[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA.

DE MPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(30 AM

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > July 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.]
EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL.,
Defendants. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant.:

Custom Search Search

EN BANC
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.]
EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. GUILLERMO
CRESENCIA, ET AL., Defendants. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant.

DECISION
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal by Defendant Guillermo Cresencia from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in its civil case No. 19890, sentencing Appellant, jointly and severally with his co-
Defendant Brigido Avorque, to pay Plaintiffs Emerencia M. Vda. de Medina and her minor
children damages in the total amount of P56,000, P5,000 attorneys fees, and costs.
It appears that on May 31, 1953, passenger jeepney bearing plate No. TPU-2232 (Manila),
driven by Brigido Avorque, smashed into a Meralco post on Azcarraga Street, resulting in the
death of Vicente Medina, one of its passengers. A criminal case for homicide through reckless
imprudence was filed against Avorque (criminal case No. 22775 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila), to which he pleaded guilty on September 9, 1953. The heirs of the deceased, however,
reserved their right to file a separate action for damages, and on June 16, 1953, brought suit
against the driver Brigido Avorque and Appellant Guillermo Cresencia, the registered owner and
operator of the jeepney in question. Defendant Brigido Avorque did not file any answer; while chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Defendant Cresencia answered, disclaiming liability on the ground that he had sold the jeepney
in question on October 14, 1950 to one Maria A. Cudiamat; that the jeepney had been
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

repeatedly sold by one buyer after another, until the vehicle was purchased on January 29, 1953
by Rosario Avorque, the absolute owner thereof at the time of the accident. In view of
Cresencias answer, Plaintiffs filed leave, and was allowed, to amend their complaint making
Rosario Avorque a co-Defendant; and the latter, by way of answer, admitted having purchased
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

the aforesaid jeepney on May 31, 1953, but alleged in defense that she was never the public
utility operator thereof. The case then proceeded to trial, during which, after the Plaintiffs had
presented their evidence, Defendants Guillermo Cresencia and Rosario Avorque made
manifestations admitting that the former was still the registered operator of the jeepney in
question in the records of the Motor Vehicles Office and the Public Service Commission, while
the latter was the owner thereof at the time of the accident; and submitted the case for the
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

decision on the question of who, as between the two, should be held liable to Plaintiffs for

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956julydecisions.php?id=242 Page 1 of 4
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(30 AM

damages. The lower court, by Judge Jose Zulueta, held that as far as the public is concerned,
Defendant Cresencia, in the eyes of the law, continued to be the legal owner of the jeepney in
question; and rendered judgment against him, jointly and severally with the driver Brigido
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Avorque, for P6,000 compensatory damages, P30,000 moral damages, P10,000 exemplary
damages, P10,000 nominal damages, P5,000 attorneys fees, and costs, while Defendant Rosario
Avorque was absolved from liability. From this judgment, Defendant Cresencia appealed.
We have already held in the case of Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182 (December 29, 1953),
which the court below cited, that the law (section 20 [g], C. A. No. 146 as amended) requires the
approval of the Public Service Commission in order that a franchise, or any privilege pertaining
thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing the certificate issued to the grantee; and that if chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

property covered by the franchise is transferred or leased without this requisite approval, the
transfer is not binding against the public or the Service Commission; and in contemplation of chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

law, the grantee of record continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Commission and to the public. There we gave the reason for this rule to be as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Division Since a franchise is personal in nature any transfer or lease thereof should be notified to the
cralaw

Public Service Commission so that the latter may take proper safeguards to protect the interest of
the public. In fact, the law requires that, before the approval is granted, there should be a public
hearing, with notice to all interested parties, in order that the Commission may determine if there
are good and reasonable grounds justifying the transfer or lease of the property covered by the
franchise, or if the sale or lease is detrimental to public interest . cralaw

The above ruling was later reiterated in the cases of Timbol vs. Osias, L-7547, April 30, 1955
and Roque vs. Malibay Transit Inc., L- 8561, November 18, 1955.
As the sale of the jeepney here in question was admittedly without the approval of the Public
Service Commission, Appellant herein, Guillermo Cresencia, who is the registered owner and
operator thereof, continued to be liable to the Commission and the public for the consequences
incident to its operation. Wherefore, the lower court did not err in holding him, and not the buyer
Rosario Avorque, responsible for the damages sustained by Plaintiff by reason of the death of
Vicente Medina resulting from the reckless negligence of the jeepneys driver, Brigido Avorque.
Appellant also argues that the basis of Plaintiffs action being the employers subsidiary liability
under the Revised Penal Code for damages arising from his employees criminal acts, it is
Defendant Rosario Avorque who should answer subsidiarily for the damages sustained by
Plaintiffs, since she admits that she, and not Appellant, is the employer of the negligent driver
Brigido Avorque. The argument is untenable, because Plaintiffs action for damages is
independent of the criminal case filed against Brigido Avorque, and based, not on the employers
subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code, but on a breach of the carriers contractual
obligation to carry his passengers safely to their destination (culpa contractual). And it is also for
this reason that there is no need of first proving the insolvency of the driver Brigido Avorque
before damages can be recovered from the carrier, for in culpa contractual, the liability of the
carrier is not merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and immediate (Articles 1755, 1756, and
1759, New Civil Code).
The propriety of the damages awarded has not been questioned, Nevertheless, it is patent upon
the record that the award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages is untenable as a matter of law,
since nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The purpose of nominal
damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further
contest thereon; and not for the purpose of indemnifying the Plaintiff for any loss suffered by
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

