and shall accord them the commensurate reparation of their injuries consistent with their dignity and worth as members of the working class.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED, but with the modification that the legal interest on the damages awarded to private respondent should commence from the date of the decision of the trial court on November 14, 1990. The parties shall bear their own costs.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION[ G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 1999 ]

FORTUNE EXPRESS, INC., PETITIONER,

VS.

COURT OF APPEALS, PAULIE U. CAORONG, AND MINOR CHILDREN YASSER KING CAORONG, ROSE HEINNI AND PRINCE ALEXANDER, ALL SURNAMED CAORONG, AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER PAULIE U. CAORONG, RESPONDENTS.

DECISIONMENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated July 29, 1994, of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Iligan City. The aforesaid decision of the trial court dismissed the complaint of private respondents against petitioner for damages for breach of contract of carriage filed on the ground that petitioner had not exercised the required degree of diligence in the operation of one of its buses. Atty. Talib Caorong, whose heirs are private respondents herein, was a passenger of the bus and was killed in the ambush involving said bus.

The facts of the instant case are as follows:

Petitioner is a bus company in northern Mindanao. Private respondent Paulie Caorong is the widow of Atty. Caorong, while private respondents Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander are their minor children.

On November 18, 1989, a bus of petitioner figured in an accident with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, resulting in the death of several passengers of the jeepney, including two Maranaos. Crisanto Generalao, a volunteer field agent of the Constabulary Regional Security Unit No. X, conducted an investigation of the accident. He found that the owner of the jeepney was a Maranao residing in Delabayan, Lanao del Norte and that certain Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses. Generalao rendered a report on his findings to Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa of the Philippine Constabulary Regional Hearquarters at Cagayan de Oro. Upon the instruction of Sgt. Bastasa, he went to see Diosdado Bravo, operations manager of petitioner, at its main office in

Cagayan de Oro City. Bravo assured him that the necessary precautions to insure the safety of lives and property would be taken.

At about 6:45 P.M. on November 22, 1989, three armed Maranaos who pretended to be passengers, seized a bus of petitioner at Linamon, Lanao del Norte while on its way to Iligan City. Among the passengers of the bus was Atty. Caorong. The leader of the Maranaos, identified as one Bashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver, Godofredo Cabatuan, to stop the bus on the side of the highway. Mananggolo then shot Cabatuan on the arm, which caused him to slump on the steering wheel. Then one of the companions of Mananggolo started pouring gasoline inside the bus, as the other held the passengers at bay with a handgun. Mananggolo then ordered the passengers to get off the bus. The passengers, including Atty. Caorong, stepped out of the bus and went behind the bushes in a field some distance from the highway.

However, Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve something from the overhead rack. At that time, one of the armed men was pouring gasoline on the head of the driver. Cabatuan, who had meantime regained consciousness, heard Atty. Caorong pleading with the armed men to spare the driver as he was innocent of any wrong doing and was only trying to make a living. The armed men were, however, adamant as they repeated their warning that they were going to burn the bus along with its driver. During this exchange between Atty. Caorong and the assailants, Cabatuan climbed out of the left window of the bus and crawled to the canal on the opposite side of the highway. He heard shots from inside the bus. Larry de la Cruz, one of the passengers, saw that Atty. Caorong was hit. Then the bus was set on fire. Some of the passengers were able to pull Atty. Caorong out of the burning bus and rush him to the Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City, but he died while undergoing operation.

The private respondents brought this suit for breach of contract of carriage in the Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Iligan City. In his decision, dated December 28, 1990, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding as follows:The fact that defendant, through Operations Manager Diosdado Bravo, was informed of the "rumors" that the Moslems intended to take revenge by burning five buses of defendant is established since the latter also utilized Crisanto Generalaos as a witness. Yet despite this information, the plaintiffs charge, defendant did not take proper precautions. . . . Consequently, plaintiffs now fault the defendant for ignoring the report. Their position is that the defendant should have provided its buses with security guards. Does the law require common carriers to install security guards in its buses for the protection and safety of its passengers? Is the failure to post guards an omission of the duty to "exercise the diligence of a good father of the family" which could have prevented the killing of Atty. Caorong? To our mind, the diligence demanded by law does not include the posting of security guards in buses. It is an obligation that properly belongs to the State. Besides, will the presence of one or two security guards suffice to deter a determined assault of the lawless and thus prevent the injury complained of? Maybe so, but again, perhaps not. In other words, the presence of a security guard is not a guarantee that the killing of Atty. Caorong would have been definitely avoided.

....

Accordingly, the failure of defendant to accord faith and credit to the report of Mr. Generalao and the fact that it did not provide security to its buses cannot, in the light of the circumstances, be characterized as negligence.

Finally, the evidence clearly shows that the assailants did not have the least intention of harming any of the passengers. They ordered all the passengers to alight and set fire on the bus only after all the passengers were out of danger. The death of Atty. Caorong was an unexpected and unforseen occurrence over which defendant had no control. Atty. Caorong performed an act of charity and heroism in coming to the succor of the driver even in the face of danger. He deserves the undying gratitude of the driver whose life he saved. No one should blame him for an act of extraordinary charity and altruism which cost his life. But neither should any blame be laid on the doorstep of defendant. His death was solely due to the willful acts of the lawless which defendant could neither prevent nor stop.

....

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the complaint is hereby dismissed. For lack of merit, the counter-claim is likewise dismissed. No cost.On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held:In the case at bench, how did defendant-appellee react to the tip or information that certain Maranao hotheads were planning to burn five of its buses out of revenge for the deaths of two Maranaos in an earlier collision involving appellee's bus? Except for the remarks of appellee's operations manager that "we will have our action . . . . and I'll be the one to settle it personally," nothing concrete whatsoever was taken by appellee or its employees to prevent the execution of the threat. Defendant-appellee never adopted even a single safety measure for the protection of its paying passengers. Were there available safeguards? Of course, there were: one was frisking passengers particularly those en route to

7

the area where the threats were likely to be carried out such as where the earlier accident occurred or the place of influence of the victims or their locality. If frisking was resorted to, even temporarily, . . . . appellee might be legally excused from liability. Frisking of passengers picked up along the route could have been implemented by the bus conductor; for those boarding at the bus terminal, frisking could have been conducted by him and perhaps by additional personnel of defendant-appellee. On hindsight, the handguns and especially the gallon of gasoline used by the felons all of which were brought inside the bus would have been discovered, thus preventing the burning of the bus and the fatal shooting of the victim.

Appellee's argument that there is no law requiring it to provide guards on its buses and that the safety of citizens is the duty of the government, is not well taken. To be sure, appellee is not expected to assign security guards on all of its buses; if at all, it has the duty to post guards only on its buses plying predominantly Maranao areas. As discussed in the next preceding paragraph, the least appellee could have done in response to the report was to adopt a system of verification such as frisking of passengers boarding its buses. Nothing, and to repeat, nothing at all, was done by defendant-appellee to protect its innocent passengers from the danger arising from the "Maranao threats." It must be observed that frisking is not a novelty as a safety measure in our society. Sensitive places - in fact, nearly all important places - have applied this method of security enhancement. Gadgets and devices are available in the market for this purpose. It would not have weighed much against the budget of the bus company if such items were made available to its personnel to cope up with situations such as the "Maranao threats."

In view of the constitutional right to personal privacy, our pronouncement in this decision should not be construed as an advocacy of mandatory frisking in all public conveyances. What we are saying is that given the circumstances obtaining in the case at bench that: (a) two Maranaos died because of a vehicular collision involving one of appellee's vehicles; (b) appellee received a written report from a member of the Regional Security Unit, Constabulary Security Group, that the tribal/ethnic group of the two deceased were planning to burn five buses of appellee out of revenge; and (c) appellee did nothing - absolutely nothing - for the safety of its passengers travelling in the area of influence of the victims, appellee has failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of common carriers. Hence, appellee must be adjudged liable.

....

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and another rendered ordering defendant-appellee to pay plaintiffs-appellants the following:

1) P3,399,649.20 as death indemnity;

2) P50,000.00 and P500.00 per appearance as attorney's fees; and

Costs against defendant-appellee.Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends:(A) THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 28, 1990 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE COUNTERCLAIM, AND FINDING FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS BY ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY THE GARGANTUAN SUM OF P3,449,649.20 PLUS P500.00 PER APPEARANCE AS ATTORNEY'S FEES, AS WELL AS DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE SUPPLEMENT TO SAID MOTION, WHILE HOLDING, AMONG OTHERS, THAT PETITIONER BREACHED THE CONTRACT OF CARIAGE BY ITS FAILURE TO EXERCISE THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF DILIGENCE;(B) THAT THE ACTS OF THE MARANAO OUTLAWS WERE SO GRAVE, IRRESISTIBLE, VIOLENT, AND FORCEFUL, AS TO BE REGARDED AS CASO FORTUITO; AND(C) THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER COULD HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE SECURITY IN PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM AREAS AS PART OF ITS DUTY TO OBSERVE EXTRA-ORDINARY DILIGENCE AS A COMMON CARRIER.The instant petition has no merit.

First. Petitioner's Breach of the Contract of Carriage

Art. 1763 of the Civil Code provides that a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts of other passengers, if the employees of the common carrier could have prevented the act the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. In the present case, it is clear that because of the negligence of petitioner's employees, the seizure of the bus by Mananggolo and his men was made possible.

Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioner's operation manager, Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary precautions would be taken, petitioner did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers.

Had petitioner and its employees been vigilant they would not have failed to see that the malefactors had a large quantity of gasoline with them. Under the circumstances, simple precautionary measures to protect the safety of passengers, such as frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets such as metal detectors, before allowing them on board could have been employed without violating the passenger's constitutional rights. As this Court intimated in Gacal v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., a common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages.

From the foregoing, it is evident that petitioner's employees failed to prevent the attack on one of petitioner's buses because they did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family. Hence, petitioner should be held liable for the death of Atty. Caorong.

Second. Seizure of Petitioner's Bus not a Case of Force Majeure

The petitioner contends that the seizure of its bus by the armed assailants was a fortuitous event for which it could not be held liable.

Art. 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous even as an occurrence which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, is inevitable. In Yobido v. Court of Appeals, we held that to be considered as force majeure, it is necessary that: (1) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will; (2) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. The absence of any of the requisites mentioned above would prevent the obligor from being excused from liability.

Thus, in Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the common carrier was liable for its failure to take the necessary precautions against an approaching typhoon, of which it was warned, resulting in the loss of the lives of several passengers. The event was foreseeable, and, thus, the second requisite mentioned above was not fulfilled. This ruling applies by analogy to the present case. Despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were going to attack its buses, petitioner took no steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers. The seizure of the bus of the petitioner was foreseeable and, therefore, was not a fortuitous event which would exempt petitioner from liability.

Petitioner invokes the ruling in Pilapil v. Court of Appeals and De Guzman v. Court of Appeals in support of its contention that the seizure of its bus by the assailants constitutes force majeure. In Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, it was held that a common carrier is not liable for failing to install window grills on its buses to protect passengers from injuries caused by rocks hurled at the bus by lawless elements. On the other hand, in De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that a common carrier is not responsible for goods lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force.

It is clear that the cases of Pilapil and De Guzman do not apply to the present case. Art. 1755 of the Civil Code provides that "a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances." Thus, we held in Pilapil and De Guzman that the respondents therein were not negligent in failing to take special precautions against threats to the safety of passengers which could not be foreseen, such as tortious or criminal acts of third persons. In the present case, this factor of unforeseeablility (the second requisite for an event to be considered force majeure) is lacking. As already stated, despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were planning to burn some of petitioner's buses and the assurance of petitioner's operations manager (Diosdado Bravo) that the necessary precautions would be taken, nothing was really done by petitioner to protect the safety of passengers.

Third. Deceased not Guilty of Contributory Negligence

The petitioner contends that Atty. Caorong was guilty of contributory negligence in returning to the bus to retrieve something. But Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly. It should be pointed out that the intended targets of the violence were petitioner and its employees, not its passengers. The assailant's motive was to retaliate for the loss of life of two Maranaos as a result of the collision between petitioner's bus and the jeepney in which the two Maranaos were riding. Mananggolo, the leader of the group which had hijacked the bus, ordered the passengers to get off the bus as they intended to burn it and its driver. The armed men actually allowed Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from the bus. What apparently angered them was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He was playing the role of the good Samaritan. Certainly, this act cannot be considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness.

8

Fourth. Petitioner Liable to Private Respondents for Damages

We now consider the question of damages that the heirs of Atty. Caorong, private respondents herein, are entitled to recover from the petitioner.

Indemnity for Death. Art. 1764 of the Civil Code, in relation to Art. 2206 thereof, provides for the payment of indemnity for the death of passengers caused by the breached of contract of carriage by a common carrier. Initially fixed in Art. 2206 at P3,000.00, the amount of the said indemnity for death has through the years been gradually increased in view of the declining value of the peso. It is presently fixed at P50,000.00. Private respondents are entitled to this amount.

Actual damages. Art. 2199 provides that "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." The trial court found that the private respondents spent P30,000.00 for the wake and burial of Atty. Caorong. Since petitioner does not question this finding of the trial court, it is liable to private respondents in the said amount as actual damages.

Moral Damages. Under Art. 2206, the "spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased." The trial court found that private respondent Paulie Caorong suffered pain from the death of her husband and worry on how to provide support for their minor children, private respondents Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander. The petitioner likewise does not question this finding of the trial court. Thus, in accordance with recent decisions of this Court, we hold that the petitioner is liable to the private respondents in the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages for the death of Atty. Caorong.

Exemplary Damages. Art. 2232 provides that "in contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." In the present case, the petitioner acted in a wanton and reckless manner. Despite warning that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge against the petitioner by burning some of its buses, and contrary to the assurance made by its operations manager that the necessary precautions would be taken, the petitioner and its employees did nothing to protect the safety of passengers. Under the circumstances, we deem it reasonable to award private respondents exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00.

Attorney's Fees. Pursuant to Art. 2208, attorney's fees may be recovered when, as in the instant case, exemplary damages are awarded. In the recent case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held an award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees to be reasonable. Hence, the private respondents are entitled to attorney's fees in that amount.

Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity. Art. 1764 of the Civil Code, in relation to Art. 2206 thereof, provides that in addition to the indemnity for death arising from the breach of contract of carriage by a common carrier, the "defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter." The formula established in decided cases for computing net earning capacity is as follows:Gross NecessaryNet earning =Life x Annual -LivingCapacity Expectancy Income ExpensesLife expectancy is equivalent to two thirds (2/3) multiplied by the difference of eighty (80) and the age of the deceased. Since Atty. Caorong was 37 years old at the time of his death, he had a life expectancy of 28 2/3 more years. His projected gross annual income, computed based on his monthly salary of P11,385.00 as a lawyer in the Department of Agrarian Reform at the time of his death, was P148,005.00. allowing for necessary living expenses of fifty percent (50%)of his projected gross annual income, his total earning capacity amounts to P2,121,404.90. Hence, the petitioner is liable to the private respondents in the said amount as compensation for loss of earning capacity.

WHEREFORE, the decision, dated July 29, 1994, of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Fortune Express, Inc. is ordered to pay the following amounts to private respondents Paulie, Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander Caorong:death indemnity in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00);

actual damages in the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00);

moral damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos(P100,000.00);

exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00);

attorney's fees in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00);

compensation for loss of earning capacity in the amount of two million one hundred twenty-one thousand four hundred four pesos and ninety centavos (P2,121,404.90); and

costs of suits.SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Puno, and Buena, JJ., concur.Quisumbing, J., on official business abroad.

FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. Nos. 66102-04, August 30, 1990 ]

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER,

VS.

THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL.,* RESPONDENTS.

DECISIONMEDIALDEA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) dated July 29, 1983 in AC-G.R. Nos. CV-65885, CV-65886 and CV-65887 which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pangasinan dated December 27, 1978; and its resolution dated November 28, 1983 denying the motion for reconsideration.

It is an established principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed by this Court on appeal. However, this principle is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court (see Sabinosa v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47981, July 24, 1989) in which case, a re?examination of the facts and evidence may be undertaken. This is Our task now.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

About 11:00 o'clock in the morning on December 24, 1966, Catalina Pascua, Caridad Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas boarded the jeepney owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga bound for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their respective homes. Although they usually ride in buses, they had to ride in a jeepney that day because the buses were full. Their contract with Manalo was for them to pay P24.00 for the trip. The private respondents' testimonial evidence on this contractual relationship was not controverted by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, nor by Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc., the insurer of the jeepney, with contrary evidence. Purportedly riding on the front seat with Manalo was Mercedes Lorenzo. On the left rear passenger seat were Caridad Pascua, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas. On the right rear passenger seat were Catalina Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, and Erlinda Meriales. After a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refreshment, the jeepney proceeded towards Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan.

Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position. Manalo stepped on the brake, as a result of which, the jeepney which was then running on the eastern lane (its right of way) made a U-turn, invading and eventually stopping on the western lane of the road in such a manner that the jeepney's front faced the south (from where it came) and its rear faced the north (towards where it was going). The jeepney practically occupied and blocked the greater portion of the western lane, which is the right of way of vehicles coming from the north, among which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas delos Reyes. Almost at the time when the jeepney made a sudden U-turn and encroached

9

on the western lane of the highway as claimed by Rabbit and delos Reyes, or after stopping for a couple of minutes as claimed by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, the bus bumped from behind the right rear portion of the jeepney. As a result of the collision, three passengers of the jeepney (Catalina Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo) died while the other jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries. What could have been a festive Christmas turned out to be tragic.

The causes of the death of the three jeepney passengers were as follows (p. 101, Record on Appeal):

"The deceased Catalina Pascua suffered the following injuries, to wit: fracture of the left parietal and temporal regions of the skull; fracture of the left mandible; fracture of the right humenous; compound fracture of the left radious and ullma, middle third and lower third; fracture of the upper third of the right tibia and fillnea; avulsion of the head, left internal; and multiple abrasions. The cause of her death was shock, secondary to fracture and multiple hemorrhage. The fractures were produced as a result of the hitting of the victim by a strong force. The abrasions could be produced when a person falls from a moving vehicles (sic) and rubs parts of her body against a cement road pavement. x x x."Erlinda Mariles (sic) sustained external lesions such as contusion on the left parietal region of the skull; hematoma on the right upper lid; and barasions (sic) on the left knee. Her internal lesions were: hematoma on the left thorax; multiple lacerations of the left lower lobe of the lungs; contusions on the left lower lobe of the lungs; and simple fractures of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs, left. The forcible impact of the jeep caused the above injuries which resulted in her death. x x x."The cause of death of Erlinda or Florida Estomo (also called Adelaida) as per autopsy of Dr. Panlasiqui was due to shock due to internal hemorrhage, ruptured spleen and trauma. x x x."Caridad Pascua suffered physical injuries as follows (p. 101, Record on Appeal):

"x x x lacerated wound on the forehead and occipital region, hematoma on the forehead, multiple abrasions on the forearm, right upper arm, back and right leg. x x x."The police investigators of Tacpal and policemen of San Manuel, Tarlac, Tarlac, upon arrival at the scene of the mishap, prepared a sketch (common exhibit "K" for private respondents and "19” for Rabbit) showing the relative positions of the two vehicles as well as the alleged point of impact (p. 100, Record on Appeal):

"x x x. The point of collision was a cement pave-portion of the Highway, about six (6) meters wide, with narrow shoulders with grasses beyond which are canals on both sides. The road was straight and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision are visible and unobstructed. Purportedly, the point of impact or collision (Exh. 'K-4'-Pascua, on the sketch Exh. 'K'-Pascua) was on the western lane of the highway about 3 feet (or one yard) from the center line as shown by the bedris (sic), dirt and soil (obviously from the undercarriage of both vehicles) as well as paint, marron (sic) from the Rabbit bus and greenish from the jeepney. The point of impact encircled and marked with the letter 'X' in Exh. 'K'-4, Pascua, had a diameter of two meters, the center of which was about two meters from the western edge of cement pavement of the roadway. Pictures taken by witness Bisquera in the course of the investigation showed the relative positions of the point of impact and center line (Exh. 'P'-Pascua) the back of the Rabbit bus (Exh. 'P-1-Pascua), the lifeless body of Catalina Pascua (Exh 'P-2-Pascua'), and the damaged front part of the Rabbit bus (Exh. 'P-3-Pascua'). No skid marks of the Rabbit bus was found in the vicinity of the collision, before or after the point of impact. On the other hand, there was a skid mark about 45 meters long purportedly of the jeepney from the eastern shoulder of the road south of, and extending up to the point of impact."At the time and in the vicinity of the accident, there were no vehicles following the jeepney, neither were there oncoming vehicles except the bus. The weather condition of that day was fair.

After conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal Court of San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide. At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause was found with respect to the case of Manalo, thus, his case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. However, finding no sufficiency of evidence as regards the case of delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it. Manalo was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having appealed, he served his sentence.

Complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. In Civil Case No. 1136, spouses Casiano Pascua and Juana Valdez sued as heirs of Catalina Pascua while Caridad Pascua sued in her behalf. In Civil Case No. 1139, spouses Manuel Millares and Fidencia Arcica sued as heirs of Erlinda Meriales. In Civil Case No. 1140, spouses Mariano Estomo and Dionisia Sarmiento also sued as heirs of Adelaida Estomo.

In all three cases, spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Rabbit and delos Reyes were all impleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As against Rabbit and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as additional defendant in Civil Case No. 1136 only.

For the death of Catalina Pascua, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1136 sought to collect the aggregate amount of P70,060.00 in damages, itemized as follows: P500.00 for burial expenses; P12,000.00 for loss of wages for 24 years; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees. In the same case, plaintiff Caridad Pascua claimed P550.00 for medical expenses; P240.00 for loss of wages for two months; P2,000.00 for disfigurement of her face; P3,000.00 for physical pain and suffering; P2,500.00 as exemplary damages and P2,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

In Civil Case No. 1139, plaintiffs demanded P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 for the death of Erlinda, P63,000.00 for loss of income P10,000.00 for moral damages and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees or total of P80,000.00.

In Civil Case No. 1140, plaintiffs claimed P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 for the death of Adelaida, P56,160.00 for loss of her income or earning capacity; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees.

Rabbit filed a cross-claim in the amount of P15,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. On the other hand, spouses Mangune and Carreon filed a cross-claim in the amount of P6,168.00 for the repair of the jeepney and P3,000.00 for its non-use during the period of repairs.

On December 27, 1978, the trial court rendered its decision finding Manalo negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 113-114, Record on Appeal):

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court is of the opinion and so holds:"1) That defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo thru their negligence, breached contract of carriage with their passengers the plaintiffs' and/or their heirs, and this Court renders judgment ordering said defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs -'a) In Civil Case No. 1136, for the death of Catalina Pascua, to pay her heirs the amounts of P12,000.00 for indemnity for loss of her life; P41,760.00 for loss of earnings; P324.40 for actual expenses and P2,000.00 for moral damages;

'b) In the same Civil Case No. 1136 for the injuries of Caridad Pascua, to pay her the amounts of P240.00 for loss of wages, P328.20 for actual expenses and P500.00 for moral damages;

'c) In Civil Case No. 1139 for the death of Erlinda Meriales, to pay her heirs (the plaintiffs) the amount of P12,000.00 - for indemnity for loss of her life; P622.00 for actual expenses, P60,480.00 for loss of wages or income and P2,000.00 for moral damages;

'd) In Civil Case No. 1140, for the death of Erlinda (also called Florida or Adelaida Estomo), to pay her heirs (the plaintiffs) the amount of P12,000.00 for indemnity for the loss of her life; P580.00 for actual expenses; P53,160.00 for loss of wages or income and P2,000.00 for moral damages.'

"2) The defendant Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co., having contracted to ensure and answer for the obligations of defendants Mangune and Carreon for damages due their passengers, this Court renders judgment against the said defendants Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co., jointly and severally with said defendants (Mangune and Carreon) to pay the plaintiffs the amount herein above adjudicated in their favor in Civil Case No. 1136 only. All the amounts awarded said plaintiffs as set forth in paragraph one (1) hereinabove;"3) On the cross claim of Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering the defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, cross-claimant Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., the amounts of P216.27 as actual damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earning."All of the above amounts shall bear legal interest from the filing of the complaints."Costs are adjudged against defendants Mangune, Carreon and Manalo and Filriters Guaranty."SO ORDERED."On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the above-quoted decision by finding delos Reyes negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 55-57, Rollo):

"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the lower court's decision is hereby REVERSED as to item No. 3 of the decision which reads:'(3) On the cross claim of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering the defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, the amounts of P216.27 as actual damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earnings.'and another judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs-appellants Casiana Pascua, Juan Valdez and Caridad Pascua, ordering the Philippine Rabit Bus Lines, Inc. and its driver Tomas delos Reyes to pay the former jointly and severally damages in amounts awarded as follows:"For the death of Catalina Pascua, the parents and/or heirs are awarded:"Civil Case No. 1136 -a) Indemnity for the loss of life- P12,000.00

10

b) Loss of Salaries or earning capacity- 14,000.00c) Actual damages (burial expenses)- 800.00d) For moral damages- 10,000.00e) Exemplary damages- 3,000.00f) For attorney's fees- 3,000.00TotalP38,200.00 (sic)"For the physical injuries suffered by Caridad Pascua:"Civil Case No. 1136a) Actual damages (hospitalization expenses)- P 550.00b) Moral damages (disfigurement of the face and physical suffering- 8,000.00c) Exemplary damages- 2,000.00Total- P10,550.00"For the death of Erlinda Arcega Meriales, the parents and/or heirs:"Civil Case No. 1139a) Indemnity for loss of life- P12,000.00b) Loss of Salary or Earning Capacity- 20,000.00c) Actual damages (burial expenses)- 500.00d) Moral damages- 15 000.00e) Exemplary damages- 15,000.00f) Attorney's fees- 3,000.00Total- P45,500 00"For the death of Florida Sarmiento Estomo:"Civil Case No. 1140.a) Indemnity for loss of life- P12,000.00b) Loss of Salary or Earning capacity- 20,000.00c) Actual damages (burial expenses)- 500.00d) Moral damages- 3,000.00e) Exemplary damages- 3,000.00f) Attorney's fees- 3,000.00Total- P41,500.00"With costs against the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc."SO ORDERED."The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition.

The issue is who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney?

The trial court, in declaring that Manalo was negligent, considered the following (p. 106, Record on Appeal):

"(1) That the unrebutted testimony of his passenger plaintiff Caridad Pascua that a long ways (sic) before reaching the point of collision, the Mangune jeepney was 'running fast' that his passengers cautioned driver Manalo to slow down but did not heed the warning: that the right rear wheel was detached causing the jeepney to run to the eastern shoulder of the road then back to the concrete pavement; that driver Manalo applied the brakes after which the jeepney made a U-turn (half-turn) in such a manner that it inverted its direction making it face South instead of north; that the jeepney stopped on the western lane of the road on the right of way of the oncoming Phil. Rabbit Bus where it was bumped by the latter;"(2) The likewise unrebutted testimony of Police Investigator Tacpal of the San Manuel (Tarlac) Police who, upon responding to the reported collision, found the real evidence thereat indicating in his sketch (Exh. K, Pascua), the tracks of the jeepney of defendant Mangune and Carreon running on the Eastern shoulder (outside the concrete paved road) until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp angle, crossing the Eastern lane and the (imaginary) center line and encroaching fully into the western lane where the collision took place as evidenced by the point of impact;"(3) The observation of witness Police Corporal Cacalda also of the San Manuel Police that the path of the jeepney they found on the road (and indicated in the sketch (Exh. K-Pascua) was shown by skid marks which he described as 'scratches on the road caused by the iron of the jeep, after its wheel was removed;'"(4) His conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple Serious Physical Injuries with Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Exh. 24-Rabbit) upon the criminal Information by the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac (Exh. 23-Rabbit), as a result of the collision, and his commitment to prison and service of his sentence (Exh. 25-Rabbit) upon the finality of the decision and his failure to appeal therefrom; and"(5) The application of the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitar (sic) attesting to the circumstance that the collision occurred (sic) on the right of way of the Phil.

Rabbit Bus."The respondent court had a contrary opinion. Applying primarily (1) the doctrine of last clear chance, (2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence, and (3) the substantial factor test, concluded that delos Reyes was negligent.

The misappreciation of the facts and evidence and the misapplication of the laws by the respondent court warrant a reversal of its questioned decision and resolution.

We reiterate that "[t]he principle about the 'last clear chance' would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence." This was Our ruling in Anuran, et al. v. Buño, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 224. Thus, the respondent court erred in applying said doctrine.

On the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence, the respondent court said (p. 49, Rollo):

"x x x, the jeepney had already executed a complete turnabout and at the time of impact was already facing the western side of the road. Thus the jeepney assumed a new frontal position vis a vis, the bus, and the bus assumed a new role of defensive driving. The spirit behind the presumption of guilt on one who bumps the rear end of another vehicle is for the driver following a vehicle to be at all times prepared of a pending accident should the driver in front suddenly come to a full stop, or change its course either through change of mind of the front driver, mechanical trouble, or to avoid an accident. The rear vehicle is given the responsibility of avoiding a collision with the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has full control of the situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of it."The above discussion would have been correct were it not for the undisputed fact that the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt (Exhibit "K," Pascua). The jeepney, which was then traveling on the eastern shoulder, making a straight skid mark of approximately 35 meters, crossed the eastern lane at a sharp angle, making a skid mark of approximately 15 meters from the eastern shoulder to the point of impact (Exhibit "K," Pascua). Hence, delos Reyes could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo. The respondent court did not realize that the presumption was rebutted by this piece of evidence.

With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the opinion of the respondent court that (p. 52, Rollo):

"x x x. It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor's conduct is a substantial factor it bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here, We find defendant bus running at a fast speed when the accident occurred and did not even make the slightest effort to avoid the accident, x x x. The bus driver's conduct is thus a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the passengers of the jeepney, not only because he was driving fast and did not even attempt to avoid the mishap, but also because it was the bus which was the physical force which brought about the injury and death to the passengers of the jeepney."The speed of the bus was calculated by respondent court as follows (pp. 54-55, Rollo):

"According to the record of the case, the bus departed from Laoag, Ilocos Norte, at 4:00 o'clock A.M. and the accident took place at approximately around 12:30 P.M., after travelling roughly for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Deduct from this the actual stopover time of two Hours (computed from the testimony of the driver that he made three 40-minute stopovers), We will have an actual travelling time of 6 hours and 30 minutes."Under the circumstances, We calculate that the Laoag-Tarlac route (365 kms.) driving at an average of 56 km. per hour would take 6 hours and 30 minutes. Therefore, the average speed of the bus, give and take 10 minutes, from the point of impact on the highway with excellent visibility factor would be 80 to 90 kms. per hour, as this is the place where buses would make up for lost time in traversing busy city streets."Still, We are not convinced. It cannot be said that the bus was travelling at a fast speed when the accident occurred because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per hour, assuming such calculation to be correct, is yet within the speed limit allowed in highways. We cannot even fault delos Reyes for not having avoided the collision. As aforestated, the jeepney left a skid mark of about 45 meters, measured from the time its right rear wheel was detached up to the point of collision. Delos Reyes must have noticed the perilous condition of the jeepney from the time its right rear wheel was detached or some 90 meters away, considering that the road was straight and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision, visible and unobstructed. Delos Reyes admitted that he was running more or less 50 kilometers per hour at the time of the accident. Using this speed, delos Reyes covered the distance of 45 meters in 3.24 seconds. If We adopt the speed of 80 kilometers per hour, delos Reyes would have covered that distance in only 2.025 seconds. Verily,

11

he had little time to react to the situation. To require delos Reyes to avoid the collision is to ask too much from him. Aside from the time element involved, there were no options available to him. As the trial court remarked (pp. 107-108, Record on Appeal):

"x x x. They (plaintiffs) tried to impress this Court that defendant de los Reyes, could have taken either of two options: (1) to swerve to its right (western shoulder) or (2) to swerve to its left (eastern lane), and thus steer clear of the Mangune jeepney. This Court does not so believe, considering the existing exigencies of space and time."As to the first option, Phil. Rabbit's evidence is convincing and unrebutted that the Western shoulder of the road was narrow and had tall grasses which would indicate that it was not passable. Even plaintiff's own evidence, the pictures (Exhs. P and P-2, Pascua) are mute confirmation of such fact. Indeed, it can be noticed in the picture (Exh. P-2, Pascua) after the Rabbit bus came to a full stop, it was tilted to right front side, its front wheels resting most probably on a canal on a much lower elevation that of the shoulder or paved road. It too shows that all of the wheels of the Rabbit bus were clear of the roadway except the outer left rear wheel. These observation appearing in said picture (Exh. P-2, Pascua) clearly shows coupled with the finding the Rabbit bus came to a full stop only five meters from the point of impact (see sketch, Exh. K-Pascua) clearly show that driver de los Reyes veered his Rabbit bus to the right attempting to avoid hitting the Mangune's jeepney. That it was not successful in fully clearing the Mangune jeepney as its (Rabbit's) left front hit said jeepney (see picture Exh. 10-A-Rabbit) must have been due to limitations of space and time."Plaintiffs alternatively claim that defendant delos Reyes of the Rabbit bus could also have swerved to its left (eastern lane) to avoid bumping the Mangune jeepney which was then on the western lane. Such a claim is premised on the hypthesis (sic) that the eastern lane was then empty. This claim would appear to be good copy of it were based alone on the sketch made after the collision. Nonetheless, it loses force it one were to consider the time element involved, for moments before that, the Mangune jeepney was crossing that very eastern lane at a sharp angle. Under such a situation then, for driver delos Reyes to swerve to the eastern lane, he would run the greater risk of running smack in the Mangune jeepney either head on or broadside."After a minute scrutiny of the factual matters and duly proven evidence, We find that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed precisely pro hac vice.

In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and this disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event (Lasam v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil. 657).

The negligence of Manalo was proven during the trial by the unrebutted testimonies of Caridad Pascua, Police Investigator Tacpal, Police Corporal Cacalda, his (Manalo's) conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple Serious Injuries with Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence, and the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, supra. The negligence of spouses Mangune and Carreon was likewise proven during the trial (p. 110, Record on Appeal):

"To escape liability, defendants, Mangune and Carreon offered to show thru their witness Natalio Navarro, an alleged mechanic, that he periodically checks and maintains the jeepney of said defendants, the last on Dec. 23, the day before the collision, which included the tightening of the bolts. This notwithstanding the right rear wheel of the vehicle was detached while in transit. As to the cause thereof no evidence was offered. Said defendant did not even attempt to explain, much less establish, it to be one caused by a caso fortuito. x x x."In any event, "[i]n an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to safely carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid the carrier's liability for damages (Son v. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Phil. 892 citing Lasam, et al. v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil. 657; Necesito, etc. v. Paras, et al., 104 Phil. 75).

The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible therefor to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). In other words, the carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his driver's negligence is his. Secondly, if We make the driver jointly and severally liable with the carrier, that would make the carrier's liability personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds to the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of the New Civil Code.

We affirm the amount of damages adjudged by the trial court, except with respect to the indemnity for loss of life. Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code, the amount of damages for the death of a passenger is at least three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The prevailing jurisprudence has increased the amount of P3,000.00 to P30,000.00 (see Heirs of Amparo delos Santos, et al. v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 51165, June, 21, 1990 citing De Lima v. Laguna Tayabas Co., G.R. Nos.L-35697-99, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 70).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated July 29, 1983 and its resolution dated November 28, 1983 are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated December 27, 1978 is REINSTATED WITH MODIFICATION that only Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. are liable to the victims or their heirs and that the amount of indemnity for loss of life is increased to thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9907             June 30, 1958

LOURDES J. LARA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, defendant-appellant.

Castillo, Cervantes, Occeña, Lozano, Montana, Cunanan, Sison and Castillo and Eligio G. Lagman for defendant-appellant.Donato C. Endriga and Emigdio Dakanay for plaintiffs-appellants.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

This is an action for damages brought by plaintiffs against defendant in the Court of First Instance of Davao for the death of one Demetrio Lara, Sr. allegedly caused by the negligent act of defendant. Defendant denied the charge of negligence and set up certain affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.

The court after hearing rendered judgment ordering defendant to pay the plaintiffs the following amount: (a) P10,000 as moral damages; (b) P3,000 as exemplary damages; and (c) P1,000 as attorney's fees, in addition to the costs of action. Both parties appealed to this Court because the damages claimed in the complaint exceed the sum of P50,000.

In their appeal, plaintiffs claim that the court a quo erred in disregarding their claim of P41,400 as actual or compensatory damages and in awarding as attorneys' fees only the sum of P1,000 instead of P3,000 as agreed upon between plaintiffs and their counsel. Defendant, on the other hand, disputes the finding of the court a quo that the oath of Demetrio Lara, Sr. was due to the negligence of defendant and the portion of the judgment which orders dependant to pay to plaintiffs moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys' fees, said defendant contending that the court should have declared that the death of Lara was due to unavoidable accident.

The deceased was an inspector of the Bureau of Forestry stationed in Davao with an annual salary of P1,800. The defendant is engaged in the business of exporting logs from his lumber concession in Cotabato. Lara went to said concession upon instructions of his chief to classify the logs of defendant which were about to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. The work Lara of lasted for six days during which he contracted malaria fever. In the morning of January 9, 1954, Lara who then in a hurry to return to Davao asked defendant if he could take him in his pick-up as there was then no other means of transportation, to which defendant agreed, and in that same morning the pick-up left Parang bound for Davao taking along six passengers, including Lara.

The pick-up has a front seat where the driver and two passengers can be accommodated and the back has a steel flooring enclosed with a steel walling of 16 to 17 inches tall on the sides and with a 19 inches tall walling at the back. Before leaving Parang, the sitting arrangement was as follows: defendant was at the wheel and seated with him in the front seat were Mrs. Valencia and Nicanor Quinain; on the back of the pick-up were two improvised benches placed on each side, and seated on the right bench were Ricardo Alojipan and Antonio Lagahit, and on the left one Bernardo and Pastor Geronimo. A person

12

by the name of Leoning was seated on a box located on the left side while in the middle Lara sat on a bag. Before leaving Parang, defendant invited Lara to sit with him on the front seat but Lara declined. It was their understanding that upon reaching barrio Samoay, Cotabato, the passengers were to alight and take a bus bound for Davao, but when they arrived at that place, only Bernardo alighted and the other passengers requested defendant to allow them to ride with him up to Davao because there was then no available bus that they could take in going to that place. Defendant again accommodated the passengers.

