CASE TITLE: Cariaga vs Laguna Tayabas TOPIC/ARTICLE: Art 1162 FACTS: 1.

Jun 18 1952: A bus under Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (LTB), while on its way to Lilio, Laguna bumped against the engine of a train a. The bus and train collided at the intersection of the railroad track and the national highway of Bay, Laguna b. Driver immediately died while many passengers were injured including Edgardo Cariaga, a 4th yr med student if UST 2. Cariaga was confined to the ff: a. San Pablo City Hospital from June 18 1952 b. De los Santos Clinic, QC June 20 to Oct 14 1952 c. UST Hospital Oct 14 to Nov 15 1952 d. De los Santos Clinic, QC Nov 15 to Jan 15 1953 e. Private house in QC Jan 15 to Apr 1953 3. LTB paid for all hospital, medical and miscellaneous expenses incurred from June 18 to April 1953 4. Apr 24 1953: present action was filed against LTB and Manila Railroad Co. (MRR Co) to claim 312k as actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and 18k for Cariagas parents 5. LTB denied liability: accident was due to MRR Co.s negligence for not providing a crossing bar at the point where the natl hwy crossed the railroad track 6. LTB filed cross-claim against MRR Co: LTB was claiming Php 18,194.75 for their expenses to Cariaga 7. MRR Co denied liability: reckless negligence of the bus driver 8. Lower Court held: a. bus driver was negligent b. sentenced LTB to pay Cariaga 10, 490php as compensatory damages w interest c. Dismissed cross-claim against MRR Co. d. Denied moral damages and attys fees that Cariaga claims 9. Cariaga and LTB appealed ISSUE: 1. W/N the bus driver was negligent 2. W/N the compensatory damages is enough 3. W/N Cariagas claim for moral damages and attys fees should be denied 4. W/N Cariagas parents claim should be denied HELD: 1. Yes a. Based on evidence, the whistle of the train was sounded 4 times from an adequate distance of at least 300m enough to warn the bus driver to stop and wait for the train to pass by. Nonetheless, the driver disregarded the warning. 2. No. This court increased it to 25k. a. Cariagas mentality has been so reduced that he can no longer continue studying med b. He has become completely misfit for any work

By: Marian Kay Yambao

c. Can hardly walk w/o someone helping him d. Based on Art 2201 of CC: not only the medical, hospital and other expenses should be included, but also the income of Cariaga which me couldve earned had he not been in an accident must also be included because such income is to be deemed in the same category as the mentioned expenses that could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded the bus 3. Yes a. Art 2219 of CC: the present action cannot come under par 2 of this article bec it is NOT a quasi-delict since there is a preexisting contractual relation b/w LTB and Edgardo Cariaga b. LTB was an obligor in good faith bec it exercised due diligence in selecting its employees like the drivers c. Cachero vs Manila Yellow Taxicab Co mentioned the ff: i. Quasi-delict: obligations w/c do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts or criminal offenses ii. Cangco vs Manila Railroad: distinction b/w obligation derived from negligence and obligation as a result of a breach or contract was shown 1. Contract of Carriage: foundation of legal liability where the breach of which is based from the failure of the obligor to exercise due care in its performance of an action. Hence, its liability is direct and immediate. 2. Art 1903 of CC is applicable to extra-contractual obligations (quasi-delicts / culpa aquiliana) 4. Yes a. The present action is based on a breach of contract of carriage to which the spouses (parents) were not a party b. Their claim is NOT a quasi-delict or negligence of LTB because they (parents) were not injured as a result of the collision

By: Marian Kay Yambao