You are on page 1of 7

Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. G.R. No.

L-8721, May 23, 1957 1902- 1910 of the Civil Code, such reservation being implied in the law which declares such action to be
independent and separate from the criminal action.
Facts: A taxi owned by defendant driven by Mr. Mira Abinion hit a MERALCO post. As a result, the passenger Same; Same; Same; Same; Duty of offended party to reserve right to recover civil indemnity not applicable to
thereof(Atty. Cachero) suffered physical injuries slight in nature. Said driver was prosecuted and pled guilty. persons secondarily liable.The duty of the offended party to reserve his right to recover civil indemnity applies
Thereafter, Cachero Demanded from defendant an amount totaling P79,245 as damages. Though defendant only to the defendant in the criminal action, not to persons secondarily liable (Chaves, et al. vs. Manila Electric Co.,
wanted to settle the claim amicably, 31 Phil. 47).
it could not accede to Cacheros demand of a minimum of P72k. Same; Same; Same; Same; Intervention of offended party in criminal action against the carriers driver; Claim for
civil indemnity only against the driver.If the offended party, through a private prosecutor, was allowed to intervene
As a result, Cachero sued defendant. The trial court awarded P5,900 total in damages including P2,000 moral in the criminal action against the common carriers driver, the claim could have been against the common driver but
damages. Both appealed from said decision. not against the common carrier who was not a party therein.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Acquittal of common carriers driver on reasonable doubt; Civil action for damages
Issue: Is he entitled to moral damages? against driver or carrier allowed.If in a criminal action the common carriers driver is acquitted on reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages against him may be instituted for the same act or omission (Rule 107, par. [d]; Art.
Held: NO. Defendant does not fall under the cases where moral damages are awardable (Art. 2219). 29, New Civil Code). If such is the rule as against him, a fortiori it must in the case of his employer