When they continued their trip, the sitting arrangement of the passengers remained the same, Lara being seated on a bag in the middle with his arms on a suitcase and his head cove red by a jacket. Upon reaching Km. 96, barrio Catidtuan, Lara accidentally fell from the pick-up and as a result he suffered serious injuries. Valencia stopped the pick-up to see what happened to Lara. He sought the help of the residents of that place and applied water to Lara but to no avail. They brought Lara to the nearest place where they could find a doctor and not having found any they took him to St. Joseph's Clinic of Kidapawan. But when Lara arrived he was already dead. From there they proceeded to Davao City and immediately notified the local authorities. An investigation was made regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Lara but no criminal action was taken against defendant.

It should be noted that the deceased went to the lumber concession of defendant in Parang, Cotabato upon instructions of his chief in order to classify the logs of defendant which were then ready to be exported and to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. It took Lara six days to do his work during which he contracted malaria fever and for that reason he evinced a desire to return immediately to Davao. At that time, there was no available bus that could take him back to Davao and so he requested the defendant if he could take him in his own pick-up. Defendant agreed and, together with Lara, other passengers tagged along, most of them were employees of the Government. Defendant merely accommodated them and did not charge them any fee for the service. It was also their understanding that upon reaching barrio Samoay, the passengers would alight and transfer to a bus that regularly makes the trip to Davao but unfortunately there was none available at the time and so the same passengers, including Lara, again requested the defendant to drive them to Davao. Defendant again accommodated them and upon reaching Km. 96, Lara accidentally fell suffering fatal injuries.

It therefore appears that the deceased, as well his companions who rode in the pick-up of defendant, were merely accommodation passengers who paid nothing for the service and so they can be considered as invited guests within the meaning of the law. As accommodation passengers or invited guests, defendant as owner and driver of the pick-up owes to them merely the duty to exercise reasonable care so that they may be transported safely to their destination. Thus, "The rule is established by the weight of authority that the owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty to an invited guest to exercise reasonable care in its operation, and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel. This rule, as frequently stated by the courts, is that an owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him. Since one riding in an automobile is no less a guest because he asked for the privilege of doing so, the same obligation of care is imposed upon the driver as in the case of one expressly invited to ride" (5 Am. Jur., 626-627). Defendant, therefore, is only required to observe ordinary care, and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence as required of a common carrier by our law (Articles 1755 and 1756, new Civil Code).

The question that now arises is: Is there enough evidence to show that defendant failed to observe ordinary care or diligence in transporting the deceased from Parang to Davao on the date in question?

The trial court answered the question in the affirmative but in so doing it took into account only the following facts:

No debe perderse de vista el hecho, que los negocios de exportacion de trozos del demandado tiene un volumen de P1,200. Lara era empleado de la Oficina de Montes, asalariado por el gobierno, no pagado por el demandado para classificar los trozos exportados; debido a los trabajos de classificacion que duro 6 dias, en su ultimo dia Lara no durmio toda la noche, al dia siguiente, Lara fue atacado de malaria, tenia inflamada la cara y cuerpo, sufria dolores de cabeza con erupciones en la cara y cuerpo; que en la manana, del dia 2 de enero de 1954, fecha en que Lara salio de Davao para Parang, en aeroplano para clasificar los trozos del demandado, el automobil de este condujo a aquel al aerodromo de Davao.

x x x           x x x           x x x

El viaje de Cotabato a Davao no es menos de 8 horas, su carretera esta en malas condiciones, desnivelada, con piedras salientes y baches, que hacen del vehiculo no estable en su marcha. Lara estaba enfermo de cierta gravedad, tenia el cuerpo y cara inflamados, atacado de malaria, con dolores de cabeza y con erupciones en la cara y cuerpo.

A la vista de estos hechos, el demandado debia de saber que era sumamente peligroso llevar 5 pasajeros en la parte trasera del pick-up; particularmente,

para la salud de Lara; el permitirlo, el demandado no ha tomado las precausiones, para evitar un posible accidente fatal. La negative de Lara de ocupar el asiento delantero del pick-up no constituye a juicio del Juzgado una defensa, pues el demendado conociendo el estado delicado de salud de Lara, no debio de haber permitido que aquel regrese a Davao en su pick-up; si querria prestar a aquel un favor, debio de haver provisto a Lara de un automobil para su regrese a Davao, ya que el demendado es un millionario; si no podia prestar a aquel este favor, debio de haver dejado a Lara en Samuay para coger aquel un camion de pasajero de Cotabato a Davao.

Even if we admit as true the facts found by the trial court, still we find that the same are not sufficient to show that defendant has failed to take the precaution necessary to conduct his passengers safely to their place of destination for there is nothing there to indicate that defendant has acted with negligence or without taking the precaution that an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances. It should be noted that Lara went to the lumber concession of defendant in answer to a call of duty which he was bound to perform because of the requirement of his office and he contracted the malaria fever in the course of the performance of that duty. It should also be noted that defendant was not in duty bound to take the deceased in his own pick-up to Davao because from Parang to Cotabato there was a line of transportation that regularly makes trips for the public, and if defendant agreed to take the deceased in his own car, it was only to accommodate him considering his feverish condition and his request that he be so accommodated. It should also be noted that the passengers who rode in the pick-up of defendant took their respective seats therein at their own choice and not upon indication of defendant with the particularity that defendant invited the deceased to sit with him in the front seat but which invitation the deceased declined. The reason for this can only be attributed to his desire to be at the back so that he could sit on a bag and travel in a reclining position because such was more convenient for him due to his feverish condition. All the circumstances therefore clearly indicate that defendant had done what a reasonable prudent man would have done under the circumstances.

There is every reason to believe that the unfortunate happening was only due to an unforeseen accident accused by the fact that at the time the deceased was half asleep and must have fallen from the pick-up when it ran into some stones causing it to jerk considering that the road was then bumpy, rough and full of stones.

The finding of the trial court that the pick-up was running at more than 40 kilometers per hour is not supported by the evidence. This is a mere surmise made by the trial court considering the time the pick-up left barrio Samoay and the time the accident occured in relation to the distance covered by the pick-up. And even if this is correct, still we say that such speed is not unreasonable considering that they were traveling on a national road and the traffic then was not heavy. We may rather attribute the incident to lack of care on the part of the deceased considering that the pick-up was open and he was then in a crouching position. Indeed, the law provides that "A passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself" (Article 1761, new Civil Code), which means that if the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his own negligence, the carrier cannot be held liable.

All things considered, we are persuaded to conclude that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of defendant but to circumstances beyond his control and so he should be exempt from liability.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

ect - Arellano Law FoundationG.R. No. L-10605             June 30, 1958

PRECILLANO NECESITO, ETC., plaintiff-appellant, vs.NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

x---------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. L-10606             June 30, 1958

GERMAN NECESITO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Tomas Besa and Federico Agrava for appellants.Jose W. Diokno for appellees.

REYES, J. B. L., J.:

These cases involve ex contractu against the owners and operators of the 13

common carrier known as Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, filed by one passenger, and the heirs of another, who injured as a result of the fall into a river of the vehicle in which they were riding.

In the morning of January 28, 1964, Severina Garces and her one-year old son, Precillano Necesito, carrying vegetables, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines at Agno, Pangasinan. The passenger truck, driven by Francisco Bandonell, then proceeded on its regular run from Agno to Manila. After passing Mangatarem, Pangasinan truck No. 199 entered a wooden bridge, but the front wheels swerved to the right; the driver lost control, and after wrecking the bridge's wooden rails, the truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep. The mother, Severina Garces, was drowned; the son, Precillano Necesito, was injured, suffering abrasions and fracture of the left femur. He was brought to the Provincial Hospital at Dagupan, where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of line. The money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables were lost.

Two actions for damages and attorney's fees totalling over P85,000 having been filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Cases Nos. 908 and 909) against the carrier, the latter pleaded that the accident was due to "engine or mechanical trouble" independent or beyond the control of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell.

After joint trial, the Court of First Instance found that the bus was proceeding slowly due to the bad condition of the road; that the accident was caused by the fracture of the right steering knuckle, which was defective in that its center or core was not compact but "bubbled and cellulous", a condition that could not be known or ascertained by the carrier despite the fact that regular thirty-day inspections were made of the steering knuckle, since the steel exterior was smooth and shiny to the depth of 3/16 of an inch all around; that the knuckles are designed and manufactured for heavy duty and may last up to ten years; that the knuckle of bus No. 199 that broke on January 28, 1954, was last inspected on January 5, 1954, and was due to be inspected again on February 5th. Hence, the trial court, holding that the accident was exclusively due to fortuitous event, dismissed both actions. Plaintiffs appealed directly to this Court in view of the amount in controversy.

We are inclined to agree with the trial court that it is not likely that bus No. 199 of the Philippine Rabbit Lines was driven over the deeply rutted road leading to the bridge at a speed of 50 miles per hour, as testified for the plaintiffs. Such conduct on the part of the driver would have provoked instant and vehement protest on the part of the passengers because of the attendant discomfort, and there is no trace of any such complaint in the records. We are thus forced to assume that the proximate cause of the accident was the reduced strength of the steering knuckle of the vehicle caused by defects in casting it. While appellants hint that the broken knuckle exhibited in court was not the real fitting attached to the truck at the time of the accident, the records they registered no objection on that ground at the trial below. The issue is thus reduced to the question whether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle, and whether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier exercised the diligence required by law (Art. 1755, new Civil Code).

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for the all the circumstances.

It is clear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passengers' safety. His liability rests upon negligence, his failure to exercise the "utmost" degree of diligence that the law requires, and by Art. 1756, in case of a passenger's death or injury the carrier bears the burden of satisfying the court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence required. In the American law, where the carrier is held to the same degree of diligence as under the new Civil Code, the rule on the liability of carriers for defects of equipment is thus expressed: "The preponderance of authority is in favor of the doctrine that a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to this theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability" (10 Am. Jur. 205, s, 1324; see also Pennsylvania R. Co. vs. Roy, 102 U. S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Southern R. Co. vs. Hussey, 74 ALR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; and Ed Note, 29 ALR 788; Ann. Cas. 1916E 929).

The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not in insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. Thus Hannen, J., in Francis vs. Cockrell, LR 5 Q. B. 184, said:

In the ordinary course of things, the passenger does not know whether the carrier has himself manufactured the means of carriage, or contracted with someone else for its manufacture. If the carrier has contracted with someone else the passenger does not usually know who that person is, and in no case has he any share in the selection. The liability of the manufacturer must depend on the terms of the contract between him and the carrier, of which the passenger has no knowledge, and over which he can have no control, while the carrier can introduce what stipulations and take what securities he may think proper. For injury resulting to the carrier himself by the manufacturer's want of care, the carrier has a remedy against the manufacturer; but the passenger has no remedy against the manufacturer for damage arising from a mere breach of contract with the carrier . . . . Unless, therefore, the presumed intention of the parties be that the passenger should, in the event of his being injured by the breach of the manufacturer's contract, of which he has no knowledge, be without remedy, the only way in which effect can be given to a different intention is by supposing that the carrier is to be responsible to the passenger, and to look for his indemnity to the person whom he selected and whose breach of contract has caused the mischief. (29 ALR 789)

And in the leading case of Morgan vs. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 15 LRA (NS) 790, 16 Ann. Cas. 608, the Court, in holding the carrier responsible for damages caused by the fracture of a car axle, due to a "sand hole" in the course of moulding the axle, made the following observations.

The carrier, in consideration of certain well-known and highly valuable rights granted to it by the public, undertakes certain duties toward the public, among them being to provide itself with suitable and safe cars and vehicles in which carry the traveling public. There is no such duty on the manufacturer of the cars. There is no reciprocal legal relation between him and the public in this respect. When the carrier elects to have another build its cars, it ought not to be absolved by that facts from its duty to the public to furnish safe cars. The carrier cannot lessen its responsibility by shifting its undertaking to another's shoulders. Its duty to furnish safe cars is side by side with its duty to furnish safe track, and to operate them in a safe manner. None of its duties in these respects can be sublet so as to relieve it from the full measure primarily exacted of it by law. The carrier selects the manufacturer of its cars, if it does not itself construct them, precisely as it does those who grade its road, and lay its tracks, and operate its trains. That it does not exercise control over the former is because it elects to place that matter in the hands of the manufacturer, instead of retaining the supervising control itself. The manufacturer should be deemed the agent of the carrier as respects its duty to select the material out of which its cars and locomotive are built, as well as in inspecting each step of their construction. If there be tests known to the crafts of car builders, or iron moulders, by which such defects might be discovered before the part was incorporated into the car, then the failure of the manufacturer to make the test will be deemed a failure by the carrier to make it. This is not a vicarious responsibility. It extends, as the necessity of this business demands, the rule of respondeat superior to a situation which falls clearly within its scope and spirit. Where an injury is inflicted upon a passenger by the breaking or wrecking of a part of the train on which he is riding, it is presumably the result of negligence at some point by the carrier. As stated by Judge Story, in Story on Bailments, sec. 601a: "When the injury or damage happens to the passenger by the breaking down or overturning of the coach, or by any other accident occurring on the ground, the presumption prima facie is that it occurred by the negligence of the coachmen, and onus probandi is on the proprietors of the coach to establish that there has been no negligence whatever, and that the damage or injury has been occasioned by inevitable casualty, or by some cause which human care and foresight could not prevent; for the law will, in tenderness to human life and limb, hold the proprietors liable for the slightest negligence, and will compel them to repel by satisfactory proofs every imputation thereof." When the passenger has proved his injury as the result of a breakage in the car or the wrecking of the train on which he was being carried, whether the defect was in the particular car in which he was riding or not, the burden is then cast upon the carrier to show that it was due to a cause or causes which the exercise of the utmost human skill and foresight could not prevent. And the carrier in this connection must show, if the accident was due to a latent defect in the material or construction of the car, that not only could it not have discovered the defect by the exercise of such care, but that the builders could not by the exercise of the same care have discovered the defect or foreseen the result. This rule applies the same whether the defective car belonged to the carrier or not.

In the case now before us, the record is to the effect that the only test applied to the steering knuckle in question was a purely visual inspection every thirty days, to see if any cracks developed. It nowhere appears that either the manufacturer or the carrier at any time tested the steering knuckle to ascertain whether its strength was up to standard, or that it had no hidden flaws would impair that strength. And yet the carrier must have been aware of the critical importance of the knuckle's resistance; that its failure or breakage would result in loss of balance and steering control of the bus, with disastrous effects upon the passengers. No argument is required to establish that a visual inspection could not directly determine whether the resistance of this critically important part was not impaired. Nor has it been shown that the weakening of the knuckle was impossible to detect by any known test; on the contrary, there is testimony that it could be detected. We are satisfied that the periodical visual inspection of the steering knuckle as practiced by the carrier's agents did not measure up to the required legal standard of "utmost diligence of very cautious persons" — "as far as human care and foresight can provide", and therefore that the knuckle's failure can not be considered a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from responsibility (Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657; Son vs. Cebu Autobus Co., 94 Phil., 892.)

14

It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to test the strength of each and every part of its vehicles before each trip; but we are of the opinion that a due regard for the carrier's obligations toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to determine the condition and strength of those vehicle portions the failure of which may endanger the safe of the passengers.

As to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, we agree with appellee that no allowance may be made for moral damages, since under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code, in case of suits for breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and there is none in the case before us. As to exemplary damages, the carrier has not acted in a "wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner" to warrant their award. Hence, we believe that for the minor Precillano Necesito (G. R. No. L-10605), an indemnity of P5,000 would be adequate for the abrasions and fracture of the femur, including medical and hospitalization expenses, there being no evidence that there would be any permanent impairment of his faculties or bodily functions, beyond the lack of anatomical symmetry. As for the death of Severina Garces (G. R. No. L-10606) who was 33 years old, with seven minor children when she died, her heirs are obviously entitled to indemnity not only for the incidental loses of property (cash, wrist watch and merchandise) worth P394 that she carried at the time of the accident and for the burial expenses of P490, but also for the loss of her earnings (shown to average P120 a month) and for the deprivation of her protection, guidance and company. In our judgment, an award of P15,000 would be adequate (cf Alcantara vs. Surro, 49 Off. Gaz. 2769; 93 Phil., 472).

The low income of the plaintiffs-appellants makes an award for attorney's fees just and equitable (Civil Code, Art. 2208, par. 11). Considering that he two cases filed were tried jointly, a fee of P3,500 would be reasonable.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the defendants-appellees are sentenced to indemnify the plaintiffs-appellants in the following amounts: P5,000 to Precillano Necesito, and P15,000 to the heirs of the deceased Severina Garces, plus P3,500 by way of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against defendants-appellees. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Felix, J., concurs in the result.

R E S O L U T I O N

September 11, 1958

REYES, J. B. L., J.:

Defendants-appellees have Submitted a motion asking this Court to reconsider its decision of June 30, 1958, and that the same be modified with respect to (1) its holding the carrier liable for the breakage of the steering knuckle that caused the autobus No. 199 to overturn, whereby the passengers riding in it were injured; (2) the damages awarded, that appellees argue to be excessive; and (3) the award of attorneys' fees.

(1) The rule prevailing in this jurisdiction as established in previous decisions of this Court, cited in our main opinion, is that a carrier is liable to its passengers for damages caused by mechanical defects of the conveyance. As early as 1924, in Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 659 this Court ruled:

As far as the record shows, the accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or else through the negligence of its driver. That is not caso fortuito.

And in Son vs. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Phil., 892, this Court held a common carrier liable in damages to passenger for injuries cause by an accident due to the breakage of a faulty drag-link spring.

It can be seen that while the courts of the United States are at variance on the question of a carrier's liability for latent mechanical defects, the rule in this jurisdiction has been consistent in holding the carrier responsible. This Court has quoted from American and English decisions, not because it felt bound to follow the same, but merely in approval of the rationale of the rule as expressed therein, since the previous Philippine cases did not enlarge on the ideas underlying the doctrine established thereby.

The new evidence sought to be introduced do not warrant the grant of a new trial, since the proposed proof available when the original trial was held. Said evidence is not newly discovered.

(2) With regard to the indemnity awarded to the child Precilliano Necesito, the injuries suffered by him are incapable of accurate pecuniary estimation, particularly because the full effect of the injury is not ascertainable immediately. This uncertainty, however, does not preclude the right to an indemnity, since the injury is patent and not denied (Civil Code, Art. 2224). The reasons behind this award are expounded by the Code Commission in its report:

There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress, from the defendant's wrongful act." (Report of the Code Commission, p. 75)

In awarding to the heirs of the deceased Severina Garces an indemnity for the loss of her "guidance, protection and company," although it is but moral damage, the Court took into account that the case of a passenger who dies in the course of an accident, due to the carrier's negligence constitutes an exception to the general rule. While, as pointed out in the main decision, under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code there can be no recovery of moral damages for a breach of contract in the absence of fraud malice or bad faith, the case of a violation of the contract of carriage leading to a passenger's death escapes this general rule, in view of Article 1764 in connection with Article 2206, No. 3 of the new Civil Code.