him (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.) Since the court below has already awarded
compensatory and exemplary damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that
Plaintiffs right was violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper.
Anyway, ten thousand pesos cannot, in common sense, be deemed nominal.
With the modification that the award of P10,000 nominal damages be eliminated, the decision
appealed from is affirmed. Costs against Appellant. SO ORDERED.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Ads by Google GR L 8194 Digest GR GR VS

Ads by Google People V Court GR GR No
Ads by Google GR People GR M Case Law

July-1956 Jurisprudence
Back to Home | Back to Main
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M.
VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs.
GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL., Defendants.
GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant. QUICK SEARCH

[G.R. No. L-9575. July 17, 1956.] PEDRO CEREZO,

Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE EMANUEL. M. MUOZ,
Judge Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and PEDRO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
S. SISON, Respondents.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956julydecisions.php?id=242 Page 2 of 4
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(30 AM

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

[G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMADO V. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

[G.R. No. L-6990. July 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAMAD ARINSO, 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
Defendant-Appellee.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
[G.R. Nos. L-7872-73. July 20, 1956.] IN RE 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF RAYMUNDO PE
and FORTUNATO PE. RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
PE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
[G.R. No. L-8750. July 20, 1956.] NATIONAL UNION 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
OF PRINTING WORKERS, Petitioners, vs. ENCLOSED
WITH PAY THE ASIA PRINTING AND/OR LU MING, ET 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AL., Respondents. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

[G.R. No. L-7578. July 24, 1956.] CRISPULO 2013 2014 2015 2016
MALICSE, Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8753. July 24, 1956.] MRS. CARIDAD DE

LA CRUZ DE BERONILLA, Petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE SEGUNDO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and MELCHOR
BERONILLA, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8878. July 24, 1956.] FELIPE B. OLLADA,

Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UNDER-SECRETARY OF
FINANCE, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
VICENTE I. CRUZ, SABINA R. SORIANO, NEW WORLD
PRINTING PRESS and YAM NAN, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8604. July 25, 1956.] CANDIDO PANCHO,

ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-5079. July 31, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & Co.,

INC., represented by its managing partner THE
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
GERONIMO SANTIAGO, ELENO SANTIAGO PABLO
SANTIAGO, CECILIO SANTIAGO and CONSTANTINO
SANTIAGO, Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-6204. July 31, 1956.] CAPITOL

SUBDIVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PROVINCE
OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7834. July 31, 1956.] SEVERINO D.

VALENCIA and CATALINA S. L. VALENCIA, Petitioners,
vs. ROMAN LEONCIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-7983. July 31, 1956.] PETRA BELTRAN, ET

ALS., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET
ALS., Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8157. July 31, 1956.] LIM HU, Petitioner-

Appellee, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET
AL., Respondents-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-8475. July 31, 1956.] RICARDO Y. SUNGA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO
HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8627. July 31, 1956.] VITALIANO

ROBLES, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. CANDIDA
SAN JOSE, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8657. July 31, 1956.] ERASMO ALVAREZ

and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and
SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8761. July 31, 1956.] INSULAR SAW

MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. CHARLIE HOGAN and DEE C.
TAM (As partners in the unregistered partnership
Charlie Hogan and Co., doing business under the name
and style of Ganie Enterprises), Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8943. July 31, 1956.] JOSE MIRANDA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MALATE GARAGE & TAXICAB,
INC., Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8964. July 31, 1956.] JUAN EDADES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SEVERINO EDADES, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-9037. July 31, 1956.] MARIANO B.

VILLANUEVA and CONSUELO PAPA-VILLANUEVA,
Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956julydecisions.php?id=242 Page 3 of 4
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/10/2017, 2(30 AM

Judge of the Court of First Instance, and Provincial

Fiscal MARIANO B. BENEDICTO, both of Cavite,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9252. July 31, 1956.] REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO P. HERNANDO,
ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9284. July 31, 1956.] TERESA FELIX VDA.

DE ROSARIO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE OF CAMILING, TARLAC, MELANIO ROSARIO and
MARIA INOVEJAS, Respondents-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-9317. July 31, 1956.] AGAPITO CRUZ

CORREA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HERMOGENES
PASCUAL, Defendant. JUAN LUCIANO and ARSENIA DE
LEON, movants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-9572. July 31, 1956.] JOAQUIN GUZMAN,

Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-9667. July 31, 1956.] LUIS MA. ARANETA,

Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HERMOGENES
CONCEPCION, as judge of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch VI and EMMA BENITEZ ARANETA,
Respondents.

Copyright 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956julydecisions.php?id=242 Page 4 of 4