The complaint was based on an alleged breach of contract of carriage (rather than a quasi-delict resulting in injury FACTS: Appellant, Jovito Bernaldes and his brother, Nicasio, boarded one of appellee's passenger trucks (B.L.T.
due to the defendants failure to bring him to his destination safely.) However, the driver was not made party to the Co. No. 322 with plate No. 1470) in the town of Guindulman, Bohol, on the way to Tagbilaran, the bus fell off a deep
case. It was the driver who committed a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. precipice in barrio Balitbiton, municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, resulting in the death of Nicasio and in serious
physical injuries to Jovito. A complaint for damages against appellee, Bohol Land Transportation Co. was filed.
Also, the action was not based on the defendants vicarious liability based on Art. 2180 or Art. 103 of the RPC Defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint on two grounds, namely, that the cause of action alleged
therein was barred by a prior judgment, and that it did not state a cause of action.
BERNALDES, SR vs. Bohol Land Transportation Inc. G.R. No. L-18193 At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, it was established that in Criminal Case No. 2775 of the same court, the
driver of the bus involved in the accident, was charged with double homicide thru reckless imprudence but was
Actions; Civil action based on obligation not arising from act or omission complained of a felony; To what article 31 acquitted on the ground that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that appellees,
of Civil Code refers.Article 31 of the New Civil Code, which provides that when the civil action is based upon an through their attorneys, intervened in the prosecution of said case and did not reserve the right to file a separate
obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed action for damages. The lower court sustained the motion on the ground of bar by prior judgment, and dismissed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter, refers to a civil action based on the case. Hence, this appeal.
an obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract.
Same; Same; Same; Distinction between civil actions based on common carriers contractual liability and criminal ISSUE: WON a civil action for damages against the owner of a public vehicle, based on breach of contract of
action against the carrier or its employee based on the latters criminal negligence.A civil action based on the carriage, may be filed after the criminal action instituted against the driver has been disposed of, if the aggrieved
contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its party did not reserve his right to enforce civil liability in a separate action.
employee based on the latters criminal negligence. The first is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, and
not by those of the Revised Penal Code, and it being entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, the WON whether the intervention of the aggrieved party, through private prosecutors, in the prosecution of the criminal
same may be instituted and prosecuted independently of, and regardless of the result of the latter. case against the driver who was acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence will bar him from suing
Same; Same; Same; Same; Offended partys failure to reserve right to recover civil indemnity against carrier not a the latter's employer for damages for breach of contract, in an independent and separate action.
waiver of his right to institute separate action based on contractual liability. The failure of the offended party to
reserve his right to recover civil indemnity against the carrier can not in any way be deemed as a waiver of his right HELD: YES. Article 31 of the New Civil Code expressly provides that when the civil action is based upon an
to institute a separate action against the latter based on its contractual liability or on culpa aquiliana, under Articles obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. This provision evidently refers to
a civil action based, not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one based on an Manicahan. At around 1 a.m. of 14 August 1955, the bus (1955 TPU-1137), and driven by Valeriano Marcos, fell off
obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract. Upon the other hand it is clear that a civil action the road and pinned to death the said spouses and several other passengers.
based on contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the criminal action instituted against the carrier or
its employee based on the latter's criminal negligence. The first is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, and Jose Mario Dagamanuel, the only child of the deceased spouses, through his maternal grandmother as guardian
not by those of the Revised Penal Code, and it being entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, the ad-litem, Pascuala Julian de Punzalan, instituted an action against Zamboanga Transportation Co., Inc. (Zamtanco)
same may be instituted and prosecuted independently of, and regardless of the result of the latter. and the Zamboanga Rapids Co., Inc. (Zambraco) for breach of contract of carriage, alleging that the accident was
due to the fault and negligence of the driver in operating the bus and due to the negligence of the companies in
In the case at bar, the civil action instituted against appellee is based on alleged culpa contractual incurred by it due their supervision of their driver. Dagamanuel asks for actual or compensatory damages in the sum of P40,000,
to its failure to carry safely the late Nicasio Bernaldes and his brother Jovito to their place of destination, whereas moral damages in the sum of P40,000, exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000, attorneys fees in the sum of
the criminal action instituted against appellee's driver involved exclusively the criminal and civil liability of the latter P5,000 and costs. Zamtranco filed a third-party complaint against the driver Marcos. The Zambraco also filed a
arising from his criminal negligence. In other words, appellant's action concerned the civil liability of appellee as a third-party complaint against the driver. Finding that
common carrier, regardless of the liabilities of its driver who was charged in the criminal case. The failure, on the
part of the appellants, to reserve their right to recover civil indemnity against the carrier can not in any way be (1) the Zamtranco and the Zambraco were under one management at the time of the accident;
deemed as a waiver, on their part, to institute a separate action against the latter based on its contractual liability, or
on culpa aquiliana, under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. (Parker, et al. vs. Panlilio, et al.,G.R. No. L-4961, (2) the accident was due to the negligence of the driver who was under their employ; and
March 5, 1952). As a matter of fact, such reservation is already implied in the law which declares such action to be
independent and separate from the criminal action. Moreover, it has been held that the duty of the offended party to (3) the sale made by Marcos of his property was done with intent to defraud his creditors, the trial court rendered
make such reservation applies only to defendant in the criminal action, not to persons secondarily liable (Chaves, et judgment (1) sentencing the three, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff P16,000 for the death of the spouses,
al. vs. Manila Electric, 31 Phil. 47). P4,000 as exemplary damages, P2,000 as attorneys fees, and costs; and (2) annulling the deed of sale executed
by Marcos.
YES. Appellants, through private prosecutors, were allowed to intervene in the criminal action against appellee's
driver, but if that amounted inferentially to submitting in said case their claim for civil indemnity, the claim could have Zamtranco, Zambraco and Marcos appealed. Marcos appeal was later dismissed; hence as to him the judgment is
been only against the driver but not against appellee who was not a party therein. As a matter of fact, however, in already final and executory. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with modification as to the
spite of appellee's statements to the contrary in its brief, there is no showing in the record before Us that appellants award of damages, to wit, (1) P12,000 for the death of the spouses Ramon and Josefina Dagamanuel, (2) P11,520
made of record their claim for damages against the driver or his employer; much less does it appear that they had for the loss of earnings of both spouses, (3) P5,000 as moral damages, and (4) P5,000 as exemplary damages,
attempted to prove such damages. The failure of the court to make any pronouncement in its decision concerning with costs against Zamtranco and Zambraco. The latter moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
the civil liability of the driver and/or of his employer must therefore be due to the fact that the criminal action did not Hence, the appeal via a petition for certiorari.
involve at all any claim for civil indemnity.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with the modification that as to damages,
Lastly, as appellee's driver was acquitted only on reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages against him may be Zamtranco and Zambraco are sentenced to pay jointly and severally no more than the amounts of damages
instituted for the same act or omission (Rule 107, par. [d]; Art. 29, New Civil Code). If such is the rule as against adjudged by the trial court; with no costs in this instance.
him, a fortiori, it must in the case of his employer.
Rayos vs Tamayo L- 12720
Zamboanga Transportation Co. vs. CA (GR L-25292, 29 November 1969)
Facts:Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo,holder of a certificate of public
Facts: In the evening of 13 August 1955, the spouses Ramon and Josefina Dagamanuel boarded a bus at convenience to operate. Allegedly, while Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert on
Manicahan, Zamboanga City, to attend a benefit dance at the Bunguiao Elementary School, also in Zamboanga the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for damages against Tamayo. Tamayo
City, where Josefina was a public school teacher. After the dance, the couple boarded the same bus to return to answered alleging that the truck is owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3rd 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. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling the accused-appellant was negligent?

CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner(Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be Held: There was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from the
considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code findings.
(solidary).
Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before
convenience) participate with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable. reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. It is also a
matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed, some passengers usually stand and
Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable.The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure of the proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is especially true of a
defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The Liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark; there is no way to
the death of the passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As theregistered owner Tamayo stop it as a bus may be stopped. The appellant was negligent because his announcement was premature and
and his transferee Rayos may not be held guiltyof tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY.As erroneous, for it took a full 3 minutes more before the next barrio of Lusacan was reached. The premature
Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle announcement prompted the two victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the
or truck must be direct. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked and picked up speed. The
allowed to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner-
responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one appellant.
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 Pangasinan Transportation vs CA
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 1. DAMAGES; BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; PROOF OF FINANCIAL STANDING OF DEFENDANT;
negligence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF BOOKS JUSTIFIED. In an action or damages for breach of contract of
carriage, proof of the financial standing of the defendant is material. Hence, a request for production of the financial
Brinas vs People statements relating to the business of the defendant under Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court is justified.

Facts: In the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the railroad station in 2. ID.; ID.; COURTS MAY CONSIDER FINANCIAL STANDING OF CARRIER. Article 2206 applies in case of
Tagkawayan, Quezon for his 55-year old mother Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo. The death caused by the breach of contract by the common carrier (Art. 1764). It fixes the minimum indemnity for death
two were bound for Lusacan in Tiaong, Quezon. at P3,000, which the courts may increase according to the circumstances. It is in fixing a greater amount of
indemnity that courts may consider the financial capacity of common carrier.
They boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company at about 2pm. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag at 8pm, the
train slowed down and the conductor, accused-appellant, Clemente Brinas, shouted Lusacan, Lusacan! Facts: While the original plaintiffs were traveling in a bus owned by petitioner PANTRANCO, there was an accident
that involved another bus owned by Pantranco which resulted in the death of several people. The passengers sued.
The old woman walked towards the train exit carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the The court in order to asses the applicable amount to determine the damages to be awarded to the offended parties.
other. When they were near the door, the train suddenly picked up speed. The old woman and the child stumbled
from the train causing them to fall down the tracks and were hit by an oncoming train, causing their instant death. Issue: WON, in an action for damages for breach of contract of carriage, proof of the financial standing of the
defendant is necessary so as to justify a request for the production of the financial statements relating to the
A criminal information was filed against Victor Milan, the driver, Hermogenes Buencamino, the assistant conductor business of the defendant under Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court.
and Clemente Brinas for Double Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence. But the lower court acquitted Milan and
Buencamino. On appeal to the CA, respondent CA affirmed the decision.
Held: The petition was dismissed, although the books and ledgers were not pertinent to the issue whether or not
PANTRANCO was negligent, the same is important in assessing the correct award for damages. Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been
easy for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but defendant did neither.
There is also no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.

The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his
Pal VS CA arbitrary will. He forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class
just to give way to another passenger whose right was not established. Certainly, this is bad faith.
Facts: Nicanor Padilla was a passenger in an ill fated flight owned and operated by PAL. His mother filed suit in his
behalf and demanded a huge sum justifying the fact that her son was a capable lawyer and had several business Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees
endeavors and was in good health. The lower courts obliged the plaintiff by taking into account the victim's life with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal is
expectancy and the loss of income. PAL felt that the amount was too much and filed a petition for review. conduct, injurious language, indignities and abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
PAL contends that it was not negligent, and that the award for damages should be based on the life expectancy of
the mother instead. Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits into the condition for exemplary damages
that defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Issue: W/N in computing the awarded on the basis of the life expectancy should be based on the deceased or the
beneficiaries. *Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or
for ulterior purpose
Held: The decision was affirmed in toto. The basis for indemnity is the loss of life and income from the deceased
and therefore it is the deceaseds life expectancy that should be taken into account. ARMOVIT v. CA, G.R. No. 88561, 1990

