06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil.

3C 1
2015.

CONTENTS

VII. 7th week (Common Carriers, damages)..................................................2

Study: Civil Code, Articles 2197, 2199-2201, 2203, 2205, 2207, 2215-2217, 2220, 2226, 2229, 2232-2235 (nothing to memorize for week 7) 2
1 Cariaga v. LTB, 110 Phil 346 –Lopa.................................................................3
2 Pangasinan Transportation v. Legaspi, 12 SCRA 592 (read dissent) –Lucenario 5
3 Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. CA, 31 SCRA 511* -Magtagnob..........................7
4 Davila v. PAL, 49 SCRA 497* -Muti...................................................................9
5 PAL v. CA, 185 SCRA 110 –Narvasa...............................................................10
6 De Caliston v. CA, 122 SCRA 958 -Perez de Tagle...................................12
7 De Lima v. LTB, 160 SCRA 70 –Razon..........................................................13
8 Sulpicio v. CA, 246 SCRA 376 –Santos..........................................................14
9 Cervantes v. CA, 304 SCRA 25 -Superable..................................................15

VII. 7TH WEEK (COMMON CARRIERS, DAMAGES)
STUDY: CIVIL CODE, ARTICLES 2197, 2199-2201, 2203, 2205,
2207, 2215-2217, 2220, 2226, 2229, 2232-2235 (NOTHING TO MEMORIZE
FOR WEEK 7)
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
CHAPTER 2
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
 
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss
suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106)
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible
for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation. (1107a)
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 2
2015.
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father
of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or
permanent personal injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity
from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of
contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of
the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If
the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the
aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the
loss or injury.
Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably
mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the
preceding article, as in the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the
defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to
lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
 
CHAPTER 3
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
 
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment
of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court,
according to the circumstances of each case.
 06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 3
2015.
SECTION 1. - Moral Damages
 
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and 1 CARIAGA V. LTB, 110 PHIL 346 –LOPA
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL., vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, MANILA
omission. RAILROAD COMPANY.
G.R. No. L-11037           December 29, 1960

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral Common Carrier: Laguna Tayabas Bus
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly Passenger: Edgardo Cariaga, a fourth year medical student at the UST,
due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted Problem: Laguna Tayabas Bus collided with a train about to cross the
fraudulently or in bad faith. railroad. Cariaga suffered severe head injury which diminished his
intelligence & made him incapable of working
SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages Who won: Passenger Edgardo Cariaga
 
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to EMERGENCY RECIT:
be paid in case of breach thereof.
Facts:
SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages Edgardo Cariaga, a fourth year medical student at the UST, was on board a Laguna
  Tayabas Bus (LTB) when it collided with a train about to cross the railroad. Cariaga
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or suffered a severe head injury which diminished his intelligence and made him
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or physically and mentally incapable of working.
compensatory damages.
A case was filed by Edgardo’s parents against LTB and Manila Railroad to recover
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages amounting to 312,000
the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent pesos.
manner.
LTB filed a cross-complaint alleging that it was train that was negligent. The lower court
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court held that LTB was negligent in crossing and the injuries sustained by Cariaga was due to
will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. the negligence of the driver of the bus.

Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff
must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages
should be awarded.
 In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is
necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless,
before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition
to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled
to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation
for liquidated damages.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance
shall be null and void.
Issue:
1. Whether or not LTB should be held solely liable for the injuries of Edgardo Cariaga.
YES.
2. W/N the trial court erred in awarding only P10,490.00 as compensatory damages to
Edgardo; in not awarding the parents actual and moral damages, and in not sentencing
appellant LTB to pay attorney's fees? YES
Held:
It was LTB that was negligent and not the driver of the train. The driver of the bus
ignored the whistle of the train. He should have exercised utmost diligence in crossing
the railroad tracks. Therefore LTB should be solely liable for the payment of damages to
the Cariaga’s.

