You are on page 1of 6

Cachero v.

Manila Yellow Taxicab bus fell off a deep precipice in barrio Balitbiton, municipality of Garcia- the latter's criminal negligence. The first is governed by the provisions
101 PHIL 523 Hernandez, resulting in the death of Nicasio and in serious physical of the Civil Code, and not by those of the Revised Penal Code, and it
injuries to Jovito. A complaint for damages against appellee, Bohol being entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, the same
Facts: Land Transportation Co. was filed. Defendant moved for the dismissal may be instituted and prosecuted independently of, and regardless of
Atty. Cachero, plaintiff herein, boarded a taxicab owned by of the complaint on two grounds, namely, that the cause of action the result of the latter.
the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. The said taxicab bumped against a alleged therein was barred by a prior judgment, and that it did not state
Meralco post. The taxicab was badly smashed and the plaintiff fell out a cause of action. In the case at bar, the civil action instituted against appellee is based on
of the vehicle to the ground. As a result of the accident, he suffered At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, it was established that in alleged culpa contractual incurred by it due to its failure to carry safely
slight physical injuries. The driver of the taxi was prosecuted and Criminal Case No. 2775 of the same court, the driver of the bus the late Nicasio Bernaldes and his brother Jovito to their place of
convicted criminally. Respondent herein offered to settle the case and involved in the accident, was charged with double homicide thru destination, whereas the criminal action instituted against appellee's
the plaintiff demanded the amount of P79,245.65 as for damages. reckless imprudence but was acquitted on the ground that his guilt had driver involved exclusively the criminal and civil liability of the latter
Respondent refused to pay the said amount. Plaintiff then proceeded to not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that appellees, arising from his criminal negligence. In other words, appellant's action
file a case to recover the same amount through the courts. The CFI through their attorneys, intervened in the prosecution of said case and concerned the civil liability of appellee as a common carrier, regardless
rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that respondent did not reserve the right to file a separate action for damages. The of the liabilities of its driver who was charged in the criminal case. The
pay the amount of P700 for medical and transportation allowances, lower court sustained the motion on the ground of bar by prior failure, on the part of the appellants, to reserve their right to recover civil
attorneys fees and professional fees. Both parties appealed and the judgment, and dismissed the case. Hence, this appeal. indemnity against the carrier can not in any way be deemed as a
decision was affirmed. Hence this petition. waiver, on their part, to institute a separate action against the latter
ISSUE: WON a civil action for damages against the owner of a public based on its contractual liability, or on culpa aquiliana, under Articles
Issue: Whether or not Cachero is entitled to recover damages other vehicle, based on breach of contract of carriage, may be filed after the 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. (Parker, et al. vs. Panlilio, et al.,G.R. No.
than those already awarded. criminal action instituted against the driver has been disposed of, if the L-4961, March 5, 1952). As a matter of fact, such reservation is already
aggrieved party did not reserve his right to enforce civil liability in a implied in the law which declares such action to be independent and
Held: separate action. separate from the criminal action. Moreover, it has been held that the
The Court modified the decision of the lower court. The award duty of the offended party to make such reservation applies only to
of professional fees were reduced to P2,000 and the award of moral WON whether the intervention of the aggrieved party, through private defendant in the criminal action, not to persons secondarily liable
damages of P2,000. Plaintiff in this case did not maintain his action prosecutors, in the prosecution of the criminal case against the driver (Chaves, et al. vs. Manila Electric, 31 Phil. 47).
against all persons liable for the breach of the contract of common who was acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence will bar
carriage. Since he did not include the driver in this complaint he may him from suing the latter's employer for damages for breach of contract, YES. Appellants, through private prosecutors, were allowed to
not recover moral damages. Respondent herein did not commit any in an independent and separate action. intervene in the criminal action against appellee's driver, but if that
criminal offense against the plaintiff, it was the driver who was the amounted inferentially to submitting in said case their claim for civil
reason behind the injury. This case does not fall under Article 2219 of HELD: YES. Article 31 of the New Civil Code expressly provides that indemnity, the claim could have been only against the driver but not
the NCC therefore he is not entitled to be awarded moral damages. when the civil action is based upon an obligation not arising from the against appellee who was not a party therein. As a matter of fact,
act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may however, in spite of appellee's statements to the contrary in its brief,
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of there is no showing in the record before Us that appellants made of
BERNALDES, SR vs. Bohol Land Transportation Inc. G.R. No. L- the result of the latter. This provision evidently refers to a civil action record their claim for damages against the driver or his employer; much
18193 based, not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal less does it appear that they had attempted to prove such damages.