Air France v Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155; Facts:Petitioners ( a Filipino physician residing in US) decided to spend their Christmas holidays in the Philippines,
so they purchased from private respondent, (Northwest Airlines, Inc.) 3 round trip airline tickets from the U.S. to
Facts: Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During Manila and back, plus 3 tickets for the rest of the children, though not involved in the suit.
the stopover at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was
a "white man" who had better right to the seat. On their return trip from Manila to the U.S. scheduled on January 17, 1982, flight 002, petitioner arrived at the
check-in counter of private respondent at the Manila International Airport at 9:15 in the morning, which is a good
As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages. one (1) hour and fifteen (15) minutes ahead of the 10:30 A.M. scheduled flight time recited in their tickets.

Issue: Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently, whether or not he was Petitioners were rudely informed that they cannot be accommodated inasmuch as Flight 002 scheduled at 9:15 a.m.
entitled to the damages awarded. was already taking off and the 10:30 A.M. flight time entered in their plane tickets was erroneous.
Previous to the said date of departure petitioners re-confirmed their reservations through their representative -The
Held: Yes to both. departure time in the three (3) tickets of petitioners was not changed when re-confirmed.
To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable.
Quoting the court, "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the indiscretion to give Herein petitioner Dr. Armovit protested in extreme agitation that because of the bump-off he will not be able to keep
out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it his appointments with his patients in the U.S. Petitioners suffered anguish, wounded feelings, and serious anxiety
allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of day and night of January 17th until the morning of January 18th when they were finally informed that seats will be
business that the company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not." available for them on the flight that day.
Because of the refusal of the private respondent to heed the repeated demands of the petitioners for compensatory Nevertheless, the deletion of the nominal damages by the appellate court is well-taken since there is an award of
damages arising from the aforesaid breach of their air-transport contracts, petitioners were compelled to file an actual damages. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or compensatory damages.
action for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. And this,
RTC - ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs actual, moral, exemplary and nominal damages, plus attorney's fees, because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the traveling public. It
invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a
CA modified the decisions of the RTC deleting the award of moral damages considering petitioner did not take the relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground
witness stand to testify on their "social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety" and the breach of contract was for an action for damages.
not malicious or fraudulent.
Both petitioners and private respondent elevated the matter to this Court for review by certiorari. Petitioner claims Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have the right to be treated by the carrier's employees
that the questioned decision and CA should be struck down as an unlawful, unjust and reasonless departure from with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
the decisions of this Court as far as the award for moral damages and the drastic reduction of the exemplary misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rude or discourteous
damages are concerned. conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to moral damages.