As to the award of damages, the Court held that the amount of 10,490 pesos is
inadequate. Article 2201 of the NCC provides that a common carrier shall be liable for
actual or compensatory damages, those which are natural and probable consequences of
the breach of the contract of common carriage and which the parties had foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted, provided
such damages have been duly provided. It includes the possible income that Edgardo
would have earned after graduating from medical school. The award of actual
damages should be increased to 25,000 pesos assuming that the income of
Edgardo would have been 300 pesos a month.
The parents of Edgardo are not parties in this case because the contract of common
carriage was between LTB and Edgardo. No award of moral damages may be given
because the circumstances of this case do not fall under the enumeration provided in
Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the NCC. Attorney’s fees cannot be granted as well for
the same reason that the circumstances do not fall under Article 2208 of the NCC.
COMPLETE
FACTS:
ACCIDENT ON June 18, 1952
 Bus No. 133 owned by Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. (LTB)
 Driver: Alfredo Moncada
 Route: Azcarraga St., Manila to Lilio, Laguna (departed at 1pm)
 Passenger: Edgardo Cariaga, a fourth-year medical student of the University of
Santo Tomas
 At about 3:00 p.m., as the bus reached that part of the poblacion of Bay,
Laguna, where the national highway crossed a railroad track, it bumped
against the engine of a train (Manila Railroad Company/MRR Co.) then
passing by
o first six wheels of the train were derailed
o engine and the front part of the body of the bus was wrecked
o driver of the bus died instantly
o many of its passengers, Edgardo among them, were severely injured.
MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CARIAGA
 De los Santos Clinic - Dr. Gustilo removed the fractured bones which lacerated the
right frontal lobe of his brain
 University of Santo Tomas Hospital - Dr. Gustilo performed another operation to
cover a big hole on the right frontal part of the head with a tantalum plate.
 The LTB paid the sum of P16,964.45 for all the hospital, medical and miscellaneous
expenses. From January 15, 1953 up to April of the same year Edgardo stayed in a
private house in Quezon, City, the LTB having agreed to give him a subsistence
allowance of P10.00 daily, having spent in this connection the total sum of P775.30
in addition to the amount already referred to.
PRESENT ACTION FOR DAMAGES
 For Edgardo Cariaga, from the LTB and the MRR Co., and total sum of P312,000.00
as actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages,
 For Cariaga’s parents, the sum of P18,000.00 in the same concepts.
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 4
2015.
LOWER COURT’S RULING: it was the negligence of the bus driver that caused the
accident and, as a result, rendered judgment sentencing the LTB to pay Edgardo Cariaga
the sum of P10,490.00 as compensatory damages, with interest at the legal rate.
Dismissed cross-claim vs. MRR Co. Both parties appealed.
ISSUES:
1. WON the trial court erred in awarding only P10,490.00 as compensatory damages
to Edgardo; in not awarding the parents actual and moral damages, and in not
sentencing appellant LTB to pay attorney's fees? YES
2. WON the collision was due to the fault of both the locomotive driver and the bus
driver and, as a consequence, MRR Co. should also be held liable? NO
HELD: Wherefore, modified as above indicated, the appealed judgement is hereby
affirmed in all other respects, with costs against appellant LTB.
RATIO:
RE: APPEAL OF BUS COMPANY THAT MRR IS ALSO LIABLE
 No other alternative but to accept the findings of the trial court to the effect,
o firstly, that the whistle of locomotive was sounded four times — two long
and two short — "as the train was approximately 300 meters from the
crossing";
o secondly, that another LTB bus which arrived at the crossing ahead of the
one where Edgardo Cariaga was a passenger, paid heed to the warning
and stopped before the "crossing", while — as the LTB itself now admits
(Brief p. 5) — the driver of the bus in question totally disregarded the
warning.
 But to charge the MRR Co. with contributory negligence, the LTB claims that the
engineer of the locomotive failed to ring the bell altogether, in violation of the
section 91 of Article 1459, incorporated in the charter of the said MRR Co. LTB,
therefore, had the burden of proving it affirmatively because a violation of law is
never presumed.
RE: APPEAL OF THE CARIAGAS AS TO AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
 Deposition of Dr. Romeo Gustilo, a neurosurgeon: it appears that, 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.
 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.
 The impression one gathers from this evidence is that, as a result of the physical
injuries suffered by Edgardo Cariaga, he is now in a helpless condition, virtually an
invalid, both physically and mentally.
 Art. 2201 of the Civil Code - 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
 06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 5
2015.
probable consequences of the breach and which the parties had forseen or could Common Carrier: Pangasinan Transportation Inc. (Pantranco)
have reasonably forseen at the time the obligation was constituted, provided such Passenger: AURORA Breguera, WELLY Pua, MEMIA Chua