ART. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a comman carrier. ART. 2206. . . .

(3) The spouse, legitimate and eligimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

Being a special rule limited to cases of fatal injuries, these articles prevail over the general rule of Art. 2220. Special provisions control general ones (Lichauco & Co. vs. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138; Sancio vs. Lizarraga, 55 Phil. 601).

It thus appears that under the new Civil Code, in case of accident due to a carrier's negligence, the heirs of a deceased passenger may recover moral damages, even though a passenger who is injured, but manages to survive, is not entitled to them. There is, therefore, no conflict between our main decision in the instant case and that of Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxi Cab Co., 101 Phil., 523, where the passenger suffered injuries, but did not lose his life.

(3) In the Cachero case this Court disallowed attorneys' fees to the injured plaintiff because the litigation arose out of his exaggerated and unreasonable deeds for an indemnity that was out of proportion with the compensatory damages to which he was solely entitled. But in the present case, plaintiffs' original claims can not be deemed a priori wholly unreasonable, since they had a right to indemnity for moral damages besides compensatory ones, and moral damages are not determined by set and invariable bounds.

Neither does the fact that the contract between the passengers and their counsel was on a contingent basis affect the former's right to counsel fees. As pointed out for appellants, the Court's award is an party and not to counsel. A litigant who improvidently stipulate higher counsel fees than those to which he is lawfully entitled, does not for that reason earn the right to a larger indemnity; but, by parity of reasoning, he should not be deprived of counsel fees if by law he is entitled to recover them.

We find no reason to alter the main decision heretofore rendered. Ultimately, the position taken by this Court is that a common carrier's contract is not to be regarded as a game of chance wherein the passenger stakes his limb and life against the carrier's property and profits.

Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 118664 August 7, 1998

JAPAN AIRLINES, petitioner,

vs.

15

THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE AGANA., MARIA ANGELA NINA AGANA, ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and JOSE MIRANDA, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

Before us is an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner Japan Airlines, Inc. (JAL) seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 1 which affirmed with modification the award of damages made by the trial court in favor of herein private respondents Enrique Agana, Maria Angela Nina Agana, Adelia Francisco and Jose Miranda.

On June 13, 1991, private respondent Jose Miranda boarded JAL flight No. JL 001 in San Francisco, California bound for Manila. Likewise, on the same day private respondents Enrique Agana, Maria Angela Nina Agana and Adelia Francisco left Los Angeles, California for Manila via JAL flight No. JL 061. As an incentive for travelling on the said airline, both flights were to make an overnight stopover at Narita, Japan, at the airlines' expense, thereafter proceeding to Manila the following day.

Upon arrival at Narita, Japan on June 14, 1991, private respondents were billeted at Hotel Nikko Narita for the night. The next day, private respondents, on the final leg of their journey, went to the airport to take their flight to Manila. However, due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, unrelenting ashfall blanketed Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), rendering it inaccessible to airline traffic. Hence, private respondents' trip to Manila was cancelled indefinitely.

To accommodate the needs of its stranded passengers, JAL rebooked all the Manila-bound passengers on flight No. 741 due to depart on June 16, 1991 and also paid for the hotel expenses for their unexpected overnight stay. On June 16, 1991, much to the dismay of the private respondents, their long anticipated flight to Manila was again cancelled due to NAIA's indefinite closure. At this point, JAL informed the private respondents that it would no longer defray their hotel and accommodation expense during their stay in Narita.

Since NAIA was only reopened to airline traffic on June 22, 1991, private respondents were forced to pay for their accommodations and meal expenses from their personal funds from June 16 to June 21, 1991. Their unexpected stay in Narita ended on June 22, 1991 when they arrived in Manila on board JL flight No. 741.

Obviously, still reeling from the experience, private respondents, on July 25, 1991, commenced an action for damages against JAL before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104. 2 To support their claim, private respondents asserted that JAL failed to live up to its duty to provide care and comfort to its stranded passengers when it refused to pay for their hotel and accommodation expenses from June 16 to 21, 1991 at Narita, Japan. In other words, they insisted that JAL was obligated to shoulder their expenses as long as they were still stranded in Narita. On the other hand, JAL denied this allegation and averred that airline passengers have no vested right to these amenities in case a flight is cancelled due to "force majeure."

On June 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its judgment in favor of private respondents holding JAL liable for damages, viz.:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs ordering the defendant Japan Airlines to pay the plaintiffs Enrique Agana, Adalia B. Francisco and Maria Angela Nina Agana the sum of One million Two Hundred forty-six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Six Pesos (P1,246,936.00) and Jose Miranda the sum of Three Hundred Twenty Thousand Six Hundred sixteen and 31/100 (P320,616.31) as actual, moral and exemplary damages and pay attorney's fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), and to pay the costs of suit.

Undaunted, JAL appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals, which, however, with the exception of lowering the damages awarded affirmed the trial court's finding, 3 thus:

Thus, the award of moral damages should be as it is hereby reduced to P200,000.00 for each of the plaintiffs, the exemplary damages to P300,000.00 and the attorney's fees to P100,000.00 plus the costs.

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing Modification, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.

JAL filed a motion for reconsideration which proved futile and

unavailing. 4

Failing in its bid to reconsider the decision, JAL has now filed this instant petition.

The issue to be resolved is whether JAL, as a common carrier has the obligation to shoulder the hotel and meal expenses of its stranded passengers until they have reached their final destination, even if the delay were caused by "force majeure."

To begin with, there is no dispute that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption prevented JAL from proceeding to Manila on schedule. Likewise, private respondents concede that such event can be considered as "force majeure" since their delayed arrival in Manila was not imputable to JAL. 5

However, private respondents contend that while JAL cannot be held responsible for the delayed arrival in Manila, it was nevertheless liable for their living expenses during their unexpected stay in Narita since airlines have the obligation to ensure the comfort and convenience of its passengers. While we sympathize with the private respondents' plight, we are unable to accept this contention.

We are not unmindful of the fact that in a plethora of cases we have consistently ruled that a contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind, and degree from any other contractual relation. It is safe to conclude that it is a relationship imbued with public interest. Failure on the part of the common carrier to live up to the exacting standards of care and diligence renders it liable for any damages that may be sustained by its passengers. However, this is not to say that common carriers are absolutely responsible for all injuries or damages even if the same were caused by a fortuitous event. To rule otherwise would render the defense of "force majeure," as an exception from any liability, illusory and ineffective.

Accordingly, there is no question that when a party is unable to fulfill his obligation because of "force majeure," the general rule is that he cannot be held liable for damages for non-performance. 6 Corollarily, when JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to the effects of Mt. Pinatubo eruption, whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel and meal expenses the stranded passengers incurred, cannot be charged to JAL. Yet it is undeniable that JAL assumed the hotel expenses of respondents for their unexpected overnight stay on June 15, 1991.

Admittedly, to be stranded for almost a week in a foreign land was an exasperating experience for the private respondents. To be sure, they underwent distress and anxiety during their unanticipated stay in Narita, but their predicament was not due to the fault or negligence of JAL but the closure of NAIA to international flights. Indeed, to hold JAL, in the absence of bad faith or negligence, liable for the amenities of its stranded passengers by reason of a fortuitous event is too much of a burden to assume.

Furthermore, it has been held that airline passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel. 7 In this regard, adverse weather conditions or extreme climatic changes are some of the perils involved in air travel, the consequences of which the passenger must assume or expect. After all, common carriers are not the insurer of all risks. 8

Paradoxically, the Court of Appeals, despite the presence of "force majeure," still ruled against JAL relying in our decision in PAL v. Court of Appeals, 9 thus:

The position taken by PAL in this case clearly illustrates its failure to grasp the exacting standard required by law. Undisputably, PAL's diversion of its flight due to inclement weather was a fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate PAL's contract with its passengers. Being in the business of air carriage and the sole one to operate in the country, PAL is deemed equipped to deal with situations as in the case at bar. What we said in one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier's premises. Hence, PAL necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until they have reached their final destination. On this score, PAL grossly failed considering the then ongoing battle between government forces and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact that the private respondent was a stranger to the place.

The reliance is misplaced. The factual background of the PAL case is different from the instant petition. In that case there was indeed a fortuitous event resulting in the diversion of the PAL flight. However, the unforeseen diversion was worsened when "private respondents (passenger) was left at the airport and could not even hitch a ride in a Ford Fiera loaded with PAL personnel," 10 not to mention the apparent apathy of the PAL station manager as to the predicament of the stranded passengers. 11 In light of these circumstances, we held that if the fortuitous event was accompanied by neglect and malfeasance by the carrier's employees, an action for damages against the carrier is permissible. Unfortunately, for private respondents, none of these conditions are present in the instant petition.

16

We are not prepared, however, to completely absolve petitioner JAL from any liability. It must be noted that private respondents bought tickets from the United States with Manila as their final destination. While JAL was no longer required to defray private respondents' living expenses during their stay in Narita on account of the fortuitous event, JAL had the duty to make the necessary arrangements to transport private respondents on the first available connecting flight to Manila. Petitioner JAL reneged on its obligation to look after the comfort and convenience of its passengers when it declassified private respondents from "transit passengers" to "new passengers" as a result of which private respondents were obliged to make the necessary arrangements themselves for the next flight to Manila. Private respondents were placed on the waiting list from June 20 to June 24. To assure themselves of a seat on an available flight, they were compelled to stay in the airport the whole day of June 22, 1991 and it was only at 8:00 p.m. of the aforesaid date that they were advised that they could be accommodated in said flight which flew at about 9:00 a.m. the next day.

We are not oblivious to the fact that the cancellation of JAL flights to Manila from June 15 to June 21, 1991 caused considerable disruption in passenger booking and reservation. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect, considering NAIA's closure, that JAL flight operations would be normal on the days affected. Nevertheless, this does not excuse JAL from its obligation to make the necessary arrangements to transport private respondents on its first available flight to Manila. After all, it had a contract to transport private respondents from the United States to Manila as their final destination.

Consequently, the award of nominal damages is in order. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of a plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized and not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered by him. 12 The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. 13

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 22, 1993 is hereby MODIFIED. The award of actual, moral and exemplary damages is hereby DELETED. Petitioner JAL is ordered to pay each of the private respondents nominal damages in the sum of P100,000.00 each including attorney' s fees of P50,000.00 plus costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966

LA MALLORCA, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET AL., respondents.

G. E. Yabut, R. Monterey and M.C. Lagman for petitioner.Ahmed Garcia for respondents.

BARRERA, J.:

La Mallorca seeks the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 23267-R, holding it liable for quasi-delict and ordering it to pay to respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., P6,000.00 for the death of his minor daughter Raquel Beltran, plus P400.00 as actual damages.

The facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals, briefly are:

On December 20, 1953, at about noontime, plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their minor daughters, namely, Milagros, 13 years old, Raquel, about 4½ years old, and Fe, over 2 years old, boarded the Pambusco Bus No. 352, bearing plate TPU No. 757 (1953 Pampanga), owned and operated by the defendant, at San Fernando, Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico, Pampanga. At the time, they were carrying with them four pieces of baggages containing their personal belonging. The conductor of the bus, who happened to be a half-brother of plaintiff Mariano Beltran, issued three tickets (Exhs. A, B, & C) covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child, Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both were below the height at which fare is charged in accordance with the appellant's rules and regulations.

After about an hour's trip, the bus reached Anao whereat it stopped to allow the passengers bound therefor, among whom were the plaintiffs and their children to get off. With respect to the group of the plaintiffs, Mariano Beltran,

then carrying some of their baggages, was the first to get down the bus, followed by his wife and his children. Mariano led his companions to a shaded spot on the left pedestrians side of the road about four or five meters away from the vehicle. Afterwards, he returned to the bus in controversy to get his other bayong, which he had left behind, but in so doing, his daughter Raquel followed him, unnoticed by her father. While said Mariano Beltran was on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him his bayong which he left under one of its seats near the door, the bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading, suddenly started moving forward, evidently to resume its trip, notwithstanding the fact that the conductor has not given the driver the customary signal to start, since said conductor was still attending to the baggage left behind by Mariano Beltran. Incidentally, when the bus was again placed into a complete stop, it had travelled about ten meters from the point where the plaintiffs had gotten off.

Sensing that the bus was again in motion, Mariano Beltran immediately jumped from the running board without getting his bayong from the conductor. He landed on the side of the road almost in front of the shaded place where he left his wife and children. At that precise time, he saw people beginning to gather around the body of a child lying prostrate on the ground, her skull crushed, and without life. The child was none other than his daughter Raquel, who was run over by the bus in which she rode earlier together with her parents.

For the death of their said child, the plaintiffs commenced the present suit against the defendant seeking to recover from the latter an aggregate amount of P16,000 to cover moral damages and actual damages sustained as a result thereof and attorney's fees. After trial on the merits, the court below rendered the judgment in question.

On the basis of these facts, the trial court found defendant liable for breach of contract of carriage and sentenced it to pay P3,000.00 for the death of the child and P400.00 as compensatory damages representing burial expenses and costs.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of contract in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was no longer a passenger of the bus involved in the incident and, therefore, the contract of carriage had already terminated. Although the Court of Appeals sustained this theory, it nevertheless found the defendant-appellant guilty of quasi-delict and held the latter liable for damages, for the negligence of its driver, in accordance with Article 2180 of the Civil Code. And, the Court of Appeals did not only find the petitioner liable, but increased the damages awarded the plaintiffs-appellees to P6,000.00, instead of P3,000.00 granted by the trial court.

In its brief before us, La Mallorca contends that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding it liable for quasi-delict, considering that respondents complaint was one for breach of contract, and (2) in raising the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 although respondents did not appeal from the decision of the lower court.

Under the facts as found by the Court of Appeals, we have to sustain the judgement holding petitioner liable for damages for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran. It may be pointed out that although it is true that respondent Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their children (including the deceased child) had alighted from the bus at a place designated for disembarking or unloading of passengers, it was also established that the father had to return to the vehicle (which was still at a stop) to get one of his bags or bayong that was left under one of the seats of the bus. There can be no controversy that as far as the father is concerned, when he returned to the bus for his bayong which was not unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. For, the relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter, after alighting from the car, aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car.1 The issue to be determined here is whether as to the child, who was already led by the father to a place about 5 meters away from the bus, the liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted.

It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger.2 So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.3

In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by

17

a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. In the first place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

But even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Paragraph 7 of the complaint, which reads —

That aside from the aforesaid breach of contract, the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent, necessary to transport plaintiffs and their daughter safely as far as human care and foresight can provide in the operation of their vehicle.

is clearly an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.4

The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the culpa or negligence upon which the claim was predicated when it was alleged in the complaint that "the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent." This allegation was also proved when it was established during the trial that the driver, even before receiving the proper signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the running board of the bus and near it, started to run off the vehicle. The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. And this presumption, as the Court of Appeals found, petitioner had failed to overcome. Consequently, petitioner must be adjudged peculiarily liable for the death of the child Raquel Beltran.

The increase of the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 by the Court of Appeals, however, cannot be sustained. Generally, the appellate court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued in appellant's brief. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding them on P3,000.00 damages for the death of their daughter. Neither does it appear that, as appellees in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadequacy of the award, or that the inclusion of the figure P3,000.00 was merely a clerical error, in order that the matter may be treated as an exception to the general rule.5 Herein petitioner's contention, therefore, that the Court of Appeals committed error in raising the amount of the award for damages is, evidently, meritorious.1äwphï1.ñët

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified by sentencing, the petitioner to pay to the respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., the sum of P3,000.00 for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran, and the amount of P400.00 as actual damages. No costs in this instance. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.

G.R. No. 84458 November 6, 1989

ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH DIVISION, LUCILA C. VIANA, SPS. ANTONIO VIANA and GORGONIA VIANA, and PIONEER STEVEDORING CORPORATION, respondents.

Herenio E. Martinez for petitioner.

M.R. Villaluz Law Office for private respondent.

REGALADO, J.:

In this appeal by certiorari, petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corporation seeks a review of the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals, dated July 29, 1988, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from as modified by the order of October 27, 1982, is hereby affirmed with the modification that appellant Aboitiz Shipping is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellees the amount of P30,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana; actual damages of P9,800.00; P150,000.00 for unearned income; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents; P20,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and to pay the costs.

The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent court, are as follows: .

The evidence disclosed that on May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia, owned by defendant, at the port at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila, having purchased a ticket (No. 117392) in the sum of P23.10 (Exh. 'B'). On May 12, 1975, said vessel arrived at Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila, and the passengers therein disembarked, a gangplank having been provided connecting the side of the vessel to the pier. Instead of using said gangplank Anacleto Viana disembarked on the third deck which was on the level with the pier. After said vessel had landed, the Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation took over the exclusive control of the cargoes loaded on said vessel pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated July 26, 1975 (Exh. '2') between the third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation and defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation.

The crane owned by the third party defendant and operated by its crane operator Alejo Figueroa was placed alongside the vessel and one (1) hour after the passengers of said vessel had disembarked, it started operation by unloading the cargoes from said vessel. While the crane was being operated, Anacleto Viana who had already disembarked from said vessel obviously remembering that some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, went back to the vessel, and it was while he was pointing to the crew of the said vessel to the place where his cargoes were loaded that the crane hit him, pinning him between the side of the vessel and the crane. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where he later expired three (3) days thereafter, on May 15, 1975, the cause of his death according to the Death Certificate (Exh. "C") being "hypostatic pneumonia secondary to traumatic fracture of the pubic bone lacerating the urinary bladder" (See also Exh. "B"). For his hospitalization, medical, burial and other miscellaneous expenses, Anacleto's wife, herein plaintiff, spent a total of P9,800.00 (Exhibits "E", "E-1", to "E-5"). Anacleto Viana who was only forty (40) years old when he met said fateful accident (Exh. 'E') was in good health. His average annual income as a farmer or a farm supervisor was 400 cavans of palay annually. His parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana, prior to his death had been recipient of twenty (20) cavans of palay as support or P120.00 monthly. Because of Anacleto's death, plaintiffs suffered mental anguish and extreme worry or moral damages. For the filing of the instant case, they had to hire a lawyer for an agreed fee of ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos. 2

Private respondents Vianas filed a complaint 3 for damages against petitioner corporation (Aboitiz, for brevity) for breach of contract of carriage.

In its answer. 4 Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the accident, the vessel was completely under the control of respondent Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation (Pioneer, for short) as the exclusive stevedoring contractor of Aboitiz, which handled the unloading of cargoes from the vessel of Aboitiz. It is also averred that since the crane operator was not an employee of Aboitiz, the latter cannot be held liable under the fellow-servant rule.

Thereafter, Aboitiz, as third-party plaintiff, filed a third-party complaint 5 against Pioneer imputing liability thereto for Anacleto Viana's death as having been allegedly caused by the negligence of the crane operator who was an employee of Pioneer under its exclusive control and supervision.

Pioneer, in its answer to the third-party complaint, 6 raised the defenses that Aboitiz had no cause of action against Pioneer considering that Aboitiz is being sued by the Vianas for breach of contract of carriage to which Pioneer is not a party; that Pioneer had observed the diligence of a good father of a family both in the selection and supervision of its employees as well as in the prevention of damage or injury to anyone including the victim Anacleto Viana; that Anacleto Viana's gross negligence was the direct and proximate cause of his death; and that the filing of the third-party complaint was premature by reason of the pendency of the criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence filed against the crane operator, Alejo Figueroa.