PAL vs CA 1997
RULING: The gross negligence committed by private respondent in the issuance of the tickets with entries as to the Common Carriers; Air Transportation; Damages; The contractof air carriage generates a relation attended with a
time of the flight, the failure to correct such erroneous entries and the manner by which petitioners were rudely public duty,and neglect or malfeasance of the carriers employees naturally could give ground for an action for
informed that they were bumped off are clear indicia of such malice and bad faith and establish that private damages.To begin with, it must be emphasized that a contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind
respondent committed a breach of contract which entitles petitioners to moral damages. and degree from any other contractual relation, and this is because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with
the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it
The LC overlooked that the failure of the petitioner to appear in court to testify was explained by them. offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or
o The assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. following the year they were bumped off malfeasance of the carrier's employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages.
caused a turmoil in the country. Same Same; Evidence; Factual findings of the Court of Appeals which are supported by substantial evidence are
o This turmoil spilled over to the year 1984 when they were scheduled to testify. binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that these factual findings, which are
o The violent demonstrations in the country were sensationalized in the U.S. media so supported by substantial evidence, are binding, final and conclusive upon this Court absent any reason, and we find
petitioners were advised to refrain from returning to the Philippines at the time. none, why this settled evidential rule should not apply
Nevertheless, Atty. Raymund Armovit, brother of petitioner Dr. Armovit, took the witness stand as he was with the Same Same; Damages; Assuming arguendo that airline passengers have no vested right to amenities in case a
petitioners from the time they checked in up to the time of their ultimate departure. No doubt Atty. Raymund flight is cancelled due to force majeure, what makes an airline liable fordamages in the instant case is its blatant
Armovit's testimony adequately and sufficiently established the serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social refusal to accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded passengers who weresimilarly situated.
humiliation that petitioners suffered upon having been bumped off. Assuming arguendo that the airline passengers have no vested right to these amenities in case a flight is cancelled
due to force majeure, what makes petitioner liable for damages in this particular case and under the facts obtaining
However, considering the circumstances of this case whereby the private respondent attended to the plight of the therein is its blatant refusal to accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded passengers who were bound
petitioners, taking care of their accommodations while waiting and boarding them in the flight back to the U.S. the for Surigao City. No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such discriminatory and prejudicial conduct.
following day, the Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. Same Same; Philippine Airlines; It has been sufficientlyestablished that it is petitioner carriers standard company
policywhenever a flight has been cancelled, to extend to its hapless passengers cash assistance or to provide them
By the same token to provide an example for the public good, an award of exemplary damages is also proper. The accommodations inhotels with which it has existing tie-ups.
award of the appellate court is adequate. More importantly, it has been sufficiently established that it is petitioners standard company policy, whenever a
flight has been cancelled, to extend to its hapless passengers cash assistance or to provide them accommodations
in hotels with which it has existing tie-ups. Infact, petitioners Mactan Airport Manager for departure services,Oscar 6% imposed by respondent court should be computed from the date of rendition of judgment and not from the filing
Jereza, admitted that PAL has an existing arrangements with hotels to accommodate stranded passengers, and of the complaint. The rule has been laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. This is
that the hotel bills of Ernesto Gonzales were reimbursed obviously pursuant to that policy. because at the time of the filing of the complaint, the amount of damages to which plaintiff may be entitled remains
Same Same; Same; The Supreme Court views as impressedwith dubiety PALs attempt to represent emergency unliquidated and not known, until it is definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the court, and only after
assistance tostranded passengers as being merely ex gratia and not ex debito. Further, Ernesto Gonzales, the the presentation of proof thereon.
aforementioned co-passenger of respondent on that fateful flight, testified that based on his previous experience
hotel accommodations were extended by PALto its stranded passengers either in Magellan or Rajah Hotels, or FACTS: On October 23, 1988, Leovegildo Pantejo, then City Fiscal of Surigao City, boarded a PAL plane in Manila
even in Cebu Plaza. Thus, we view as impressed with dubiety PAUL's present attempt to represent such and disembarked in Cebu City where he was supposed to take his connecting flight to Surigao City. However, due
emergency assistance as being merely ex gratia and not ex debito.Same; Same; Same; The fact that the refund of to typhoon Osang, the connecting flight to Surigao City was cancelled. PAL initially gave out cash assistance of
hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminatorily made by PAL since thesame was not made known to P100 and, the next day, P200 for their expected stay of two days in Cebu. Pantejo requested instead that he be
everyone except through word of mouth to a handful of passengers is a sad commentary on thequality of service accommodated in a hotel at the expense of PAL as he did not have cash with him at that time but PAL refused.
and professionalism of an airline company which is the countrys flag carrier at that. Respondent Court of Appeals Fortunately, Pantejo was accommodated by Andoni Dumlao and he shared a room with the latter at Sky View Hotel
thus correctly concluded that the refund of hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminatorily made by herein with the promise to pay his share of the expenses upon reaching Surigao. When the flight for Surigao was resumed,
petitioner since the same was not made known to everyone, except through word of mouth to a handful of Pantejo was informed that the hotel expenses of his co-passengers were reimbursed by PAL. At this point, Pantejo
passengers. This is a sad commentary on the quality of service and professionalism of an airline company,which is informed the Manager for Departure Services of PAL at Mactan Airport that he was going to sue the airline for
the countrys flag carrier at that. discriminating against him. The manager offered to pay Pantejo P300 which the latter declined. Pantejo filed a suit
Same Same; Damages; The discriminatory act of an aircarrier ineludibly makes it liable for moral damages under for damages against PAL in the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City. Said court rendered judgment in favor of