damages Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, have been duly proved. Problem: In determining damages to be recovered from a vehicular accident case, they
 the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if he should finish the medical course wanted Pantranco to produce its financial records.
and pass the corresponding board examinations must be deemed to be within the Who won: AURORA, WELLY, and MEMIA. Pantranco must produce financial records!
same category because they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at
the time he boarded the bus No. 133 owned and operated by the LTB. At that time
he was already a fourth-year student in medicine in a reputable university. While Emergency Recitation:
his scholastic may not be first rate (Exhibits 4, 4-A to 4-C), it is, nevertheless,
sufficient to justify the assumption that he could have passed the board test in due  Vehicular accident when a Pantranco bus bound for Alaminos collided with another
time. As regards the income that he could possibly earn as a medical practitioner, it Pantranco bus. Three passengers died when one of the buses turned turtle several
appears that, according to Dr. Amado Doria, a witness for the LTB, the amount of times.
P300.00 could easily be expected as the minimum monthly income of Edgardo. o AURORA (mom) and WELLY (1 year old daughter) – got injured then died
 Compensatory damages awarded to Edgardo Cariaga should be increased to shortly after
P25,000.00. o MEMIA (18 year old girl) – died instantaneously
 2 cases were filed against Pantranco for damages with CFI Pangasinan. 1 case filed
MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES by PUA (AURORA’s husband) and his 3 kids; and one by CHUA and CRISTINA
 Denied by TC. Affirmed by SC. (MEMIA’s parents)
 Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when moral damages may  These cases were tried jointly. During the proceedings, the CFI issued an order
be covered and the case under consideration does not fall under any one of them. requiring Pantranco to allow petitioners to inspect, examine, and photograph its
 not a case of the quasi-delict and cannot be considered as such because of the pre- company general ledgers and financial statements for the years 1959, 1960, and
existing contractual 1961. The courteventually directed Pantranco to make the documents available in
 Neither could defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company be held liable to pay moral its office on January 29 and 30, 1963, without the need of producing them in court.
damages to Edgardo Cariaga under Article 2220 of the Civil Code on account of  Pantranco opposed this claiming that its financial standing was not in issue.
breach of its contract of carriage because said defendant did not act fraudulently or  CFI denied opposition and Pantranco’s MR. Hence the present petition for
in bad faith in connection therewith. Defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company had certiorari.
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.  ISSUE: W/N the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the production
 The plaintiff Edgardo Cariaga is also not entitled to recover for attorney's fees, of the financial statements.  NO
because this case does not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Article  Sec. 21 Rule 27 allows the production of documents constituting or containing
2208 of the Civil Code. material evidence related to the case.
Cangco, vs. Manila Railroad - It is important to note that the foundation of the legal  In this case, the financial standing of Pantranco is relevant in the determination of
liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond the amount of damages that the court will grant. The law provides that the capacity
for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises, if at all, from the breach of that of the defendant to pay is one of the many considerations the court must weigh in
contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance. determining the amount of damages.
That is to say, its liability is direct and immediate, differing essentially in the legal  Hence, the order is warranted.
viewpoint from the presumptive responsibility for the negligence of its servants, imposed IMPORTANT: See verbatim dissent below.
by Article 1903 of the Civil Code (Art. 2180 of the new), which can be rebutted by proof of
the exercise of due care in their selection of supervision. Article 1903 is not applicable to  E.R. of JBL REYES dissent:
obligations arising EX CONTRACTU, but only to extra-contractual obligations — or to use  One needs to be careful in reading the SC decision because it implies that whenever
the technical form of expression, that article relates only to CULPA AQUILIANA' and not to damages are awarded, an inquiry into the financial standing of defendant is
CULPA CONTRACTUAL.lawphil.net warranted. This is wrong. Such inquiry is warranted only when there is a grant of
exemplary damages because then the court is allowed to inquire into the financial
capacity of the defendant (reason: if the exemplary damages is too small, then it
2 PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION V. LEGASPI, 12 SCRA 592 wouldn’t teach defendant a lesson). When, however, only moral damages for
(READ DISSENT) –LUCENARIO instance are granted, then an inquiry into defendant’s financial standing is not
proper and is irrelevant because the purpose of such moral damages is only
Pangasinan Transportation v. Hon. Legaspi, 12 SCRA 592 (read dissent) reparation. You only need to look at the damages experienced.