case, but to one based on an obligation arising from other sources, The failure of the court to make any pronouncement in its decision
FACTS: Appellant, Jovito Bernaldes and his brother, Nicasio, boarded such as law or contract. Upon the other hand it is clear that a civil action concerning the civil liability of the driver and/or of his employer must
one of appellee's passenger trucks (B.L.T. Co. No. 322 with plate No. based on contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the therefore be due to the fact that the criminal action did not involve at all
1470) in the town of Guindulman, Bohol, on the way to Tagbilaran, the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its employee based on any claim for civil indemnity.
a case where the passengers are demanding indemnity from the carrier (2) the accident was due to the negligence of the driver who was under
Lastly, as appellee's driver was acquitted only on reasonable doubt, a due to the contract of common carriage. their employ; and
civil action for damages against him may be instituted for the same act It is clear from the evidence that it is Manalo and the owners
or omission (Rule 107, par. [d]; Art. 29, New Civil Code). If such is the of the jeepney who are negligent in this case. There was no proper (3) the sale made by Marcos of his property was done with intent to
rule as against him, a fortiori, it must in the case of his employer. explanation as to why the rear wheel of the vehicle suddenly became defraud his creditors, the trial court rendered judgment (1) sentencing
detached. Therefore the Court affirms the decision of the lower court the three, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff P16,000 for the death
and holds Manalo and the owners liable to pay damages. of the spouses, P4,000 as exemplary damages, P2,000 as attorneys
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court fees, and costs; and (2) annulling the deed of sale executed by Marcos.
189 SCRA 158
Zamboanga Transportation Co. vs. CA (GR L-25292, 29 November Zamtranco, Zambraco and Marcos appealed. Marcos appeal was later
Facts: 1969) dismissed; hence as to him the judgment is already final and executory.
Several people boarded a jeepney owned by the spouses The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with
Isidro Mangue and Guillermo Carreon. Said jeepney was driven by Facts: In the evening of 13 August 1955, the spouses Ramon and modification as to the award of damages, to wit, (1) P12,000 for the
Manalo and was travelling to Pampanga to Pangasinan. The Josefina Dagamanuel boarded a bus at Manicahan, Zamboanga City, death of the spouses Ramon and Josefina Dagamanuel, (2) P11,520
passengers wre on their way home to spend Christmas together with to attend a benefit dance at the Bunguiao Elementary School, also in for the loss of earnings of both spouses, (3) P5,000 as moral damages,
their families. On its way to Pangasinan, one of the rear tires of the Zamboanga City, where Josefina was a public school teacher. After the and (4) P5,000 as exemplary damages, with costs against Zamtranco
jeepney was detached and it prompted the driver to step on the brakes. dance, the couple boarded the same bus to return to Manicahan. At and Zambraco. The latter moved for reconsideration, but the same was
Upon applying the brakes the jeepney made a sudden u-turn and it around 1 a.m. of 14 August 1955, the bus (1955 TPU-1137), and driven denied. Hence, the appeal via a petition for certiorari.
stopped on the opposite lane of the highway. Subsequent to the by Valeriano Marcos, fell off the road and pinned to death the said
unexpected u-turn a Philippine Rabbit bus bumped the jeepney from spouses and several other passengers. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with
behind. As a result of the collision, three passengers died and the the modification that as to damages, Zamtranco and Zambraco are
others sustained physical injuries. Jose Mario Dagamanuel, the only child of the deceased spouses, sentenced to pay jointly and severally no more than the amounts of
The heirs of the passengers filed a case to claim for through his maternal grandmother as guardian ad-litem, Pascuala damages adjudged by the trial court; with no costs in this instance.
damages. The lower court held that Manalo, the driver of the jeep, was Julian de Punzalan, instituted an action against Zamboanga
negligent. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the decision with Transportation Co., Inc. (Zamtanco) and the Zamboanga Rapids Co., Rayos vs Tamayo L- 12720
regard to the payment of damages to Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines. Inc. (Zambraco) for breach of contract of carriage, alleging that the
Hence this petition. accident was due to the fault and negligence of the driver in operating Facts:Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by
the bus and due to the negligence of the companies in their supervision Tamayo,holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate.