In a decision rendered on April 17, 1980 by the trial court, 7 Aboitiz was ordered to pay the Vianas for damages incurred, and Pioneer was ordered to reimburse Aboitiz for whatever amount the latter paid the Vianas. The dispositive portion of said decision provides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plantiffs:

(1) ordering defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to pay to plaintiffs the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana P9,800.00 as actual damages; P533,200.00 value of the 10,664 cavans of palay computed at P50.00 per cavan; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; F 5,000.00, value of the 100 cavans of palay as support for five (5) years for deceased (sic) parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana computed at P50.00 per cavan; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents computed at P120.00 a month for five years pursuant to Art. 2206, Par. 2, of the Civil Code; P20,000.00 as moral damages, and costs; and

(2) ordering the third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation to reimburse defendant and third party plaintiff Aboitiz Shipping Corporation the said amounts that it is ordered to pay to herein plaintiffs.

Both Aboitiz and Pioneer filed separate motions for reconsideration wherein they similarly raised the trial court's failure to declare that Anacleto Viana acted with gross negligence despite the overwhelming evidence presented in support thereof. In addition, Aboitiz alleged, in opposition to Pioneer's motion, that under the memorandum of agreement the liability of Pioneer as contractor

18

is automatic for any damages or losses whatsoever occasioned by and arising from the operation of its arrastre and stevedoring service.

In an order dated October 27, 1982, 8 the trial court absolved Pioneer from liability for failure of the Vianas and Aboitiz to preponderantly establish a case of negligence against the crane operator which the court a quo ruled is never presumed, aside from the fact that the memorandum of agreement supposedly refers only to Pioneer's liability in case of loss or damage to goods handled by it but not in the case of personal injuries, and, finally that Aboitiz cannot properly invoke the fellow-servant rule simply because its liability stems from a breach of contract of carriage. The dispositive portion of said order reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby modified insofar as third party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation is concerned rendered in favor of the plaintiffs-,:

(1) Ordering defendant Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana; P9,000.00 (sic) as actual damages; P533,200.00 value of the 10,664 cavans of palay computed at P50.00 per cavan; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; P5,000.00 value of the 100 cavans of palay as support for five (5) years for deceased's parents, herein plaintiffs Antonio and Gorgonia Viana,computed at P50.00 per cavan; P7,200.00 as support for deceased's parents computed at P120.00 a month for five years pursuant to Art. 2206, Par. 2, of the Civil Code; P20,000.00 as moral damages, and costs; and

(2) Absolving third-party defendant Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation for (sic) any liability for the death of Anacleto Viana the passenger of M/V Antonia owned by defendant third party plaintiff Aboitiz Shipping Corporation it appearing that the negligence of its crane operator has not been established therein.

Not satisfied with the modified judgment of the trial court, Aboitiz appealed the same to respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the findings of of the trial court except as to the amount of damages awarded to the Vianas.

Hence, this petition wherein petitioner Aboitiz postulates that respondent court erred:

(A) In holding that the doctrine laid down by this honorable Court in La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (17 SCRA 739, July 27, 1966) is applicable to the case in the face of the undisputable fact that the factual situation under the La Mallorca case is radically different from the facts obtaining in this case;

(B) In holding petitioner liable for damages in the face of the finding of the court a quo and confirmed by the Honorable respondent court of Appeals that the deceased, Anacleto Viana was guilty of contributory negligence, which, We respectfully submit contributory negligence was the proximate cause of his death; specifically the honorable respondent Court of Appeals failed to apply Art. 1762 of the New Civil Code;

(C) In the alternative assuming the holding of the Honorable respondent Court of Appears that petitioner may be legally condemned to pay damages to the private respondents we respectfully submit that it committed a reversible error when it dismissed petitioner's third party complaint against private respondent Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation instead of compelling the latter to reimburse the petitioner for whatever damages it may be compelled to pay to the private respondents Vianas. 9

At threshold, it is to be observed that both the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals found the victim Anacleto Viana guilty of contributory negligence, but holding that it was the negligence of Aboitiz in prematurely turning over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes which was the direct, immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death.

I. Petitioner contends that since one (1) hour had already elapsed from the time Anacleto Viana disembarked from the vessel and that he was given more than ample opportunity to unload his cargoes prior to the operation of the crane, his presence on the vessel was no longer reasonable e and he consequently ceased to be a passenger. Corollarily, it insists that the doctrine in La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 10 is not applicable to the case at bar.

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner's dock or premises. 11 Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier's conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. 12 The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage. 13

It was in accordance with this rationale that the doctrine in the aforesaid case of La Mallorca was enunciated, to wit:

It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle

at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger. So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad company and its agents.

In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Racquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the 'utmost diligence' of a 'very cautious person' required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. ... The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage. 14

It is apparent from the foregoing that what prompted the Court to rule as it did in said case is the fact of the passenger's reasonable presence within the carrier's premises. That reasonableness of time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case, such as the kind of common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of the time element per se without taking into account such other factors. It is thus of no moment whether in the cited case of La Mallorca there was no appreciable interregnum for the passenger therein to leave the carrier's premises whereas in the case at bar, an interval of one (1) hour had elapsed before the victim met the accident. The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near the petitioner's vessel. We believe there exists such a justifiable cause.

It is of common knowledge that, by the very nature of petitioner's business as a shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of time to disembark from the ship than other common carriers such as a passenger bus. With respect to the bulk of cargoes and the number of passengers it can load, such vessels are capable of accommodating a bigger volume of both as compared to the capacity of a regular commuter bus. Consequently, a ship passenger will need at least an hour as is the usual practice, to disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage whereas a bus passenger can easily get off the bus and retrieve his luggage in a very short period of time. Verily, petitioner cannot categorically claim, through the bare expedient of comparing the period of time entailed in getting the passenger's cargoes, that the ruling in La Mallorca is inapplicable to the case at bar. On the contrary, if we are to apply the doctrine enunciated therein to the instant petition, we cannot in reason doubt that the victim Anacleto Viana was still a passenger at the time of the incident. When the accident occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes, which he had every right to do, from petitioner's vessel. As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage.

It is not definitely shown that one (1) hour prior to the incident, the victim had already disembarked from the vessel. Petitioner failed to prove this. What is clear to us is that at the time the victim was taking his cargoes, the vessel had already docked an hour earlier. In consonance with common shipping procedure as to the minimum time of one (1) hour allowed for the passengers to disembark, it may be presumed that the victim had just gotten off the vessel when he went to retrieve his baggage. Yet, even if he had already disembarked an hour earlier, his presence in petitioner's premises was not without cause. The victim had to claim his baggage which was possible only one (1) hour after the vessel arrived since it was admittedly standard procedure in the case of petitioner's vessels that the unloading operations shall start only after that time. Consequently, under the foregoing circumstances, the victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of said carrier at the time of his tragic death.

II. Under the law, common carriers are, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. 15 More particularly, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. 16 Thus, where a passenger dies or is injured, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. 17 This gives rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage where all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract of carriage and its non-performance by the carrier, that is, the failure of the carrier to carry the passenger safely to his destination, 18 which, in the instant case, necessarily includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence while such relation subsists.

The presumption is, therefore, established by law that in case of a passenger's death or injury the operator of the vessel was at fault or negligent, having

19

failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, and it is incumbent upon it to rebut the same. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to afford full protection to the passengers of common carriers which can be carried out only by imposing a stringent statutory obligation upon the latter. Concomitantly, this Court has likewise adopted a rigid posture in the application of the law by exacting the highest degree of care and diligence from common carriers, bearing utmost in mind the welfare of the passengers who often become hapless victims of indifferent and profit-oriented carriers. We cannot in reason deny that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption against it. Under the facts obtaining in the present case, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner had inadequately complied with the required degree of diligence to prevent the accident from happening.

As found by the Court of Appeals, the evidence does not show that there was a cordon of drums around the perimeter of the crane, as claimed by petitioner. It also adverted to the fact that the alleged presence of visible warning signs in the vicinity was disputable and not indubitably established. Thus, we are not inclined to accept petitioner's explanation that the victim and other passengers were sufficiently warned that merely venturing into the area in question was fraught with serious peril. Definitely, even assuming the existence of the supposed cordon of drums loosely placed around the unloading area and the guard's admonitions against entry therein, these were at most insufficient precautions which pale into insignificance if considered vis-a-vis the gravity of the danger to which the deceased was exposed. There is no showing that petitioner was extraordinarily diligent in requiring or seeing to it that said precautionary measures were strictly and actually enforced to subserve their purpose of preventing entry into the forbidden area. By no stretch of liberal evaluation can such perfunctory acts approximate the "utmost diligence of very cautious persons" to be exercised "as far as human care and foresight can provide" which is required by law of common carriers with respect to their passengers.

While the victim was admittedly contributorily negligent, still petitioner's aforesaid failure to exercise extraordinary diligence was the proximate and direct cause of, because it could definitely have prevented, the former's death. Moreover, in paragraph 5.6 of its petition, at bar, 19 petitioner has expressly conceded the factual finding of respondent Court of Appeals that petitioner did not present sufficient evidence in support of its submission that the deceased Anacleto Viana was guilty of gross negligence. Petitioner cannot now be heard to claim otherwise.

No excepting circumstance being present, we are likewise bound by respondent court's declaration that there was no negligence on the part of Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation, a confirmation of the trial court's finding to that effect, hence our conformity to Pioneer's being absolved of any liability.

As correctly observed by both courts, Aboitiz joined Pioneer in proving the alleged gross negligence of the victim, hence its present contention that the death of the passenger was due to the negligence of the crane operator cannot be sustained both on grounds, of estoppel and for lack of evidence on its present theory. Even in its answer filed in the court below it readily alleged that Pioneer had taken the necessary safeguards insofar as its unloading operations were concerned, a fact which appears to have been accepted by the plaintiff therein by not impleading Pioneer as a defendant, and likewise inceptively by Aboitiz by filing its third-party complaint only after ten (10) months from the institution of the suit against it. Parenthetically, Pioneer is not within the ambit of the rule on extraordinary diligence required of, and the corresponding presumption of negligence foisted on, common carriers like Aboitiz. This, of course, does not detract from what we have said that no negligence can be imputed to Pioneer but, that on the contrary, the failure of Aboitiz to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passenger is the rationale for our finding on its liability.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 122039 May 31, 2000

VICENTE CALALAS, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ELIZA JUJEURCHE SUNGA and FRANCISCO SALVA, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1991, reversing the contrary decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City, and awarding damages instead to private respondent Eliza Jujeurche Sunga as plaintiff in an action for breach of contract of carriage.

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

At 10 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1989, private respondent Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga, then a college freshman majoring in Physical Education

at the Siliman University, took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle.

On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. As she was seated at the rear of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured. She sustained a fracture of the "distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin." Closed reduction of the fracture, long leg circular casting, and case wedging were done under sedation. Her confinement in the hospital lasted from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her attending physician, Dr. Danilo V. Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certified she would remain on a cast for a period of three months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said period.

On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the contract of carriage by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, the owner of the Isuzu truck.

The lower court rendered judgment against Salva as third-party defendant and absolved Calalas of liability, holding that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who was responsible for the accident. It took cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena, for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the ruling of the lower court was reversed on the ground that Sunga's cause of action was based on a contract of carriage, not quasi-delict, and that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under the Civil Code. The appellate court dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages to Sunga. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one is entered ordering defendant-appellee Vicente Calalas to pay plaintiff-appellant:

(1) P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;

(2) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

(3) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

(4) P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and

(5) to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 that the negligence of Verena was the proximate cause of the accident negates his liability and that to rule otherwise would be to make the common carrier an insurer of the safety of its passengers. He contends that the bumping of the jeepney by the truck owned by Salva was a caso fortuito. Petitioner further assails the award of moral damages to Sunga on the ground that it is not supported by evidence.

The petition has no merit.

The argument that Sunga is bound by the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 finding the driver and the owner of the truck liable for quasi-delict ignores the fact that she was never a party to that case and, therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply.

Nor are the issues in Civil Case No. 3490 and in the present case the same. The issue in Civil Case No. 3490 was whether Salva and his driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the damage caused to petitioner's jeepney. On the other hand, the issue in this case is whether petitioner is liable on his contract of carriage. The first, quasi-delict, also known as culpa aquiliana or culpa extra contractual, has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor. The second, breach of contract or culpa contractual, is premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation.

Consequently, in quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action, whereas in breach of contract, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination.2 In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof.

There is, thus, no basis for the contention that the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490, finding Salva and his driver Verena liable for the damage to petitioner's jeepney, should be binding on Sunga. It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the

20

truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned, some aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those respecting the diligence required of common carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well as the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to passengers. It provides:

Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.

Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by articles 1733 and 1755.

In the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arose, and it became the duty of petitioner to prove that he had to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.

Now, did the driver of jeepney carry Sunga "safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances" as required by Art. 1755? We do not think so. Several factors militate against petitioner's contention.

First, as found by the Court of Appeals, the jeepney was not properly parked, its rear portion being exposed about two meters from the broad shoulders of the highway, and facing the middle of the highway in a diagonal angle. This is a violation of the R.A. No. 4136, as amended, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which provides:

Sec. 54. Obstruction of Traffic. — No person shall drive his motor vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct or impede the passage of any vehicle, nor, while discharging or taking on passengers or loading or unloading freight, obstruct the free passage of other vehicles on the highway.

Second, it is undisputed that petitioner's driver took in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney, a violation of §32(a) of the same law. It provides:

Exceeding registered capacity. — No person operating any motor vehicle shall allow more passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle than its registered capacity.

The fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he was actually negligent in transporting passengers.

We find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner's contention that Sunga's taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. This is also true of petitioner's contention that the jeepney being bumped while it was improperly parked constitutes caso fortuito. A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable.3 This requires that the following requirements be present: (a) the cause of the breach is independent of the debtor's will; (b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event is such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, and (d) the debtor did not take part in causing the injury to thecreditor.4 Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the highway.

Finally, petitioner challenges the award of moral damages alleging that it is excessive and without basis in law. We find this contention well taken.

In awarding moral damages, the Court of Appeals stated:

Plaintiff-appellant at the time of the accident was a first-year college student in that school year 1989-1990 at the Silliman University, majoring in Physical Education. Because of the injury, she was not able to enroll in the second semester of that school year. She testified that she had no more intention of continuing with her schooling, because she could not walk and decided not to pursue her degree, major in Physical Education "because of my leg which has a defect already."

Plaintiff-appellant likewise testified that even while she was under confinement, she cried in pain because of her injured left foot. As a result of her injury, the Orthopedic Surgeon also certified that she has "residual bowing of the fracture side." She likewise decided not to further pursue Physical Education as her major subject, because "my left leg . . . has a defect already."

Those are her physical pains and moral sufferings, the inevitable bedfellows of the injuries that she suffered. Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, she is entitled to recover moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00, which is fair, just and reasonable.

As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.5 As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220.6

In this case, there is no legal basis for awarding moral damages since there was no factual finding by the appellate court that petitioner acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract of carriage. Sunga's contention that petitioner's admission in open court that the driver of the jeepney failed to assist her in going to a nearby hospital cannot be construed as an admission of bad faith. The fact that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who took her to the hospital does not imply that petitioner was utterly indifferent to the plight of his injured passenger. If at all, it is merely implied recognition by Verena that he was the one at fault for the accident.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1995, and its resolution, dated September 11, 1995, are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-8034 November 18, 1955

CORNELIA A. DE GILLACO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs.MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

First Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico C. Alikpala and Attorney Higino R. Francisco for appellant.Restituto Luna for appellees.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

The Manila Railroad Company has appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna sentencing it to pay P4,000 damages to the appellees herein, the widow and children of the late Tomas Gillaco, shot by an employee of the Company in April, 1946.

The judgment was rendered upon the following stipulation of facts:

That at about 7:30 a.m., on the morning of April 1, 1946, Lieut. Tomas Gillaco, husband of the plaintiff, was a passenger in the early morning train of the Manila Railroad Company from Calamba, Laguna to Manila;

That when the train reached the Paco Railroad station, Emilio Devesa, a train guard of the Manila Railroad Company assigned in the Manila-San Fernando, La Union Line, happened to be in said station waiting for the same train which would take him to Tutuban Station, where he was going to report for duty;

That Emilio Devesa had a long standing personal grudge against Tomas Gillaco, same dating back during the Japanese occupation;

That because of this personal grudge, Devesa shot Gillaco with the carbine furnished to him by the Manila Railroad Company for his use as such train guard, upon seeing him inside the train coach;

That Tomas Gillaco died as a result of the would which he sustained from the shot fired by Devesa.

It is also undisputed that Devesa was convicted with homicide by final judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Appellant's contention is that, on the foregoing facts, no liability attaches to it as employer of the killer, Emilio Devesa; that it is not responsible subsidiary ex delicto, under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, because the crime was not committed while the slayer was in the actual performance of his ordinary duties and service; nor is it responsible ex contractu, since the complaint did not aver sufficient facts to establish such liability, and no negligence on appellant's party was shown. The Court below held the Railroad company responsible on the ground that a contract of transportation implies protection of the passengers against acts of personal violence by the agents or employees of the carrier.

There can be no quarrel with the principle that a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees, since the contract of transportation obligates the carrier to transport a

21

passenger safely to his destination. But under the law of the case, this responsibility extends only to those that the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of car and diligence required of it.

Discussing the basis of a carrier's liability under the old Civil Code of 1889 (which was in force in 1946, when Gillaco was shot) this Court said in Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil., 657):

In our opinion, the conclusions of the court below are entirely correct. That upon the facts stated the defendant's liability, if any, is contractual, is well settled by previous decisions of the court, beginning with the case of Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359), and the distinction between extra-contractual liability and contractual liability has been so ably and exhaustively discussed in various other cases that nothing further need here be said upon that subject. (See Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil., 768; Manila Railroad vs. Compañia Transatlantica and Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 38 Phil., 875; De Guia vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 40 Phil., 706). It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of the defendant's legal liability is the contract of carriage; that by entering into that contract he bound himself to carry the plaintiff safely and securely to their destination; and that having failed to do so he is liable in damages unless he shows that the failure to fulfill his obligation was due to causes mentioned in article 1105 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows:

"No one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were inevitable, with the exception of the cases in which the law expressly provides otherwise and those in which the obligation itself imposes such liability."

The act of guard Devesa in shooting passenger Gillaco (because of a personal grudge nurtured against the latter since the Japanese occupation) was entirely unforeseeable by the Manila Railroad Co. The latter had no means to ascertain or anticipate that the two would meet, nor could it reasonably foresee every personal rancor that might exist between each one of its many employees and any one of the thousands of eventual passengers riding in its trains. The shooting in question was therefore "caso fortuito" within the definition of article 105 of the old Civil Code, being both unforeseeable and inevitable under the given circumstances; and pursuant to established doctrine, the resulting breach of appellant's contract of safe carriage with the late Tomas Gillaco was excused thereby.