 In this case, it was averred in the complaint that Pantranco driver was grossly
negligent etc. the grounds sufficient to award exemplary damages. Hence, the
decision in this case is still correct.
FACTS:
 Vehicular accident:
o AURORA Breguera, WELLY Pua, and MEMIA Chua boarded Pantranco Bus
No. 334 in Dasol, Pangasinan bound for Alaminos, Pangasinan.
o On the way, as the bus was rounding a blind curve, bus driver Arsenio
Osorio, "by reason of his gross negligence, serious imprudence and
wanton recklessness, collided with another oncoming Pantranco bus No.
306
o Bus No. 334 turned turtle several times, resulting in:
 AURORA and WELLY suffered injuries from which they died
shortly after the accident
 MEMIA died instantaneously
 2 separate complaints were filed against Pantranco:
o Complaint 1 (Civil Case No. A-247) – filed by PUA Pian, and his 3 children
Rolly, Aida, and Gloria – for the death of AURORA (PUA’s wife) and WELLY
(1 year old daughter)
o Complaint 2 (Civil Case No. A-248) – filed by CHUA Teck and CRISPINA
Bruguera – for the death of MEMIA (their 18 year old daughter)
 Respondents prayed for various amounts of damages and alleged in their
complaints "that defendant Pantranco is financially well-established having
enormous assets and a huge income."
 Pantranco contends that the event was a force majeure beyond its control.
 The cases were tried jointly.
 During the trial, respondents asked the court to order the office manager of
Pantranco to produce in court on December 5, 6 and 7, 1962, between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., the company's general ledgers and financial statements for the years 1959,
1960 and 1961, for respondents to inspect, examine or photograph.
 The motion was opposed by Pantranco on the ground that its financial capacity is
not in issue and that to allow their production would be to sanction inquisition or
"fishing expedition" into the financial records of the company.
 January 18, 1963 – court directed Pantranco to make the documents available in its
office on January 29 and 30, 1963, without the need of producing them in court.
 Pantranco filed a motion for reconsideration but such was denied by court order on
Feb. 7, 1963
 Hence, Pantranco filed the present petition for certiorari on the ground that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering it to produce its financial
records.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering Pantranco to
reveal its financial records.  NO
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 6
2015.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed and the writ of preliminary
injunction is dissolved without pronouncement as to costs.
RATIO:
Section 1 of Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court. – A party may ask for the production
of documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things,
not privileged, "which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in
the action and which are in his possession, custody or control.”
To be sure, Rule 27 permits "fishing" for evidence, the only limitation being that the
documents, papers, etc. sought to be produced are not privileged, that they are in the
possession of the party ordered to produce them and that they are material to any
matter involved in the action.
The main issue is the materiality of the evidence of Pantranco’s financial standing in an
action for breach of contract of carriage.
Article 2206 of the Civil Code states: “The amount of damages for death caused by a
crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have
been mitigating circumstances..”
Article 2206 applies in case of death caused by the breach of contract by the common
carrier.
It fixes the minimum indemnity for death 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 the common carrier, along with such other factors as (1) the life expectancy
of the deceased or of the beneficiary, whichever is shorter, (2) pecuniary loss to the
plaintiff or beneficiary, (3) loss of support, (4) loss of service, (5) loss of society, (6)
mental suffering of beneficiaries, and (7) medical and funeral expenses.
Indeed, under Commonwealth Act No. 284, it is provided that —
SECTION 1. — The civil liability or the death of a person shall be fixed by the
competent court at a reasonable sum, upon consideration of the pecuniary
situation of the party liable and other circumstances, but it shall in no case be
less than two thousand pesos.
Of course the minimum amount of P2,000 as fixed in this law (Commonwealth Act No.
284) must now be deemed increased to P3,000, but the point is that in fixing a greater
amount of indemnity, the pecuniary situation of the party liable may well be considered
along with other elements.
This point should dispose of petitioner's contention that the liability of the common
carrier cannot be made to depend on its pecuniary capacity.
Of course, independently of its financial capacity, the common carrier, if liable, must be
made to pay the minimum amount. But if its financial ability is such that it can pay a
greater amount of indemnity as demanded by the circumstances of the case, then
certainly it should be made to pay more than P3,000.
Its financial standing in such a case is material.