Issue: of their driver. Dagamanuel asks for actual or compensatory damages Allegedly, while Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped
1. Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable in the sum of P40,000, moral damages in the sum of P40,000, against a culvert on the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et
in this case. exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000, attorneys fees in the sum al filed an action for damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered
2. Whether or not Manalo is solely liable for the death and of P5,000 and costs. Zamtranco filed a third-party complaint against the alleging that the truck is owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3rd party
physical injuries of the victims. driver Marcos. The Zambraco also filed a third-party complaint against complaint against him (Rayos).The CFI ruled that Tamayo is the
the driver. Finding that registered owner, under a public convenience certificate but such truck
Held: was sold to Rayos one month after the accident, but he (Tamayo) did
The Court held that the doctrine of last clear chance is not (1) the Zamtranco and the Zambraco were under one management at not inform the Public Service Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo
applicable in this case. This doctrine shall only apply to suits between the time of the accident; and Rayos jointly and severally liable to Aquino.
the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. The case at bar is
CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner(Tamayo) and the the conductor, accused-appellant, Clemente Brinas, shouted Lusacan, Pangasinan Transportation vs CA
actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be considered as joint Lusacan!
tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance with Article 2194 1. DAMAGES; BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; PROOF OF
of the Civil Code (solidary). The old woman walked towards the train exit carrying the child with one FINANCIAL STANDING OF DEFENDANT; REQUEST FOR
Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how hand and holding her baggage with the other. When they were near the PRODUCTION OF BOOKS JUSTIFIED. In an action or damages for
should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate door, the train suddenly picked up speed. The old woman and the child breach of contract of carriage, proof of the financial standing of the
with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable. stumbled from the train causing them to fall down the tracks and were defendant is material. Hence, a request for production of the financial
hit by an oncoming train, causing their instant death. statements relating to the business of the defendant under Rule 27 of
Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable.The action instituted in this case is the Revised Rules of Court is justified.
one for breach of contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety A criminal information was filed against Victor Milan, the driver,
the deceased for her destination. The Liability for which he is made Hermogenes Buencamino, the assistant conductor and Clemente 2. ID.; ID.; COURTS MAY CONSIDER FINANCIAL STANDING OF
responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, may not be considered Brinas for Double Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence. But the lower CARRIER. Article 2206 applies in case of death caused by the
as arising from a quasi-delict. As theregistered owner Tamayo and his court acquitted Milan and Buencamino. On appeal to the CA, breach of contract by the common carrier (Art. 1764). It fixes the
transferee Rayos may not be held guiltyof tort or a quasi-delict; their respondent CA affirmed the decision. minimum indemnity for death at P3,000, which the courts may increase
responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY.As Tamayo is the registered owner of according to the circumstances. It is in fixing a greater amount of
the truck, his responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling the accused-appellant was indemnity that courts may consider the financial capacity of common
the vehicle or truck must be direct. If the policy of the law is to be negligent? carrier.
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 Held: There was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court Facts: While the original plaintiffs were traveling in a bus owned by
may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured. But as the and in the conclusion drawn from the findings. petitioner PANTRANCO, there was an accident that involved another
transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the bus owned by Pantranco which resulted in the death of several people.
one directly responsible for the accident and death he should in turn be It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common The passengers sued. The court in order to asses the applicable
made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop amount to determine the damages to be awarded to the offended
been adjudged to pay. In Operating the truck without transfer thereof they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. It parties.
having been approved by the Public Service Commission, the is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens
transferee acted merely as agent of the registered owner and should be its speed, some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest Issue: WON, in an action for damages for breach of contract of
responsible to him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is carriage, proof of the financial standing of the defendant is necessary
cause the latter by his negligence. especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train so as to justify a request for the production of the financial statements
resumes its run before they are able to disembark; there is no way to relating to the business of the defendant under Rule 27 of the Revised
Brinas vs People stop it as a bus may be stopped. The appellant was negligent because Rules of Court.
his announcement was premature and erroneous, for it took a full 3
Facts: In the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought minutes more before the next barrio of Lusacan was reached. The Held: The petition was dismissed, although the books and ledgers were
a train ticket at the railroad station in Tagkawayan, Quezon for his 55- premature announcement prompted the two victims to stand and not pertinent to the issue whether or not PANTRANCO was negligent,
year old mother Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims the same is important in assessing the correct award for damages.