No doubt that a common carrier is held to a very high degree of care and diligence in the protection of its passengers; but, considering the vast and complex activities of modern rail transportation, to require of appellant that it should guard against all possible misunderstanding between each and every one of its employees and every passenger that might chance to ride in its conveyances at any time, strikes us as demanding diligence beyond what human care and foresight can provide.

The lower Court and the appellees both relied on the American authorities that particularly hold carriers to be insurers of the safety of their passengers against willful assault and intentional ill treatment on the part of their servants, it being immaterial that the act should be one of private retribution on the part of the servant, impelled by personal malice toward the passenger (10 Am. Jur. 108; Ed. Note to Gassenheimer vs. Wester R. Co. 40 LRA (NS), p. 999, et seq.) But as can be inferred from the previous jurisprudence of this Court , the Civil Code of 1889 did not impose such absolute liability (Lasam vs. Smith, supra). The liability of a carrier as an insurer was not recognized in this jurisdiction (Government vs. Inchausti & Co., 40 Phil., 219; Oriental Comm. Co. vs. Naviera Filipina, 38 Off. Gaz., 1020).

Another very important consideration that must be borne in mind is that, when the crime took place, the guard Devesa had no duties to discharge in connection with the transportation of the deceased from Calamba to Manila. The stipulation of facts is clear that when Devesa shot and killed Gillaco, Devesa was assigned to guard the Manila-San Fernando (La Union) trains, and he was at Paco Station awaiting transportation to Tutuban, the starting point of the train that he was engaged to guard. In fact, his tour of duty was to start at 9:00 a.m., two hours after the commission of the crime. Devesa was therefore under no obligation to safeguard the passenger of the Calamba-Manila train, where the deceased was riding; and the killing of Gillaco was not done in line of duty. The position of Devesa at the time was that of another would be passenger, a stranger also awaiting transportation, and not that of an employee assigned to discharge any of the duties that the Railroad had assumed by its contract with the deceased. As a result, Devesa's assault cannot be deemed in law a breach of Gillaco's contract of transportation by a servant or employee of the carrier. We agree with the position taken by the Supreme Court of Texas in a similar case, where it held:

The only good reason for making the carrier responsible for the misconduct of the servant perpetrated in his own interest, and not in that of his employer, or otherwise within the scope of his employment, is that the servant is clothed with the delegated authority, and charge with the duty by the carrier, to execute his undertaking with the passenger. And it cannot be said, we think, that there is any such delegation to the employees at a station with reference to passenger embarking at another or traveling on the train. Of course, we are speaking only of the principle which holds a carrier responsible for wrong done to passenger by servants acting in their own interest, and not in that of the employer. That principle is not the ordinary rule, respondent superior, by which the employer is held responsible only for act or omissions of the employee in the scope of his employment; but the only reason in our opinion for a broader liability arises from the fact that the servant, in mistreating the passenger wholly for some private purpose of his own, in the very act, violates the

contractual obligation of the employer for the performance of which he has put the employee in his place. The reason does not exist where the employee who committed the assault was never in a position in which it became his duty to his employer to represent him in discharging any duty of the latter toward the passenger. The proposition that the carrier clothes every employee engaged in the transportation business with the comprehensive duty of protecting every passenger with whom he may in any way come in contact, and hereby makes himself liable for every assault commited by such servant, without regard to the inquiry whether or not the passenger has come within the sphere of duty of that servant as indicated by the employment, is regarded as not only not sustained by the authorities, but as being unsound and oppressive both to the employer and the employee. (Houston & T. C. R. Co. vs. Bush, 32 LRA (NS), p. 1205.)

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the complaint ordered dismissed, without cost. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-22272 June 26, 1967

ANTONIA MARANAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs.PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL., defendants. PASCUAL PEREZ, defendant appellant.

Pedro Panganiban for plaintiff-appellant.Magno T. Bueser for defendant-appellant.

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

Rogelio Corachea, on October 18, 1960, was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez when he was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela.

Valenzuela was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Found guilty, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000. Appeal from said conviction was taken to the Court of Appeals.1äwphï1.ñët

On December 6 1961, while appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas to recover damages from Perez and Valenzuela for the death of her son. Defendants asserted that the deceased was killed in self-defense, since he first assaulted the driver by stabbing him from behind. Defendant Perez further claimed that the death was a caso fortuito for which the carrier was not liable.

The court a quo, after trial, found for the plaintiff and awarded her P3,000 as damages against defendant Perez. The claim against defendant Valenzuela was dismissed. From this ruling, both plaintiff and defendant Perez appealed to this Court, the former asking for more damages and the latter insisting on non-liability. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction earlier mentioned, during the pendency of the herein appeal, and on May 19, 1964, final judgment was entered therein. (Rollo, p. 33).

Defendant-appellant relies solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co., 97 Phil. 884, that the carrier is under no absolute liability for assaults of its employees upon the passengers. The attendant facts and controlling law of that case and the one at bar are very different however. In the Gillaco case, the passenger was killed outside the scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee. As this Court there found:

x x x when the crime took place, the guard Devesa had no duties to discharge in connection with the transportation of the deceased from Calamba to Manila. The stipulation of facts is clear that when Devesa shot and killed Gillaco, Devesa was assigned to guard the Manila-San Fernando (La Union) trains, and he was at Paco Station awaiting transportation to Tutuban, the starting point of the train that he was engaged to guard. In fact, his tour of duty was to start at 9:00 two hours after the commission of the crime. Devesa was therefore under no obligation to safeguard the passengers of the Calamba-Manila train, where the deceased was riding; and the killing of Gillaco was not done in line of duty. The position of Devesa at the time was that of another would be passenger, a stranger also awaiting transportation, and not that of an employee assigned to discharge any of the duties that the Railroad had assumed by its contract with the deceased. As a result, Devesa's assault can not be deemed in law a breach of Gillaco's contract of transportation by a servant or employee of the carrier. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

Now here, the killing was perpetrated by the driver of the very cab transporting the passenger, in whose hands the carrier had entrusted the duty of executing the contract of carriage. In other words, unlike the Gillaco case, the killing of the passenger here took place in the course of duty of the guilty employee and when the employee was acting within the scope of his duties.

Moreover, the Gillaco case was decided under the provisions of the Civil Code of 1889 which, unlike the present Civil Code, did not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the safety of passengers against wilful assaults or negligent acts committed by their employees. The death of the passenger in the Gillaco case was truly a fortuitous event which exempted the carrier from liability. It is true that Art. 1105 of the old Civil Code on fortuitous events has been substantially reproduced in Art. 1174 of the Civil Code of the Philippines but both articles clearly remove from their exempting effect the case where the law expressly provides for liability in spite of the occurrence of force majeure.

22

And herein significantly lies the statutory difference between the old and present Civil Codes, in the backdrop of the factual situation before Us, which further accounts for a different result in the Gillaco case. Unlike the old Civil Code, the new Civil Code of the Philippines expressly makes the common carrier liable for intentional assaults committed by its employees upon its passengers, by the wording of Art. 1759 which categorically states that

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

The Civil Code provisions on the subject of Common Carriers1 are new and were taken from Anglo-American Law.2 There, the basis of the carrier's liability for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers rests either on (1) the doctrine of respondeat superior or (2) the principle that it is the carrier's implied duty to transport the passenger safely.3

Under the first, which is the minority view, the carrier is liable only when the act of the employee is within the scope of his authority and duty. It is not sufficient that the act be within the course of employment only.4

Under the second view, upheld by the majority and also by the later cases, it is enough that the assault happens within the course of the employee's duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier's orders.5 The carrier's liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.6

As can be gleaned from Art. 1759, the Civil Code of the Philippines evidently follows the rule based on the second view. At least three very cogent reasons underlie this rule. As explained in Texas Midland R.R. v. Monroe, 110 Tex. 97, 216 S.W. 388, 389-390, and Haver v. Central Railroad Co., 43 LRA 84, 85: (1) the special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish its passenger that full measure of protection afforded by the exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by the law, inter alia from violence and insults at the hands of strangers and other passengers, but above all, from the acts of the carrier's own servants charged with the passenger's safety; (2) said liability of the carrier for the servant's violation of duty to passengers, is the result of the formers confiding in the servant's hands the performance of his contract to safely transport the passenger, delegating therewith the duty of protecting the passenger with the utmost care prescribed by law; and (3) as between the carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carrier's employees against passengers, since it, and not the passengers, has power to select and remove them.

Accordingly, it is the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers and similar employees with due regard not only to their technical competence and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality, including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and social attitude.

Applying this stringent norm to the facts in this case, therefore, the lower court rightly adjudged the defendant carrier liable pursuant to Art. 1759 of the Civil Code. The dismissal of the claim against the defendant driver was also correct. Plaintiff's action was predicated on breach of contract of carriage7 and the cab driver was not a party thereto. His civil liability is covered in the criminal case wherein he was convicted by final judgment.

In connection with the award of damages, the court a quo granted only P3,000 to plaintiff-appellant. This is the minimum compensatory damages amount recoverable under Art. 1764 in connection with Art. 2206 of the Civil Code when a breach of contract results in the passenger's death. As has been the policy followed by this Court, this minimal award should be increased to P6,000. As to other alleged actual damages, the lower court's finding that plaintiff's evidence thereon was not convincing,8 should not be disturbed. Still, Arts. 2206 and 1764 award moral damages in addition to compensatory damages, to the parents of the passenger killed to compensate for the mental anguish they suffered. A claim therefor, having been properly made, it becomes the court's duty to award moral damages.9 Plaintiff demands P5,000 as moral damages; however, in the circumstances, We consider P3,000 moral damages, in addition to the P6,000 damages afore-stated, as sufficient. Interest upon such damages are also due to plaintiff-appellant. 10

Wherefore, with the modification increasing the award of actual damages in plaintiff's favor to P6,000, plus P3,000.00 moral damages, with legal interest on both from the filing of the complaint on December 6, 1961 until the whole amount is paid, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-55347 October 4, 1985

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROSARIO TUPANG, respondents.

Arturo Samaniego for private respondent.

ESCOLIN, J.:

Invoking the principle of state immunity from suit, the Philippine National Railways, PNR for short, instituted this petition for review on certiorari to set aside the decision of the respondent Appellate Court which held petitioner PNR liable for damages for the death of Winifredo Tupang, a paying passenger who fell off a train operated by the petitioner.

The pertinent facts are summarized by the respondent court as follows:

The facts show that on September 10, 1972, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Winifredo Tupang, husband of plaintiff Rosario Tupang, boarded 'Train No. 516 of appellant at Libmanan, Camarines Sur, as a paying passenger bound for Manila. Due to some mechanical defect, the train stopped at Sipocot, Camarines Sur, for repairs, taking some two hours before the train could resume its trip to Manila. Unfortunately, upon passing Iyam Bridge at Lucena, Quezon, Winifredo Tupang fell off the train resulting in his death.The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers that somebody fell from the train. Instead, the train conductor Perfecto Abrazado, called the station agent at Candelaria, Quezon, and requested for verification of the information. Police authorities of Lucena City were dispatched to the Iyam Bridge where they found the lifeless body of Winifredo Tupang.

As shown by the autopsy report, Winifredo Tupang died of cardio-respiratory failure due to massive cerebral hemorrhage due to traumatic injury [Exhibits B and C, Folder of Exhibits],Tupang was later buried in the public cemetery of Lucena City by the local police authorities. [Rollo, pp. 91-92]

Upon complaint filed by the deceased's widow, Rosario Tupang, the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, after trial, held the petitioner PNR liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage and ordered "to pay the plaintiff the sum of P12,000,00 for the death of Winifredo Tupang, plus P20,000.00 for loss of his earning capacity and the further sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs. 1

On appeal, the Appellate Court sustained the holding of the trial court that the PNR did not exercise the utmost diligence required by law of a common carrier. It further increased the amount adjudicated by the trial court by ordering PNR to pay the plaintiff an additional sum of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Moving for reconsideration of the above decision, the PNR raised for the first time, as a defense, the doctrine of state immunity from suit. It alleged that it is a mere agency of the Philippine government without distinct or separate personality of its own, and that its funds are governmental in character and, therefore, not subject to garnishment or execution. The motion was denied; the respondent court ruled that the ground advanced could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

Hence, this petition for review.

The petition is devoid of merit. The PNR was created under Rep. Act 4156, as amended. Section 4 of the said Act provides:

The Philippine national Railways shall have the following powers:

a. To do all such other things and to transact all such business directly or indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the purpose of the corporation; and

b. Generally, to exercise all powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law.

Under the foregoing section, the PNR has all the powers, the characteristics and attributes of a corporation under the Corporation Law. There can be no question then that the PNR may sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation. 2

The petitioner's contention that the funds of the PNR are not subject to garnishment or execution hardly raises a question of first impression. In Philippine National Railways v. Union de Maquinistas, et al., 3 then Justice Fernando, later Chief Justice, said. "The main issue posed in this certiorari proceeding, whether or not the funds of the Philippine National Railways, could be garnished or levied upon on execution was resolved in two recent decisions, the Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations [81 SCRA 314] and Philippine National Bank v. Hon. Judge Pabalan [83 SCRA 595]. This Court in both cases answered the question in the affirmative. There was no legal bar to garnishment or execution. The argument based on non-suability of a state allegedly because the funds are governmental in character was unavailing.So it must be again."

In support of the above conclusion, Justice Fernando cited the Court's holding in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations, to wit: "The premise that the funds could be spoken of as public in character may be accepted in the sense that the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt from garnishment. National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As was explicitly stated in the opinion of then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable

23

for, as a government- owned and controlled corporation, the NASSCO has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government. It has-pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 * * *, pursuant to which the NASSCO has been established- 'all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law * * *. 4

As far back as 1941, this Court in the case of Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Co., 5 laid down the rule that "when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. [Bank of the U.S. v. Planters' Bank, 9 Waitch 904, 6 L. ed. 244]. By engaging in a particular business through the instrumentality of a corporation the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations. 6 Of Similar import is the pronouncement in Prisco v. CIR,' that "when the government engages in business, it abdicates part of its sovereign prerogatives and descends to the level of a citizen, ... . " In fine, the petitioner PNR cannot legally set up the doctrine of non-suability as a bar to the plaintiff's suit for damages.

The appellate court found, the petitioner does not deny, that the train boarded by the deceased Winifredo Tupang was so over-crowded that he and many other passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train. It is likewise undisputed that the train did not even slow down when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time, Neither did the train stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fallen off the train at lyam Bridge. 7

The petitioner has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage. Thus, as correctly ruled by the respondent court, the petitioner failed to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence.

But while petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, 8 it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not exempting the PNR from liability, nevertheless justified the deletion of the amount adjudicated as moral damages. By the same token, the award of exemplary damages must be set aside. Exemplary damages may be allowed only in cases where the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. 9 There being no evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner, the grant of exemplary damages should be discarded.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent appellate court is hereby modified by eliminating therefrom the amounts of P10,000.00 and P5,000.00 adjudicated as moral and exemplary damages, respectively. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., concurring:

The case of Malong vs. PNR, L-49930, Aug. 7, 1985 (en banc) hold that the PNR is not immune from suit and is liable as a common carrier for the negligent acts of its employeees. It is expressly liable for moral damages for the death of a passanger under arts. 1764 and 2206 of the Civil Code.

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:

I concur with the admonition that government owned and/or controlled corporations should desist from invoking the baseless immunity from suit.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., concurring:

The case of Malong vs. PNR, L-49930, Aug. 7, 1985 (en banc) hold that the PNR is not immune from suit and is liable as a common carrier for the negligent acts of its employeees. It is expressly liable for moral damages for the death of a passanger under arts. 1764 and 2206 of the Civil Code.

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:

I concur with the admonition that government owned and/or controlled corporations should desist from invoking the baseless immunity from suit.

G.R. No. L-29462 March 7, 1929

IGNACIO DEL PRADO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MANILA ELECTRIC CO., defendant-appellant.

Ross, Lawrence and Selph and Antonio T. Carrascoso, jr., for appellant.Vicente Sotto for appellee.

STREET, J.:

This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by Ignacio del Prado to recover damages in the amount of P50,000 for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of te defendant, the Manila Electric Company, in the operation of one of its street cars in the City of Manila. Upon hearing the cause the trial court awarded to the plaintiff the sum of P10,000, as damages, with costs of suit, and the defendant appealed.

The appellant, the Manila Electric Company, is engaged in operating street cars in the City for the conveyance of passengers; and on the morning of November 18, 1925, one Teodorico Florenciano, as appellant's motorman, was in charge of car No. 74 running from east to west on R. Hidalgo Street, the scene of the accident being at a point near the intersection of said street and Mendoza Street. After the car had stopped at its appointed place for taking on and letting off passengers, just east of the intersection, it resumed its course at a moderate speed under the guidance of the motorman. The car had proceeded only a short distance, however, when the plaintiff, Ignacio del Prado, ran across the street to catch the car, his approach being made from the left. The car was of the kind having entrance and exist at either end, and the movement of the plaintiff was so timed that he arrived at the front entrance of the car at the moment when the car was passing.

The testimony of the plaintiff and of Ciriaco Guevara, one of his witnesses, tends to shows that the plaintiff, upon approaching the car, raised his hand as an indication to the motorman of his desire to board the car, in response to which the motorman eased up a little, without stopping. Upon this the plaintiff seized, with his hand, the front perpendicular handspot, at the same time placing his left foot upon the platform. However, before the plaintiff's position had become secure, and even before his raised right foot had reached the flatform, the motorman applied the power, with the result that the car gave a slight lurch forward. This sudden impulse to the car caused the plaintiff's foot to slip, and his hand was jerked loose from the handpost, He therefore fell to the ground, and his right foot was caught and crushed by the moving car. The next day the member had to be amputated in the hospital. The witness, Ciriaco Guevara, also stated that, as the plaintiff started to board the car, he grasped the handpost on either side with both right and left hand. The latter statement may possibly be incorrect as regards the use of his right hand by the plaintiff, but we are of the opinion that the finding of the trial court to the effect that the motorman slowed up slightly as the plaintiff was boarding the car that the plaintiff's fall was due in part at lease to a sudden forward movement at the moment when the plaintiff put his foot on the platform is supported by the evidence and ought not to be disturbed by us.

The motorman stated at the trial that he did not see the plaintiff attempting to board the car; that he did not accelerate the speed of the car as claimed by the plaintiff's witnesses; and that he in fact knew nothing of the incident until after the plaintiff had been hurt and some one called to him to stop. We are not convinced of the complete candor of this statement, for we are unable to see how a motorman operating this car could have failed to see a person boarding the car under the circumstances revealed in this case. It must be remembered that the front handpost which, as all witness agree, was grasped by the plaintiff in attempting to board the car, was immediately on the left side of the motorman.

With respect to the legal aspects of the case we may observe at the outset that there is no obligation on the part of a street railway company to stop its cars to let on intending passengers at other points than those appointed for stoppage. In fact it would be impossible to operate a system of street cars if a company engage in this business were required to stop any and everywhere to take on people who were too indolent, or who imagine themselves to be in too great a hurry, to go to the proper places for boarding the cars. Nevertheless, although the motorman of this car was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on, it was his duty to do act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff's peril while he was attempting to board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was, in our opinion, a breach of this duty.

