CARIAGA V LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY

FACTS:
1. LTB bus was driven by Moncada one of the passengers was a 4 year medical student of UST. Edgardo
th

Cariaga
2. The bus bumped into the engine of the train causing the train to derail. The bus was wrecked. Bus driver dies,
passengers including Edgardo were severely injured and because of this, he had to be confined in the hospital
for several days undergoing different surgeries to remove fractured bones which lacerated his brain
3. LTB paid 16k for all hospital, medical, miscellaneous expenses incurred from June 1952 to April 1953.
Edgardo also stayed in a private house where LTB paid his daily allowance of P10 reaching a total sum of
P775
4. A case was filed against LTB and Manila Railroad Company for recovery of damages of 312K for Edgardo
and 18K for his parents as actual, compensatory, moral, exemplary damages
5. LTB disclaims liability and instead claims that Manila Railroad was the one who was negligent for failing to
provide crossing bars. LTB files cross claim against Manila Railroad to collect the 18k representing the
expenses paid by LTB to Edgardo. Manila Railroad in turn claims that It was the reckless negligence of LTB’s
driver which caused the injury
6. LC ruled that it was the negligence of the driver of LTB which caused the accident. LTB was sentenced to pay
10K as compensatory damages with interest at the legal rate and dismissing the cross claim against Manila
Railroad
7. Cariagas and LTB appeals
a. Cariagas claims that LC erred in only ruling 10K as compensatory damages and in not awarding them actual
and moral damages and also atty fees
b. LTB claims that LC should have held both it and Manila Railroad liable

ISSUE:
1. W/N Manila Railroad should also be held liable? No, evidence was shown that the train conductor blew its
whistle 4 times before crossing the highway. LTB failed to prove otherwise
2. W/N the damages awarded to Cariagas was wrong? Yes, considering the loss of income from becoming a
doctor, the compensatory damages should be increased to 25K. LC were correct in rejecting moral damages
and compensatory damages in favor of the parents and the spouse because the action was based on breach
of contract which is not found 2199 and based on 2220, LTB was not in bad faith. They were also not party to
the contract of carriage.

HELD:
1. LTB claims that Manila Railroad violated the law when it only blew its whistle only when the collision was about
to take place instead of the 300 meters from the crossing requirement and also in failing to ring the locomotive
bell
a. Train conductor sounded the whistle 4 times 1 at 300 meters the second and third at 100 meters and 4 which
st th

lasted up to the time that it was about to cross the highway. The bus proceeded without slowing down
b. Another LTB bus was able to safely cross without any incident but the bus in question figured in an accident
c. There was also no proof that the train conductor did not ring the bell also the evidence presented by Manila
Railroad was not defeated
2. As to the damages awarded, Dr. Romeo Gustilo, a neurosurgeon, testified, as a result of the injuries suffered
by Edgardo, his right forehead was fractured necessitating the removal of practically all of the right frontal lobe
of his brain. From the testimony of Dr. Jose A. Fernandez, a psychiatrist, it may be gathered that, because of
the physical injuries suffered by Edgardo, his mentality has been so reduced that he can no longer finish his
studies as a medical student; that he has become completely misfit for any kind of work; that he can hardly
walk around without someone helping him, and has to use a brace on his left leg and feet. (mental capability
reduced by 50%)
. The metal plate in his head prevented him from pursuing a normal life because if it was hit or dented he would
die
a. Art 2201 of CC
i. Damages for which the obligor, guilty of a breach of contract but who acted in good faith, is liable shall be
those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach and which the parties had forseen or could have
reasonably forseen at the time the obligation was constituted, provided such damages, according to Art. 2199 of the
same Code, have been duly proved.
b. LTB claims that the only expected damage that could be forseen would have been the 18K given as expenses
for his medical treatment
c. SC rules otherwise. Since what is forseen is the loss of potential income because of the accident. Edgardo
was a 4 year medical student in a prestigious medical school and although his grades were not the best it can be
th
 readily assumed that the would have graduated and passed the board exams. A testimony given by another doctor
said that it would be regular for a doctor to get a minimum of 300 pesos a month
. Raise the compensatory damages to 25K
d. But LC is correct in denying the award of moral damages and atty fees
e. Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when moral damages may be covered and the case
under consideration does not fall under any one of them. The present action cannot come under paragraph 2 of said
article because it is not one of the quasi-delict and cannot be considered as such because of the pre-existing
contractual relation between the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Edgardo Cariaga. Neither could defendant
Laguna Tayabas Bus Company be held liable to pay moral damages to Edgardo Cariaga under Article 2220 of the Civil
Code on account of breach of its contract of carriage because said defendant did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in
connection therewith. Defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company had exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees like the drivers of its buses in connection with the discharge of their duties and so it must
be considered an obligor in good faith.
f. Edgardo Cariaga is also not entitled to recover for attorney's fees, because this case does not fall under any
of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
g. The parents and spouse of Edgardo cannot also claim actual and compensatory against LTB because the
action was based on breach of contract which they are not a party thereto. Neither can they claim under quasi-delict
since they were not the ones who were injured because of the collision