Gesmundo. The two were bound for Lusacan in Tiaong, Quezon. would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train
jerked and picked up speed. The proximate cause of the death of the Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
They boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company at about 2pm. victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner- 185 SCRA 110
Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag at 8pm, the train slowed down and appellant.
Facts: The trial court determined the deceased gross annual income The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to
Facts: Nicanor Padilla was a passenger in an ill fated flight to be Php23,100 from his yearly salary from Padilla shipping Company a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary will. He forcibly ejected
owned and operated by PAL. His mother filed suit in his behalf and and Allied Overseas Trading Company. The court considered that he is him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to
demanded a huge sum justifying the fact that her son was a capable single and thus deducted Php9, 200 as yearly living expenses. tourist class just to give way to another passenger whose right was not
lawyer and had several business endeavors and was in good health. His NET INCOME is thus, 13,900 with a life expectancy of 30 established. Certainly, this is bad faith.
The lower courts obliged the plaintiff by taking into account the victim's years. (Net income x Life Expectancy) is Php417, 000. This is the
life expectancy and the loss of income. PAL felt that the amount was amount of indemnity his mother is to receive. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right
too much and filed a petition for review. This includes a legal rate of interest of 6% annum from date to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect,
of judgment on 31August1973 until fully paid. courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected
PAL contends that it was not negligent, and that the award for damages against personal is conduct, injurious language, indignities and abuse
should be based on the life expectancy of the mother instead. Air France v Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155; from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
The Stralight Flight of Philippine Airlines (PAL) with 33 Facts: Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class against the carrier.
passengers took off from Iloilo bpund for Manila. An hour and fifteen round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at Bangkok,
after it crashed in Mindoro. The plane was manufacture 1942 and was the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits
acquired by the airline 1948. It has been certified as airworthy by the because there was a "white man" who had better right to the seat. into the condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted in a
Civil Aeronautics Administration. wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Passenger Nicanor Padilla is 29 years old, single and dead. As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila
His only legal heir is his mother Natividad Padilla who filed for granted him moral and exemplary damages. *Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or
damages. She demanded Php600,000 as actual and compensatory with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose
damages, exemplary damages and Php60,000 attorney;s fees. Issue: Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and
consequently, whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded. ARMOVIT v. CA, G.R. No. 88561, 1990

Issue: Held: Yes to both. Facts:Petitioners ( a Filipino physician residing in US) decided to spend
How are damages computed. To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier, their Christmas holidays in the Philippines, so they purchased from
adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Quoting the court, "We private respondent, (Northwest Airlines, Inc.) 3 round trip airline tickets
Held: cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the from the U.S. to Manila and back, plus 3 tickets for the rest of the
The award of damages for death is computed on the life indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received children, though not involved in the suit.
expectancy of the deceased and not of the beneficiary. Artcle 1764 of the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it allowed
the Civil Code provides that article 2206 shall also applu to death of the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping On their return trip from Manila to the U.S. scheduled on January 17,
passenger caused by the breach of contract by the common carrier. with the ordinary course of business that the company should know 1982, flight 002, petitioner arrived at the check-in counter of private
The manner of computing damages is taken from Davila vs. whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not." respondent at the Manila International Airport at 9:15 in the morning,
CA. Net yearly income multiplied by the Life Expectancy of the which is a good one (1) hour and fifteen (15) minutes ahead of the
deceased. The Life Expectancy is based on the American Expectancy Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the 10:30 A.M. scheduled flight time recited in their tickets.