The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and its patrons is of a contractual nature; and in failure on the part of the carrier to use due care in carrying its passengers safely is a breach of duty (culpa contructual) under articles 1101, 1103 and 1104 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the duty that the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom. The case of Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. (38 Phil., 768), supplies an instance of the violation of this duty with respect to a passenger who was getting off of a train. In that case the plaintiff stepped off of a moving train, while it was slowing down in a station, and at the time when it was too dark for him to see clearly where he was putting his feet. The employees of the company had carelessly left watermelons on the platform at the place where the plaintiff alighted, with the result that his feet slipped and he fell under the car, where his right arm badly injured. This court held that the railroad company was liable for breach positive duty (culpa contractual), and the plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of P2,500 for the loss of his arm. In the opinion in that case the distinction is clearly drawn between a liability for negligence arising from breach of

24

contructual duty and that arising articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code (culpa aquiliana).

The distiction between these two sorts of negligence is important in this jurisdiction, for the reason that where liability arises from a mere tort (culpa aquiliana), not involving a breach of positive obligation, an employer, or master, may exculpate himself, under the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, by providing that he had exercised due degligence to prevent the damage; whereas this defense is not available if the liability of the master arises from a breach of contrauctual duty (culpa contractual). In the case bfore us the company pleaded as a special defense that it had used all the deligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage suffered by the plaintiff; and to establish this contention the company introduced testimony showing that due care had been used in training and instructing the motorman in charge of this car in his art. But this proof is irrelevant in view of the fact that the liability involved was derived from a breach of obligation under article 1101 of the Civil Code and related provisions. (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compana Transatlantica and Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 38 Phil., 875, 887; De Guia vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 40 Phil., 706, 710.)

Another practical difference between liability for negligence arising under 1902 of the Civil Code and liability arising from negligence in the performance of a positive duty, under article 1101 and related provisions of the Civil Code, is that, in dealing with the latter form of negligence, the court is given a discretion to mitigate liability according to the circumstances of the case (art 1103). No such general discretion is given by the Code in dealing with liability arising under article 1902; although possibly the same end is reached by courts in dealing with the latter form of liability because of the latitude of the considerations pertinent to cases arising under this article.

As to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, we are of the opinion that it should be treated, as in Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359), as a mitigating circumstance under article 1103 of the Civil Code. It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting to board the moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of the injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the power prematurely. A person boarding a moving car must be taken to assume the risk of injury from boarding the car under the conditions open to his view, but he cannot fairly be held to assume the risk that the motorman, having the situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the speed of the car before he is planted safely on the platform. Again, the situation before us is one where the negligent act of the company's servant succeeded the negligent act of the plaintiff, and the negligence of the company must be considered the proximate cause of the injury. The rule here applicable seems to be analogous to, if not identical with that which is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of "the last clear chance." In accordance with this doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party (20 R. C. L., p. 139; Carr vs. Interurban Ry. Co., 185 Iowa, 872; 171 N. W., 167). The negligence of the plaintiff was, however, contributory to the accident and must be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

With respect to the effect of this injury upon the plaintiff's earning power, we note that, although he lost his foot, he is able to use an artificial member without great inconvenience and his earning capacity has probably not been reduced by more than 30 per centum. In view of the precedents found in our decisions with respect to the damages that ought to be awarded for the loss of limb, and more particularly Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359); Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. (38 Phil., 768); and Borromeo vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. (44 Phil., 165), and in view of all the circumstances connected with the case, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff will be adequately compensated by an award of P2,500.

It being understood, therefore, that the appealed judgment is modified by reducing the recovery to the sum of P2,500, the judgment, as thus modified, is affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.G.R. No. L-9671 August 23, 1957

CESAR L. ISAAC, plaintiff-appellant, vs.A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., defendant-appellee.

Angel S. Gamboa for appellant.Manuel O. Chan for appellee.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as defendant, is a corporation engaged in the business of transporting passengers by land for compensation in the Bicol provinces and one of the lines it operates is the one connecting Legaspi City, Albay with Naga City, Camarines Sur. One of the buses which defendant was operating is Bus No. 31. On May 31, 1951, plaintiff boarded said bus as a passenger paying the required fare from Ligao, Albay bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before reaching his destination, the bus collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which plaintiff's left arm was completely severed and the severed portion fell inside the bus. Plaintiff was rushed to a hospital in Iriga, Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to save his life. After four days, he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco, Albay, where

he under went treatment for three months. He was moved later to the Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on and stayed there for another two months. For these services, he incurred expenses amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which were paid by defendant.

As an aftermath, plaintiff brought this action against defendants for damages alleging that the collision which resulted in the loss of his left arm was mainly due to the gross incompetence and recklessness of the driver of the bus operated by defendant and that defendant incurred in culpa contractual arising from its non-compliance with its obligation to transport plaintiff safely to his, destination. Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows: (1) P5,000 as expenses for his medical treatment, and P3,000 as the cost of an artificial arm, or a total of P8,000; (2) P6,000 representing loss of earning; (3) P75,000 for diminution of his earning capacity; (4) P50,000 as moral damages; and (5) P10,000 as attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Defendant set up as special defense that the injury suffered by plaintiff was due entirely to the fault or negligence of the driver of the pick-up car which collided with the bus driven by its driver and to the contributory negligence of plaintiff himself. Defendant further claims that the accident which resulted in the injury of plaintiff is one which defendant could not foresee or, though foreseen, was inevitable.

The after trial found that the collision occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the pick-up car and not to that of the driver of the bus it appearing that the latter did everything he could to avoid the same but that notwithstanding his efforts, he was not able to avoid it. As a consequence, the court dismissed complaint, with costs against plaintiff. This is an appeal from said decision.

It appears that plaintiff boarded a bus of defendant as paying passenger from Ligao, Albay, bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before reaching his destination, the bus collided with a pick-up car which was coming from the opposite direction and, as a, result, his left arm was completely severed and fell inside the back part of the bus. Having this background in view, and considering that plaintiff chose to hold defendant liable on its contractual obligation to carry him safely to his place of destination, it becomes important to determine the nature and extent of the liability of a common carrier to a passenger in the light of the law applicable in this jurisdiction.

In this connection, appellant invokes the rule that, "when an action is based on a contract of carriage, as in this case, all that is necessary to sustain recovery is proof of the existence of the contract of the breach thereof by act or omission", and in support thereof, he cites several Philippine cases.1 With the ruling in mind, appellant seems to imply that once the contract of carriage is established and there is proof that the same was broken by failure of the carrier to transport the passenger safely to his destination, the liability of the former attaches. On the other hand, appellee claims that is a wrong presentation of the rule. It claims that the decisions of this Court in the cases cited do not warrant the construction sought to be placed upon, them by appellant for a mere perusal thereof would show that the liability of the carrier was predicated not upon mere breach of its contract of carriage but upon the finding that its negligence was found to be the direct or proximate cause of the injury complained of. Thus, appellee contends that "if there is no negligence on the part of the common carrier but that the accident resulting in injuries is due to causes which are inevitable and which could not have been avoided or anticipated notwithstanding the exercise of that high degree of care and skill which the carrier is bound to exercise for the safety of his passengers", neither the common carrier nor the driver is liable therefor.

We believe that the law concerning the liability of a common carrier has now suffered a substantial modification in view of the innovations introduced by the new Civil Code. These innovations are the ones embodied in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 in so far as the relation between a common carrier and its passengers is concerned, which, for ready reference, we quote hereunder:

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extra ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

The Code Commission, in justifying this extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, says the following:

A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost deligence of very cautions persons, with due regard for all circumstances. This extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that frequently occur in connection with rapid modern transportation. This high standard of care is imperatively demanded by the

25

precariousness of human life and by the consideration that every person must in every way be safeguarded against all injury. (Report of the Code Commission, pp. 35-36)" (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1956 ed., p. 197).

From the above legal provisions, we can make the following restatement of the principles governing the liability of a common carrier: (1) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case; (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel.

The question that now arises is: Has defendant observed extraordinary diligence or the utmost diligence of every cautious person, having due regard for all circumstances, in avoiding the collision which resulted in the injury caused to the plaintiff?

After examining the evidence in connection with how the collision occurred, the lower court made the following finding:

Hemos examinado muy detenidamente las pruebas presentadas en la vista, principalmente, las declaraciones que hemos acotado arriba, y hernos Ilegado a la conclusion de que el demandado ha hecho, todo cuanto estuviere de su parte para evitar el accidente, pero sin embargo, no ha podido evitarlo.

EI hecho de que el demandado, antes del choque, tuvo que hacer pasar su truck encima de los montones de grava que estaban depositados en la orilla del camino, sin que haya ido mas alla, por el grave riesgo que corrian las vidas de sus pasajeros, es prueba concluyente de lo que tenemos dicho, a saber: — que el cuanto esuba de su parte, para evitar el accidente, sin que haya podidoevitardo, por estar fuera de su control.

The evidence would appear to support the above finding. Thus, it appears that Bus No. 31, immediately prior to the collision, was running at a moderate speed because it had just stopped at the school zone of Matacong, Polangui, Albay. The pick-up car was at full speed and was running outside of its proper lane. The driver of the bus, upon seeing the manner in which the pick-up was then running, swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road until its front and rear wheels have gone over the pile of stones or gravel situated on the rampart of the road. Said driver could not move the bus farther right and run over a greater portion of the pile, the peak of which was about 3 feet high, without endangering the safety of his passengers. And notwithstanding all these efforts, the rear left side of the bus was hit by the pick-up car.

Of course, this finding is disputed by appellant who cannot see eye to eye with the evidence for the appellee and insists that the collision took place because the driver of the bus was going at a fast speed. He contends that, having seen that a car was coming from the opposite direction at a distance which allows the use of moderate care and prudence to avoid an accident, and knowing that on the side of the road along which he was going there was a pile of gravel, the driver of the bus should have stopped and waited for the vehicle from the opposite direction to pass, and should have proceeded only after the other vehicle had passed. In other words, according to appellant, the act of the driver of the bus in squeezing his way through of the bus in squeezing his way through between the oncoming pick-up and the pile of gravel under the circumstances was considered negligent.

But this matter is one of credibility and evaluation of the evidence. This is evidence. This is the function of the trial court. The trial court has already spoken on this matter as we have pointed out above. This is also a matter of appreciation of the situation on the part of the driver. While the position taken by appellant appeals more to the sense of caution that one should observe in a given situation to avoid an accident or mishap, such however can not always be expected from one who is placed suddenly in a predicament where he is not given enough time to take the course of action as he should under ordinary circumstances. One who is placed in such a predicament cannot exercise such coolness or accuracy of judgment as is required of him under ordinary circumstances and he cannot therefore be expected to observe the same judgment, care and precaution as in the latter. For this reason, authorities abound where failure to observe the same degree of care that as ordinary prudent man would exercise under ordinary circumstances when confronted with a sadden emergency was held to be warranted and a justification to exempt the carrier from liability. Thus, it was held that "where a carrier's employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into account, and he is held to the some degree of care that he would otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgement the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part which renders the company, liable. . . . (13 C. J. S., 1412; 10 C. J.,970). Considering all the circumstances, we are persuaded to conclude that the driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision and in our opinion this relieves appellee from legibility under our law.

A circumstances which miliates against the stand of appellant is the fact borne out by the evidence that when he boarded the bus in question, he seated himself on the left side thereof resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the window, this being his position in the bus when the collision took place. It is for this reason that the collision resulted in the

severance of said left arm from the body of appellant thus doing him a great damage. It is therefore apparent that appellant is guilty of contributory negligence. Had he not placed his left arm on the window sill with a portion thereof protruding outside, perhaps the injury would have been avoided as is the case with the other passenger. It is to be noted that appellant was the only victim of the collision.

It is true that such contributory negligence cannot relieve appellee of its liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762, new Civil Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by appellant in this case.

It is the prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for a passenger on a railroad voluntarily or inadvertently to protrude his arm, hand, elbow, or any other part of his body through the window of a moving car beyond the outer edge of the window or outer surface of the car, so as to come in contact with objects or obstacles near the track, and that no recovery can be had for an injury which but for such negligence would not have been sustained. (10 C. J. 1139)

Plaintiff, (passenger) while riding on an interurban car, to flick the ashes, from his cigar, thrust his hand over the guard rail a sufficient distance beyond the side line of the car to bring it in contact with the trunk of a tree standing beside the track; the force of the blow breaking his wrist. Held, that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Malakia vs. Rhode Island Co., 89 A., 337.)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with cost against appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 169891 November 2, 2006

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Petitioner, vs.ETHEL BRUNTY and JUAN MANUEL M. GARCIA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 47567 and its Resolution2 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The assailed decision affirmed with partial modification the ruling3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 20, directing petitioner Philippine National Railways (PNR) to indemnify respondents Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel M. Garcia for the death of Rhonda Brunty, and to pay actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799, driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T-71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila4 as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980.

By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical injuries.5 A certain James Harrow6 brought Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctor’s Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was transferred to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment.7

On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter8 to the PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughter’s death. When PNR did not respond, Ethel Brunty and Garcia, filed a complaint9 for damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila. The case was raffled to Branch 20 and was docketed as Civil Case No. 83-18645. They alleged that the death of Mercelita and Rhonda Brunty, as well as the physical injuries suffered by Garcia, were the direct and proximate result of the gross and reckless negligence of PNR in not providing the necessary equipment at the railroad crossing in Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Moncada, Tarlac. They pointed out that there was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were about to cross the railroad track, and that the flagman or switchman was only equipped with a hand flashlight.10 Plaintiffs likewise averred that PNR failed to supervise its employees in the performance of their respective tasks and duties, more particularly the pilot and operator of the train.11 They prayed for the payment of the following damages:

1.) P200,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages to plaintiff Ethel Brunty;

2.) P2,800,000.00 for compensatory damages to plaintiff Ethel Brunty representing lost or unearned income of Rhonda Brunty;

26

3.) Such amounts of moral and exemplary damages as may be warranted by the evidence adduced, to plaintiff Ethel Brunty;

4.) At least P64,057.61 as actual damages representing medical expenses to plaintiff Juan Manuel M. Garcia and at least P1,000,000.00 as unearned or lost income of said plaintiff;

5.) At least P72,760.00 as actual damages representing cost of the Mercedes Benz car to plaintiff Juan Manuel M. Garcia;

6.) Such amounts of moral and exemplary damages as may be warranted by the evidence adduced, to plaintiff Juan Manuel M. Garcia; and

7.) Attorney’s fees equivalent to at least 15% of the total award to plaintiffs herein.12

In its Answer,13 PNR claimed that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family not only in the selection but also in the supervision of its employees.14 By way of special and affirmative defense, it stressed that it had the right of way on the railroad crossing in question, and that it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light signal in any such crossing. It insisted that there were adequate, visible, and clear warning signs strategically posted on the sides of the road before the railroad crossing. It countered that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was Mercelita’s negligence, and that he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The driver disregarded the warning signs, the whistle blasts of the oncoming train and the flashlight signals to stop given by the guard.15 As counterclaim, it prayed that it be awarded actual and compensatory damages, and litigation expenses.16

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint17 dated July 28, 1986 to include, as party plaintiff, Chemical Industries of the Philippines, Inc. (Chemphil), Garcia’s employer, who claimed to have paid for the latter’s medical and hospitalization expenses, the services rendered by the funeral parlor of the deceased, and the expenses in transferring the remains of Rhonda Brunty to the United States.18

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision19 on May 21, 1990 in favor of plaintiffs. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel M. Garcia and against the defendant Philippine National Railways directing the latter to pay the former the sum of:

1. Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) Philippine Currency, for the death of Rhonda Brunty formerly a resident of 1595 Ashland Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, U.S.A.;

2. One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) Philippine Currency for moral and actual damages due the heirs of Rhonda Brunty;

3. Seventy-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Pesos (P72,760.00) Philippine Currency for damages sustained by the Mercedes Benz;

4. Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) Philippine Currency as and for attorney's fees, and;

5. Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.20

Aggrieved, the PNR appealed the case to the CA, raising the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDGING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PNR LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF RHONDA BRUNTY AND THE CONSEQUENT AWARD OF DAMAGES DUE THE HEIRS OF RHONDA BRUNTY.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDGING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PNR LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S MERCEDES BENZ IN THE AMOUNT OF SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY PESOS (P72,760.00).

III.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES.21

In its Brief, PNR insisted that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence and recklessness of Garcia and Mercelita.22 It insisted that it had provided adequate warning signals at the railroad crossing23 and had exercised due care in the selection and supervision of its employees.24 The RTC erred in awarding damages to Rhonda Brunty as she cannot be allowed to receive what she is not in a position to give, having been a non-resident alien who did not own a property in the Philippines.25 It likewise questioned the award of damages on the Mercedes Benz as well as the grant of attorney’s fees.26 At the very least, Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence.27

For their part, appellees countered that appellant was grossly and recklessly negligent in not properly providing the necessary equipment at the railroad crossing in Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac;28 appellant was negligent in not exercising due diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees, particularly the train operator Alfonso Reyes;29 the car was driven in a careful and diligent manner, and at a moderate speed, with due regard to all traffic rules and regulations at that particular time;30 the doctrine of "last clear chance" is not applicable;31 Ethel Brunty is a non-resident alien who can rightfully file the instant case;32 and they are entitled to recover damages from appellant.33

The CA rendered the assailed Decision34 on August 15, 2005. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with PARTIAL MODIFICATIONS, increasing the death indemnity award from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, and deleting the award for damages sustained by the Mercedes Benz.

SO ORDERED.35

The appellate court affirmed the findings of the RTC as to the negligence of the PNR. Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the fatal accident, it ruled that the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing were not merely inadequate – they did not satisfy the well-settled safety standards in transportation.36 However, the CA did not agree with the RTC’s findings on the contributory negligence of Mercelita, the driver of the Mercedes Benz. It held that Mercelita could not have foreseen the harm that would befall him and the two other passengers under the prevailing circumstances, thus, could not be considered guilty of contributory negligence.37

The PNR, now petitioner, comes before this Court in this Petition for Review on Certiorari on the following grounds:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKING CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS NOT DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES AND WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION SUCH AS:

THE RESPONDENTS’ DRIVER OVERTOOK ANOTHER VEHICLE BY ACCELERATING AT 70 KILOMETERS PER HOUR WITHIN JUST 50 YARDS AWAY FROM THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

II.

THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT REGARDING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS’ DRIVER.

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE.38

Petitioner insists that the proximate cause of the mishap was Mercelita’s disregard of traffic rules and regulations. Had the court considered the fact that Mercelita had overtaken another vehicle a few yards before the railroad track, it would have reached a different conclusion.39 Moreover, petitioner asserts, considering that the decisions of the RTC and the CA vary as to whether or not Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence, the findings of the RTC should prevail. Thus, Mercelita’s contributory negligence should not have been ignored.40 Lastly, petitioner avers that since there is freedom of control and greater maneuverability on the part of motor vehicles, it is obvious that in railroad crossings, they have the last clear chance to prevent or avoid an unwanted accident from taking place.41

In their Comment42 on the petition, respondents reiterate the findings of the RTC and the CA that the breach by petitioner of its legal duty to provide adequate and necessary public safety device and equipment within the area or scene of the accident was the proximate cause of the mishap.43 While it is true that as a general rule, the trial court is in the best position to evaluate and observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses presented during the trial, the CA, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, has the vested right to modify, reject, or set aside the trial court’s evaluation and findings.44 As to the application of the doctrine of last clear chance, respondents claim that said issue is being raised for the first time in this petition.45 Lastly, respondents cite foreign jurisprudence stating that if the violation is one which gives rise to liability per se for any resulting injury, the defenses ordinarily available in actions for diligence are barred and the contributory negligence of the person injured is no defense.46

The Court is thus tasked to answer the following factual questions: (1) As between petitioner and Mercelita, whose negligence resulted in the unfortunate collision? (2) Is Mercelita (the driver of the Mercedes Benz) guilty of contributory negligence? Finally, the application in this case of the doctrine of last clear chance is likewise in question.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man

27

would not do.47 In Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company,48 this Court held that negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.49 In determining whether or not there is negligence on the part of the parties in a given situation, jurisprudence50 has laid down the following test: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law.

