Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo,
holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate. Allegedly, while
Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert
on the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for
damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that the truck is
rd
owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3 party complaint against him (Rayos).
The CFI ruled that Tamayo is the registered owner, under a public
convenience certificate but such truck was sold to Rayos one month after
the accident, but he (Tamayo) did not inform the Public Service
Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo and Rayos jointly and severally
liable to Aquino. CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner
(Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be
considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance
with Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary).
Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how
should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate
with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable.
Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable.
The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure
of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The
liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the
passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the
registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty
of tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY.
As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to the
public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct. If
the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered
owner should not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has
become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the
responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who operated the
vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the
accident and death he should in turn be made responsible to the
registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In
operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by
the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of
the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered
owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence.
Dr. Armovit, a Filipino physician and his family residing in the United
States cameto the Philippines on a Christmas visit. They were bumped off
at the ManilaInternational Airport on their return flight to the United
States because of anerroneous entry in their plane ticket relating to their
time of departure.
plus three tickets for the rest of the children, though not involved in the
suit.
The Court of Appeals modified the trial courts judgment as follows: TheP
900,000.00 moral damages and
P100,000.00 nominal damages awarded to petitioners were eliminated
; exemplary damages were reduced from P500,000.00to P50,000.00 in
favor of Mrs. Armovit and from P300,000.00 to P20,000.00 infavor of
Miss Jacqueline Armovit.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTSW/N the Armovits are entitled to Nominal
Damages
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINO. NOMINAL DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.
defendants agents had acted with malice aforethought and evident bad
faith. If gross
negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more
reason is its imposition
justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with
bad faith.
The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name
implies, to provide an
example or correction for public good. Defendant having breached its
contracts in bad faith, the
court, as stated earlier, may award exemplary damages in addition to
moral damages
ORTIGAS V. LUFTHANSA
Francisco Ortigas, and defendant Luthansa German Airlines, from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila Branch Y, condemning
the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000 as moral damages,
P30,000 as exemplary or corrective damages, with interest of both sums
at the legal rate from the commencement of this suit until fully paid,
P20,000 as attorneys fees and the costs for the former failure to
comply with its obligation to give first accommodation to (the latter) a
(Filipino) passenger holding a first class ticket, aggravated by the giving
of the space instead to a Belgian and the improper conduct of its agents
in dealing with him during the occasion of such discriminatory violence of
its contract of carriage.
Held: The court said that when it comes to contracts of common carriage,
inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the
failure of the passenger to be accommodated in class contracted for
amounts to bad faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the award
of moral damages in accordance with the 2220 of the Civil Code. But in
the instant case, the breach appears to the graver nature, since the
preference given to the Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done
willfully and in wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights and his dignity as a
human being and as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated against
with impunity, as found by the court below what worsened the situation
of Ortigas was that Lufthansa succeeded in keeping him as its passenger
by assuring him that he would be given first class accommodation at
Cairo, the next station, the proper arrangements therefore having been
made already, when in truth such was not the case.
Transportation Law Case DigestsPetitioner is booked on a first
class accommodation in defendants airline from Rome to
Manila. T h e b o o k i n g w a s c o n f i r m e d b y i t s a i r l i n e s o f f
ice. The airline employee upong seeing his Filipino
nationality disallowed his boarding and the seat was given
to a Belgian. Petitioner has a heart ailment and is advised by
physician to take only frst class accommodations. He was promised to be
transferredto first class on all succeeding layovers from Cairo
to Hongkong to no avail. Damages was filed. Trialcourt awarded Moral
and Exemplary damages.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is liable for damages.
Held:
Yes. Inattenton and lack of care on the carrier rsul ting in the
failure of the passenger to beaccommodated in a class
availed of and contracted amounts to bad faith and fraud.
Furthermore, the p r e f e r e n c e t o a B e l g i a n p a s s e n g e r i s
also a wanton disregard of his right from
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h e successive false representations
of transferring him to first class is an act of malice and
bad faith. Thisentitles petitioner to moral damages in
accordance to Articlec 2220. Moral damages is increased
toPhp15,000 and Exemplary damages to Php100,000.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Esguerra117 SCRA 741Facts:
99
physicalinjuries and a brain concussion. She then filed for an action for
damages against respondent. The lower court, finding the
respondents driver to be negligent, granted the damages
and the Court of Appeals reduced the damages. The petitioner then
appealed from the decision of the appellate court.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was
correct.
Held:
The Court held that the reduction of the moral damages by
the appellate court to the petitioner was unreasonable and
drastic. The reason was that the trial court found the
respondent to be gro sslynegligent in injuring the petitioner. The
award of moral damages was proper. The appeal by the petitioner is
proper because, as a doctor, she has reasonable fears that such accident
due to the carelessness of the respondents driver can greatly affect her
profession.Exemplary damages are also awarded to the petitioner to
provide for an example or correction topublic good. The reason is that
the respondents driver was driving at a high speed on a rainy day and
ona slippery road with complete disregard with the safety of other
people.
PAN-AM V. IAC
Private respondent Tinitigan, filed a complaint agai
nst petitioner for damages arising fromdefendant's
alleged refusal to accommodate her on Pan Am Fli
g h t N o . 4 3 1 f r o m S t o . D o m i n g o , Republica Dominica to
San Juan, Puerto Rico notwithstanding that she possessed a
confirmed planeticket. She is a businesswoman and a multimillionaire
(proprietor of Sampaguita Restaurant, New YorkCity USA; Treasurer of
the Molave Development Corp., Phil., proprietor of Cavite Household
Appliancesand Rowena's Handicraft, Phil.), was on a business
trip with a Pan-Am ticket. While in Sto. Domingo,Tinitigan is
expected to be in San Juan that same day to meet a client to sign a
contract or lose it. Shewas expected to make a profit of $1,000 in said
contract but her failure to board the flight, said profit waslost. The refusal
of accommodation caused her to suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirchedreputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation She
prayed that she be awarded moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary
damages of P200,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00 and actual
damagess u s t a i n e d b y h e r i n t h e a m o u n t o f U S $ 1 , 5 4 6 . 1 5 .
D e f e n d a n t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s a c o n f i r m e d passenger
since the ticket issued to her was on an open space basis, which meant
that she could onlybe accommodated if any of the confirmed passengers
failed to show up at the airport before departure.The lower court
rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded the
amount of damages as prayedfor. Said decision was affirmed
hence the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
Held:
Yes, but subject to modifications. Other instances which caused moral
damage to the plaintiff arethe following:1. While plaintiff was
standing in line to board the aircraft, a Pan Am employee
ordered her in a loud voice to step out of line because her ticket was
not confirmed to her embarrassment in the presence of several
people who heard and order. Despite her Pleas she was not
allowed to board the aircraft. And her seat was also given to a
Caucasian.2. When the plane took off without her but with
her lugga ge on board. She was forced to return to her hotel
without any luggage much less an extra dress.Evidence shows petitioner
as confirmed passenger. 1.) Defendant issued a Passenger Ticket
andBaggage Check with assigned seat and the corresponding pass and
baggage claim symbol. 2.) Plaintiff paid the fare and terminal fee.
3.) plaintiff's passport was stamped by immigration. 4.)
Plaintiff's namewas included in the passenger manifest. There is a
contract or carriage perfected between plaintiff anddefendant for the
latter to take plaintiff to her place of destination. By refusing to
accommodate plaintiff insaid flight, defendant had willfully and
knowingly violated the contract of carriage and failed to bring
theplaintiff to her place of destination under its cont ract
with plaintiff. There is showing of bad faith. Self -enrichment
or fraternal interest and not personal ill will may have been the motive of