Table of Mortality formula (2/3x[80-30]) cited from Villa Rey Transit Inc. Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been easy for Air France to
vs. CA. present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but Petitioners were rudely informed that they cannot be accommodated
The income and salary of Nicanor Padilla is evidenced by defendant did neither. There is also no evidence as to whether or not a inasmuch as Flight 002 scheduled at 9:15 a.m. was already taking off
witnesses, the auditor and manager of Allied Overseas Trading, pay prior reservation was made by the white man. and the 10:30 A.M. flight time entered in their plane tickets was
rolls of the companies and his income tax returns. erroneous.
Previous to the said date of departure petitioners re-confirmed their carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for
reservations through their representative -The departure time in the The LC overlooked that the failure of the petitioner to appear in court to damages.
three (3) tickets of petitioners was not changed when re-confirmed. testify was explained by them.
o The assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have the
Herein petitioner Dr. Armovit protested in extreme agitation that following the year they were bumped off caused a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect,
because of the bump-off he will not be able to keep his appointments turmoil in the country. courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected
with his patients in the U.S. Petitioners suffered anguish, wounded o This turmoil spilled over to the year 1984 when they against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses
feelings, and serious anxiety day and night of January 17th until the were scheduled to testify. from such employees. So it is, that any rude or discourteous conduct on
morning of January 18th when they were finally informed that seats will o The violent demonstrations in the country were the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
be available for them on the flight that day. sensationalized in the U.S. media so petitioners damages against the carrier.
Because of the refusal of the private respondent to heed the repeated were advised to refrain from returning to the
demands of the petitioners for compensatory damages arising from the Philippines at the time. PAL vs CA 1997
aforesaid breach of their air-transport contracts, petitioners were Nevertheless, Atty. Raymund Armovit, brother of petitioner Dr. Armovit,
compelled to file an action for damages in the Regional Trial Court of took the witness stand as he was with the petitioners from the time they FACTS: On October 23, 1988, Leovegildo Pantejo, then City Fiscal of
Manila. checked in up to the time of their ultimate departure. No doubt Atty. Surigao City, boarded a PAL plane in Manila and disembarked in Cebu
Raymund Armovit's testimony adequately and sufficiently established City where he was supposed to take his connecting flight to Surigao
RTC - ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs actual, moral, exemplary and the serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation that City. However, due to typhoon Osang, the connecting flight to Surigao
nominal damages, plus attorney's fees, petitioners suffered upon having been bumped off. City was cancelled. PAL initially gave out cash assistance of P100 and,
the next day, P200 for their expected stay of two days in Cebu. Pantejo
CA modified the decisions of the RTC deleting the award of moral However, considering the circumstances of this case whereby the requested instead that he be accommodated in a hotel at the expense
damages considering petitioner did not take the witness stand to testify private respondent attended to the plight of the petitioners, taking care of PAL as he did not have cash with him at that time but PAL refused.
on their "social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety" and the of their accommodations while waiting and boarding them in the flight Fortunately, Pantejo was accommodated by Andoni Dumlao and he
breach of contract was not malicious or fraudulent. back to the U.S. the following day, the Court finds that the petitioners shared a room with the latter at Sky View Hotel with the promise to pay
Both petitioners and private respondent elevated the matter to this are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. his share of the expenses upon reaching Surigao. When the flight for
Court for review by certiorari. Petitioner claims that the questioned Surigao was resumed, Pantejo was informed that the hotel expenses of
decision and CA should be struck down as an unlawful, unjust and By the same token to provide an example for the public good, an award his co-passengers were reimbursed by PAL. At this point, Pantejo
reasonless departure from the decisions of this Court as far as the of exemplary damages is also proper. The award of the appellate court informed the Manager for Departure Services of PAL at Mactan Airport
award for moral damages and the drastic reduction of the exemplary is adequate. that he was going to sue the airline for discriminating against him. The
damages are concerned. Nevertheless, the deletion of the nominal damages by the appellate manager offered to pay Pantejo P300 which the latter declined. Pantejo
court is well-taken since there is an award of actual damages. Nominal filed a suit for damages against PAL in the Regional Trial Court of
ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to moral damages. damages cannot co-exist with actual or compensatory damages. Surigao City. Said court rendered judgment in favor of Pantejo, ordering
PAL to pay Pantejo P300 for actual damages, P150,000 as moral
RULING: The gross negligence committed by private respondent in the A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree damages, P100,000 as exemplary damages, P15,000 as attorney's
issuance of the tickets with entries as to the time of the flight, the failure from any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation fees, and 6% interest from the time of the filing of the complaint until
to correct such erroneous entries and the manner by which petitioners which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with said amounts shall have been fully paid, plus costs of suit. On appeal,
were rudely informed that they were bumped off are clear indicia of the traveling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and CA affirmed the decision, but with the exclusion of the award of
such malice and bad faith and establish that private respondent advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Hence, this petition.