The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent was thoroughly discussed by both the RTC and the CA. In petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue, and questions of fact as a general rule, cannot be entertained. The finding of negligence by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is a question of fact which this Court cannot pass upon as it would entail going into factual matters on which the finding of negligence was based.51 The established rule is that factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are conclusive and binding on this Court.52

The records of the instant case show that both the RTC and the CA carefully examined the factual circumstances surrounding the case, and we find no cogent reason to disturb the same. It is, however, worthy to emphasize that petitioner was found negligent because of its failure to provide the necessary safety device to ensure the safety of motorists in crossing the railroad track. As such, it is liable for damages for violating the provisions of Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, viz:

Article 2176. Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage.53 Applying the foregoing requisites, the CA correctly made the following conclusions:

It was clearly established that plaintiffs-appellees (respondents herein) sustained damage or injury as a result of the collision. That there was negligence on the part of PNR is, likewise, beyond cavil. Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the fatal accident, the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing is not only inadequate but does not satisfy well-settled safety standards in transportation. x x x

x x x x

x x x An examination of the photographs of the railroad crossing at Moncada, Tarlac presented as evidence by PNR itself would yield the following: (1.) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars; (2.) inadequacy of the installed warning signals; and (3.) lack of proper lighting within the area. Thus, even if there was a flagman stationed at the site as claimed by PNR (petitioner), it would still be impossible to know or see that there is a railroad crossing/tracks ahead, or that there is an approaching train from the Moncada side of the road since one’s view would be blocked by a cockpit arena. x x x54

Moreover, the CA held that a vehicle coming from the Moncada side would have difficulty in knowing that there is an approaching train because of the slight curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2:00 a.m. Thus, it is imperative on the part of the PNR to provide adequate safety equipment in the area.55

It may broadly be stated that railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossings.56 Moreover, every corporation constructing or operating a railway shall make and construct at all points where such railway crosses any public road, good, sufficient, and safe crossings and erect at such points, at a sufficient elevation from such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of every kind, a sign with large and distinct letters placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity of the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of looking out for trains.57

This Court has previously determined the liability of the PNR for damages for its failure to put a cross bar, or signal light, flagman or switchman, or semaphores. Such failure is evidence of negligence and disregard of the safety of the public, even if there is no law or ordinance requiring it because public safety demands that said device or equipment be installed.58

In view of the foregoing, we affirm the factual findings of the CA as well as its conclusion on petitioner’s negligence.

As to whether or not Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence, we agree with petitioner. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.59 To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body.60 To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although

not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.61

The court below found that there was a slight curve before approaching the tracks; the place was not properly illuminated; one’s view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercelita was not familiar with the road. Yet, it was also established that Mercelita was then driving the Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70 km/hr and, in fact, had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before reaching the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. However, while his acts contributed to the collision, they nevertheless do not negate petitioner’s liability. Pursuant to Article 217962 of the New Civil Code, the only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability, which, however, is not applicable in this case, as will be discussed later.1âwphi1

As to whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable, we rule in the negative. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.63 The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case.

We note that the damages awarded by the appellate court consist of (1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Rhonda Brunty; (2) P1,000,000.00 as actual and moral damages due the heirs of Rhonda Brunty; and (3) P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees. No damages, however, were awarded for the injuries suffered by Garcia, yet, the latter never interposed an appeal before the CA nor even before this Court. The record is, likewise, bereft of any allegation and proof as to the relationship between Mercelita (the driver) and Rhonda Brunty. Hence, the earlier finding of contributory negligence on the part of Mercelita, which generally has the effect of mitigation of liability, does not apply.

As to the amount of damages awarded, a modification of the same is in order, specifically on the award of actual and moral damages in the aggregate amount of P1,000,000.00.

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done. To be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered, and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.64 Respondents, however, failed to present evidence for such damages; hence, the award of actual damages cannot be sustained. However, as the heirs of Rhonda Brunty undeniably incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the latter, we deem it proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.65 This is in lieu of actual damages as it would be unfair for the victim’s heirs to get nothing, despite the death of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot produce receipts.66

The relatives of the victim who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not proscribed from recovering moral damages in meritorious cases.67 We, therefore, sustain the award of moral damages in favor of the heirs of Rhonda Brunty.

Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person. Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages must nevertheless be somehow proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted.68 In the instant case, the moral suffering of the heirs of Rhonda Brunty was sufficiently established by Ethel Brunty in her deposition,69 viz:

Q: What have you felt as a result of the death of Rhonda?

A: I felt earnest anguish and mixed feelings of anger and extreme sorrow because she died so far away and alone, and because her death could so easily be prevented if there had been adequate and appropriate warning signals at the railroad crossing and it is just an unbearable and irreparable loss. In so many ways, she was my life. It seemed to me that losing her was just like losing my own life, or worst, and even now, there is no end to our bereavement. I am still on constant medication to be able to sleep and to be able to perform my duties effectively in my job but it does not take away the pain of loss.70

In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,71 and in Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,72 we awarded moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased. In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Malecdan,73 the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages was held in keeping with the purpose of the law, while in Macalinao v. Ong,74 the amount of P50,000.00 was held sufficient.1âwphi1

Considering the circumstances attendant in this case, we find that an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty is proper. In

28

view of recent jurisprudence, indemnity of P50,000.00 for the death of Rhonda Brunty and attorney’s fees amounting to P50,000.00 is likewise proper.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 15, 2005 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of actual damages is deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty. The award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989

JOSE PILAPIL, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALATCO TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., respondents.

Martin Badong, Jr. for petitioner.

Eufronio K. Maristela for private respondent.

PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision* rendered by the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1979 in CA-G.R. No. 57354-R entitled "Jose Pilapil, plaintiff-appellee versus Alatco Transportation Co., Inc., defendant-appellant," which reversed and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. 7230 ordering respondent transportation company to pay to petitioner damages in the total sum of sixteen thousand three hundred pesos (P 16,300.00).

The record discloses the following facts:

Petitioner-plaintiff Jose Pilapil, a paying passenger, boarded respondent-defendant's bus bearing No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga City on 16 September 1971 at about 6:00 P.M. While said bus No. 409 was in due course negotiating the distance between Iriga City and Naga City, upon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, on the way to Naga City, an unidentified man, a bystander along said national highway, hurled a stone at the left side of the bus, which hit petitioner above his left eye. Private respondent's personnel lost no time in bringing the petitioner to the provincial hospital in Naga City where he was confined and treated.

Considering that the sight of his left eye was impaired, petitioner was taken to Dr. Malabanan of Iriga City where he was treated for another week. Since there was no improvement in his left eye's vision, petitioner went to V. Luna Hospital, Quezon City where he was treated by Dr. Capulong. Despite the treatment accorded to him by Dr. Capulong, petitioner lost partially his left eye's vision and sustained a permanent scar above the left eye.

Thereupon, petitioner instituted before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I an action for recovery of damages sustained as a result of the stone-throwing incident. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment with the following dispositive part:

Wherefore, judgment is hereby entered:

1. Ordering defendant transportation company to pay plaintiff Jose Pilapil the sum of P 10,000.00, Philippine Currency, representing actual and material damages for causing a permanent scar on the face and injuring the eye-sight of the plaintiff;

2. Ordering further defendant transportation company to pay the sum of P 5,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the plaintiff as moral and exemplary damages;

3. Ordering furthermore, defendant transportation company to reimburse plaintiff the sum of P 300.00 for his medical expenses and attorney's fees in the sum of P 1,000.00, Philippine Currency; and

4. To pay the costs.

SO ORDERED 1

From the judgment, private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals where the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 57354R. On 19 October 1979, the Court of Appeals, in a Special Division of Five, rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the judgment of the court a quo.

Hence the present petition.

In seeking a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner contends that said court has decided the issue not in accord with law. Specifically, petitioner argues that the nature of the business of a transportation company requires the assumption of certain risks, and the stoning of the bus by a stranger resulting in injury to petitioner-passenger is one such risk from which the common carrier may not exempt itself from liability.

We do not agree.

In consideration of the right granted to it by the public to engage in the business of transporting passengers and goods, a common carrier does not give its consent to become an insurer of any and all risks to passengers and goods. It merely undertakes to perform certain duties to the public as the law imposes, and holds itself liable for any breach thereof.

Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are required to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passenger transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. The requirement of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is restated in Article 1755: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances." Further, in case of death of or injuries to passengers, the law presumes said common carriers to be at fault or to have acted negligently. 2

While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. 3

Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide. what constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.

Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured, merely relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to fasten the negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event. 4

In fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission and Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common carriers in the conduct of their business.

Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires. 5

Petitioner contends that respondent common carrier failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it by proof on its part that it exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers.

We do not agree.

First, as stated earlier, the presumption of fault or negligence against the carrier is only a disputable presumption. It gives in where contrary facts are established proving either that the carrier had exercised the degree of diligence required by law or the injury suffered by the passenger was due to a fortuitous event. Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner was in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting or to the negligent or willful acts of private respondent's employees, and therefore involving no issue of negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the injury arising wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or even knowledge or could not have prevented, the presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not and ought not to be held liable. To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers which is not the intention of the lawmakers.

Second, while as a general rule, common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the safe transport of their passengers, it would seem that this is not the standard by which its liability is to be determined when intervening acts of strangers is to be determined directly cause the injury, while the contract of carriage Article 1763 governs:

Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Clearly under the above provision, a tort committed by a stranger which causes injury to a passenger does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier. The negligence for which a common carrier is held responsible is the negligent omission by the carrier's employees to prevent the tort from being committed when the same could have been foreseen and

29

prevented by them. Further, under the same provision, it is to be noted that when the violation of the contract is due to the willful acts of strangers, as in the instant case, the degree of care essential to be exercised by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is only that of a good father of a family.

Petitioner has charged respondent carrier of negligence on the ground that the injury complained of could have been prevented by the common carrier if something like mesh-work grills had covered the windows of its bus.

We do not agree.

Although the suggested precaution could have prevented the injury complained of, the rule of ordinary care and prudence is not so exacting as to require one charged with its exercise to take doubtful or unreasonable precautions to guard against unlawful acts of strangers. The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining vehicles as to absolutely prevent any and all injuries to passengers. Where the carrier uses cars of the most approved type, in general use by others engaged in the same occupation, and exercises a high degree of care in maintaining them in suitable condition, the carrier cannot be charged with negligence in this respect. 6

Finally, petitioner contends that it is to the greater interest of the State if a carrier were made liable for such stone-throwing incidents rather than have the bus riding public lose confidence in the transportation system.

Sad to say, we are not in a position to so hold; such a policy would be better left to the consideration of Congress which is empowered to enact laws to protect the public from the increasing risks and dangers of lawlessness in society.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Sarmiento and Regalado, concur.

Paras, J., took no part.

G.R. No. L-55300 March 15, 1990

FRANKLIN G. GACAL and CORAZON M. GACAL, the latter assisted by her husband, FRANKLIN G. GACAL, petitioners, vs.PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., and THE HONORABLE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SOUTH COTABATO, BRANCH I, respondents.

Vicente A. Mirabueno for petitioners.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

This is a, petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch 1, * promulgated on August 26, 1980 dismissing three (3) consolidated cases for damages: Civil Case No. 1701, Civil Case No. 1773 and Civil Case No. 1797 (Rollo, p. 35).

The facts, as found by respondent court, are as follows:

Plaintiffs Franklin G. Gacal and his wife, Corazon M. Gacal, Bonifacio S. Anislag and his wife, Mansueta L. Anislag, and the late Elma de Guzman, were then passengers boarding defendant's BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for a flight to Manila, not knowing that on the same flight, Macalinog, Taurac Pendatum known as Commander Zapata, Nasser Omar, Liling Pusuan Radia, Dimantong Dimarosing and Mike Randa, all of Marawi City and members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), were their co-passengers, three (3) armed with grenades, two (2) with .45 caliber pistols, and one with a .22 caliber pistol. Ten (10) minutes after take off at about 2:30 in the afternoon, the hijackers brandishing their respective firearms announced the hijacking of the aircraft and directed its pilot to fly to Libya. With the pilot explaining to them especially to its leader, Commander Zapata, of the inherent fuel limitations of the plane and that they are not rated for international flights, the hijackers directed the pilot to fly to Sabah. With the same explanation, they relented and directed the aircraft to land at Zamboanga Airport, Zamboanga City for refueling. The aircraft landed at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 21, 1976 at Zamboanga Airport. When the plane began to taxi at the runway, it was met by two armored cars of the military with machine guns pointed at the plane, and it stopped there. The rebels thru its commander demanded that a DC-aircraft take them to Libya with the President of the defendant company as hostage and that they be given $375,000 and six (6) armalites, otherwise they will blow up the plane if their demands will not be met by the government and Philippine Air Lines. Meanwhile, the passengers were not served any food nor

water and it was only on May 23, a Sunday, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon that they were served 1/4 slice of a sandwich and 1/10 cup of PAL water. After that, relatives of the hijackers were allowed to board the plane but immediately after they alighted therefrom, an armored car bumped the stairs. That commenced the battle between the military and the hijackers which led ultimately to the liberation of the surviving crew and the passengers, with the final score of ten (10) passengers and three (3) hijackers dead on the spot and three (3) hijackers captured.

City Fiscal Franklin G. Gacal was unhurt. Mrs. Corazon M. Gacal suffered injuries in the course of her jumping out of the plane when it was peppered with bullets by the army and after two (2) hand grenades exploded inside the plane. She was hospitalized at General Santos Doctors Hospital, General Santos City, for two (2) days, spending P245.60 for hospital and medical expenses, Assistant City Fiscal Bonifacio S. Anislag also escaped unhurt but Mrs. Anislag suffered a fracture at the radial bone of her left elbow for which she was hospitalized and operated on at the San Pedro Hospital, Davao City, and therefore, at Davao Regional Hospital, Davao City, spending P4,500.00. Elma de Guzman died because of that battle. Hence, the action of damages instituted by the plaintiffs demanding the following damages, to wit:

Civil Case No. 1701 —

City Fiscal Franklin G. Gacal and Mrs. Corazon M. Gacal — actual damages: P245.60 for hospital and medical expenses of Mrs Gacal; P8,995.00 for their personal belongings which were lost and not recovered; P50,000.00 each for moral damages; and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, apart from the prayer for an award of exemplary damages (Record, pp. 4-6, Civil Case No. 1701).

Civil Case No. 1773 —

xxx xxx xxx

Civil Case No. 1797 —

xxx xxx xxx

The trial court, on August 26, 1980, dismissed the complaints finding that all the damages sustained in the premises were attributed to force majeure.

On September 12, 1980 the spouses Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1701, filed a notice of appeal with the lower court on pure questions of law (Rollo, p. 55) and the petition for review on certiorari was filed with this Court on October 20, 1980 (Rollo, p. 30).

The Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 147) and both parties filed their respective briefs but petitioner failed to file reply brief which was noted by the Court in the resolution dated May 3, 1982 (Rollo, p. 183).

Petitioners alleged that the main cause of the unfortunate incident is the gross, wanton and inexcusable negligence of respondent Airline personnel in their failure to frisk the passengers adequately in order to discover hidden weapons in the bodies of the six (6) hijackers. They claimed that despite the prevalence of skyjacking, PAL did not use a metal detector which is the most effective means of discovering potential skyjackers among the passengers (Rollo, pp. 6-7).

Respondent Airline averred that in the performance of its obligation to safely transport passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide, it has exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due regard to all circumstances, but the security checks and measures and surveillance precautions in all flights, including the inspection of baggages and cargo and frisking of passengers at the Davao Airport were performed and rendered solely by military personnel who under appropriate authority had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the same in all airports in the Philippines.

Similarly, the negotiations with the hijackers were a purely government matter and a military operation, handled by and subject to the absolute and exclusive jurisdiction of the military authorities. Hence, it concluded that the accident that befell RP-C1161 was caused by fortuitous event, force majeure and other causes beyond the control of the respondent Airline.

The determinative issue in this case is whether or not hijacking or air piracy during martial law and under the circumstances obtaining herein, is a caso fortuito or force majeure which would exempt an aircraft from payment of damages to its passengers whose lives were put in jeopardy and whose personal belongings were lost during the incident.

Under the Civil Code, common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case (Article 1733). They are presumed at fault or to have acted negligently whenever a passenger dies or is injured (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 124 SCRA 583 [1983]) or for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in cases other than those enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 463 [1987]).

The source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. There is breach of this obligation if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of the case in exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person (Isaac v.

30

Ammen Transportation Co., 101 Phil. 1046 [1957]; Juntilla v. Fontanar, 136 SCRA 624 [1985]).

It is the duty of a common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence (Philippine National Railways v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 87 [1985]) and it must be shown that the carrier had observed the required extraordinary diligence of a very cautious person as far as human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event (Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523 [1976]). Thus, as ruled by this Court, no person shall be responsible for those "events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable. (Article 1174, Civil Code). The term is synonymous with caso fortuito (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]) which is of the same sense as "force majeure" (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 17, p. 362).

In order to constitute a caso fortuito or force majeure that would exempt a person from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, it is necessary that the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will (the will of the debtor or the obligor); (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 527 [1971]; Estrada v. Consolacion, supra; Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 [1985]; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 596 [1986]). Caso fortuito or force majeure, by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable, events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable. It is, therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same (Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, 21 SCRA 279 [1967]).

Applying the above guidelines to the case at bar, the failure to transport petitioners safely from Davao to Manila was due to the skyjacking incident staged by six (6) passengers of the same plane, all members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), without any connection with private respondent, hence, independent of the will of either the PAL or of its passengers.

Under normal circumstances, PAL might have foreseen the skyjacking incident which could have been avoided had there been a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of baggages as authorized by R.A. No. 6235. But the incident in question occurred during Martial Law where there was a military take-over of airport security including the frisking of passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding domestic and international flights. In fact military take-over was specifically announced on October 20, 1973 by General Jose L. Rancudo, Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force in a letter to Brig. Gen. Jesus Singson, then Director of the Civil Aeronautics Administration (Rollo, pp. 71-72) later confirmed shortly before the hijacking incident of May 21, 1976 by Letter of Instruction No. 399 issued on April 28, 1976 (Rollo, p. 72).

Otherwise stated, these events rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations in a nominal manner and obviously it cannot be faulted with negligence in the performance of duty taken over by the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the exclusion of the former.

Finally, there is no dispute that the fourth element has also been satisfied. Consequently the existence of force majeure has been established exempting respondent PAL from the payment of damages to its passengers who suffered death or injuries in their persons and for loss of their baggages.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

31