Article21 in relation to Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. The Discriminatory act of petitioner against respondent Pantejo, ordering PAL to pay Pantejo P300 for actual damages, P150,000 as moral damages, P100,000 as
ineludibles the former liable for moral damages under Article 21 in relation to Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. As exemplary damages, P15,000 as attorney's fees, and 6% interest from the time of the filing of the complaint until
held in Alitalia Airways vs. CA, et al., such inattention to and lack of care by petitioner airline for the interest of its said amounts shall have been fully paid, plus costs of suit. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision, but with the
passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith exclusion of the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Hence, this petition.
which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages.
Same Same; Same; Substantial damages do not translateinto excessive damages. Moral damages are ISSUE:Whether or not PAL was liable for damages.
emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant.They are awarded only to allow the
former to obtain means,diversion, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone HELD: Yes. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual
due to the defendants culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.However, relation because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling
substantial damages do not translate into excessive damages. Except for attorneys fees and costs of suit, it will be public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore,
noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed point by point the factual findings of the lower court upon which the award generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees naturally could
of damages had been based. We, therefore, see no reason to modify give ground for an action for damages.
Same Same; Same; It is high time that the travelling public isafforded protection and that the duties of common
carriers, long detailed in laws and jurisprudence and thereafter collated andspecifically catalogued in the Civil Code In this case, there was bad faith on the part of PAL. Contrary to the claim of PAL that cash assistance was given
in 1950, be enforcedthrough appropriate sanctions. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are instead because of non-availability of rooms in hotels, the evidence showed that Sky View Hotel, where respondent
convinced that the awards for actual, moral and exemplary damages granted in the judgment of respondent court, Pantejo was billeted, had plenty of rooms available. Pantejo only came to know about the reimbursements when
for the reasons meticulously analyzed and thoroughly explained in its decision, are just and equitable. It is high time other passengers informed him that they were able to obtain the refund for their own hotel expenses. PAL offered to
that the travelling public is afforded protection and that the duties of common carriers, long detailed in our previous pay P300.00 to Pantejo only after the latter had confronted the manager of PAL about the discrimination committed
laws and jurisprudence and thereafter collated and specifically catalogued in our Civil Code in 1950, be enforced against Pantejo, which the manager realized was an actionable wrong. The hotel accommodation was not a mere
through appropriate sanctions. amenity or privilege. It was a company policy whenever a flight is cancelled as testified by several witnesses. And
Actions Judgments; Damages; Interest Rates; The interest of 6% should be computed from the date of rendition even if it was a mere privilege, PAL was still liable for damages for its blatant refusal to accord the so-called
of judgment andnot from the filing of the complaint. We agree, however, with the contention that the interest of amenities equally to all its stranded passengers. No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such
discriminatory and prejudicial conduct. It was not also true that Pantejo was not listening to the announcements. In New Civil Code requires "utmost diligence" from the carriers (Art. 1755) who are "presumed to have
fact, Pantejo immediately proceeded to the office of PAL and requested for hotel accommodations. He was not only been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they have observed extraordinary
refused accommodations, but he was not even informed that he may later on be reimbursed for his hotel expenses. diligence" (Art. 1756)
principle about the "last clear chance" would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers
The refund of hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminatorily made by PAL as only handful of passengers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier
knew about it. Pantejo was exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his government to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the
position and social prominence. The discriminatory act of PAL against Pantejo made PAL liable for moral damages jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
under Article 21 in relation to Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. As held in Alitalia Airways vs. CA, such inattention
to and lack of care by petitioner airline for the interest of its passengers who were entitled to its utmost
consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amounted to bad faith which entitled the passenger to the award
of moral damages. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the awards for actual, moral and exemplary
damages granted in the judgment of CA were just and equitable. But the interest of 6% imposed should be
computed from the date of rendition of judgment and not from the filing of the complaint. The judgment of Court of
Appeals was AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION regarding the computation of the 6% legal rate of interest
on the monetary awards granted therein to private respondent.

Anuran vs Buno

FACTS:
January 12, 1958 noon: passenger jeepney owned by Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara and driven by
Pepito Buo overloaded with (14-16 passengers) was parked on the road to Taal, Batangas when a
speeding motor truck owned by Anselmo Maligaya and Ceferina Aro driven by Guillermo Razon
negligently bumped it from behind, with such violence that three passengers died and two others
suffered injuries that required their confinement at the Provincial Hospital for many days
Jeepney was parked to let a passenger alight in such a way that 1/2 of its width (the left
wheels) was on the asphalted pavement of the road and the other half, on the right shoulder
of the road
suits were instituted by the representatives of the dead and of the injured, to recover consequently
damages against the driver and the owners of the truck and also against the driver and the owners of the
jeepney
CFI: absolving the driver of the jeepney and its owners, but it required the truck driver and the owners to
make compensation
CA: Affirmed exoneration of the jeepney
ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of last clear chance can apply so that truck driver guilty of greater negligence which was
the efficient cause of the collision will be solely liable

HELD: NO. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay solidarily with the other defendants-
respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed decision.