committed a breach of contract which entitles petitioners to moral relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the
damages. ISSUE:Whether or not PAL was liable for damages.
for the interest of its passengers who were entitled to its utmost
HELD: Yes. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amounted to bad HELD: NO. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay
and degree from any other contractual relation because of the relation faith which entitled the passenger to the award of moral damages. solidarily with the other defendants-respondents the amounts fixed by
which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the awards for actual, the appealed decision.
the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and moral and exemplary damages granted in the judgment of CA were just New Civil Code requires "utmost diligence" from the carriers
advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a and equitable. But the interest of 6% imposed should be computed from (Art. 1755) who are "presumed to have been at fault or to
relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the the date of rendition of judgment and not from the filing of the have acted negligently, unless they prove that they have
carrier's employees naturally could give ground for an action for complaint. The judgment of Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED, subject observed extraordinary diligence" (Art. 1756)
damages. to the MODIFICATION regarding the computation of the 6% legal rate principle about the "last clear chance" would call for
of interest on the monetary awards granted therein to private application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the
In this case, there was bad faith on the part of PAL. Contrary to the respondent. two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger
claim of PAL that cash assistance was given instead because of non- demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
availability of rooms in hotels, the evidence showed that Sky View Anuran vs Buno contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt
Hotel, where respondent Pantejo was billeted, had plenty of rooms the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the
available. Pantejo only came to know about the reimbursements when FACTS: ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
other passengers informed him that they were able to obtain the refund January 12, 1958 noon: passenger jeepney owned by Pedro
for their own hotel expenses. PAL offered to pay P300.00 to Pantejo Gahol and Luisa Alcantara and driven by Pepito Buo
only after the latter had confronted the manager of PAL about the overloaded with (14-16 passengers) was parked on the road
discrimination committed against Pantejo, which the manager realized to Taal, Batangas when a speeding motor truck owned by
was an actionable wrong. The hotel accommodation was not a mere Anselmo Maligaya and Ceferina Aro driven by Guillermo
amenity or privilege. It was a company policy whenever a flight is Razon negligently bumped it from behind, with such violence
cancelled as testified by several witnesses. And even if it was a mere that three passengers died and two others suffered injuries
privilege, PAL was still liable for damages for its blatant refusal to that required their confinement at the Provincial Hospital for
accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded passengers. many days
No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such Jeepney was parked to let a passenger alight in
discriminatory and prejudicial conduct. It was not also true that Pantejo such a way that 1/2 of its width (the left wheels) was
was not listening to the announcements. In fact, Pantejo immediately on the asphalted pavement of the road and the
proceeded to the office of PAL and requested for hotel other half, on the right shoulder of the road
accommodations. He was not only refused accommodations, but he suits were instituted by the representatives of the dead and of
was not even informed that he may later on be reimbursed for his hotel the injured, to recover consequently damages against the
expenses. driver and the owners of the truck and also against the driver
and the owners of the jeepney
The refund of hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminatorily CFI: absolving the driver of the jeepney and its owners, but it
made by PAL as only handful of passengers knew about it. Pantejo was required the truck driver and the owners to make
exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his compensation
government position and social prominence. The discriminatory act of CA: Affirmed exoneration of the jeepney
PAL against Pantejo made PAL liable for moral damages under Article ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of last clear chance can apply so that truck
21 in relation to Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. As held in Alitalia driver guilty of greater negligence which was the efficient cause of the
Airways vs. CA, such inattention to and lack of care by petitioner airline collision will be solely liable