This is what respondents, as plaintiffs in the civil cases below, have sought to do. As
earlier stated, they sought the production of the ledgers and financial statements of
Pantranco in connection with their allegation that "defendant (Pantranco) is financially
well-established having enormous assets and a huge income." That is why in the prayer
of their complaints, they asked the court, not for the minimum indemnity of P3,000, but
for such indemnity for the death of Aurora Breguera, Welly Pua and Memia Chua, as the
Court may find proper and reasonable." Their request therefore was for a good cause
and the respondent Judge committed no abuse of discretion in granting it.
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the denial of the writ but solely on the basis that the original complaint for
damages expressly pleaded (paragraph V) "gross negligence, serious imprudence and
wanton recklessness" of the driver of the petitioner company as cause of the mishap that
occasioned the death of passenger Aurora Breguera and the serious injuries of
passenger Welly Pua. The circumstances thus averred, if duly proved, would justify the
award of damages "by way of example or correction, for the public good, in addition to the
moral ... or compensatory damages" (Art. 2229 in connection with Art. 2232).
Since such additional corrective damages are at the discretion of the Court (Art. 2233),
the latter may properly inquire in this case into the pecuniary ability of the defendant in
order to determine what amount should be added to the normal indemnity, to serve as
effective deterrent to induce defendant to exert more diligence and care in the future. A
small award of corrective damages would be ineffective for the purpose if the defendant
possessed ample means; or it might prove excessive if the defendant were poor.
But I must dissent in so far as the decision implies that inquiries into the resources of a
defendant would be permissible whenever damages, pecuniary or moral, are sought.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that the purpose of moral damages is essentially
indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. Moral damages are emphatically
not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant; they are awarded
only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant's
culpable action.
As stated by Enoch Aguiar, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within
the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante: and, therefore, it must be
proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the
relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of the affection for him and bears
no relation whatever with the wealth or means of the offender. The death caused by a
beggar is felt by the parents of the victim as intensely as that caused by the scion of a
wealthy family.
To recapitulate: compensatory and moral damages can only be awarded to indemnify
the victim or his relatives for the prejudice suffered, and the financial standing of the
person responsible is irrelevant to their evaluation . The omission in the Civil Code of
any reference to the defendant's pecuniary ability, as was heretofore done by
Commonwealth Act No. 284, confirms this thesis.
The ruling in Alcantara vs. Surro, 93 Phil. 472, is predicated precisely on that
Commonwealth Act, and not on the Civil Code now in force, and is inapplicable. In so far
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 7
2015.
as the award exceeds indemnification, it trenches on the sphere of corrective damages
that are justified by other special circumstances set out by the Civil Code.
I am constrained to insist on these principles, because the cases brought to this Court
show a lamentable disregard of the carefully structured system of damages of our Civil
Code. A prime illustration is the complaint that initiated this case in the court below,
where nominal and compensatory damages are both prayed for; yet a modicum of
common sense ought to show that damages cannot be both nominal and actual at the
same time (Civil Code, Article 2221).
Concepcion, J., concurs.
3 VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. V. CA, 31 SCRA 511* -MAGTAGNOB
Villa Rey Transit v CA
Common Carrier:Villa Rey Transit
Passenger: Policronio Quintos, Jr. (front seat, 2 nd row, right side)
Problem: Bus hit a bullcart filled with hay. There was a bamboo on top of the hay load,
which hit the right side of the windshield. The protruding part of the bamboo hit the face
of Policronio (left eye and bone of lest side of face).
Who won: Policronio’s siblings (but the amount was reduced)
EMERGENCY DIGEST:
Policronio Quintos is a passenger, seated on the first seat, 2 nd row, right side of the Isuzu
Bus owned by Villa Rey Transit. The bus, while in Pampanga, hit a bullcart filled with
hay. On top of the hayload was a bamboo, which hit the right side of the windshield and
went straight to Policronio’s left eye and bone on the left side of his face. He fell on the
floor of the bus, was rushed to the hospital upon rescue, and died. Policronio’s siblings
filed an action for damages and breach of contract against Villa Rey transit, alleging in
their complaint the amount of P63,750.
RTC- in favor of siblings. Awarded P63,750 as alleged in the complaint, although it was
shown that a higher amount should have been due.
CA affirmed.
Issue: WON the amount of damages was proper?- NO. The decision was modified to
reduce the amount to P49,561.28 PLUS interest.
Ratio: The determination of such amount depends, mainly upon two (2) factors, namely:
(1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and
(2) the rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents should be fixed.
Quintos et al are entitled to the amount of losses and damages sustained, as dependents
and intestate heirs of the deceased, and that said damages consist, not of the full amount
of his earnings, but of the support, they received or would have received from him had
he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount
of that support, We must reckon with the "necessary expenses of Policronio’s own
living", which should be deducted from his earnings.
Thus, it has been consistently held that earning capacity, as an element of damages to
one's estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or
his capacity to acquire money, less the necessary expense for his own living (aka -
NET EARNINGS).

COMPLETE DIGEST  person has therefore no fixed basis. Much is left to the discretion of the court
 At about 1:30 in the morning, an Isuzu First Class passenger bus owned and
operated by Villa Rey Transit, driven by Laureano Casim, left Lingayen, Pangasinan,
for Manila. Among its paying passengers was the deceased, Policronio Quintos, Jr.
who sat on the first seat, second row, right side of the bus.
 The bus frontally hit the rear side of a bullcart filled with hay. As a result the end of
a bamboo pole placed on top of the hayload and tied to the cart to hold it in place,
hit the right side of the windshield of the bus. The protruding end of the bamboo
pole, about 8 feet long from the rear of the bullcart, penetrated through the glass
windshield and landed on the face of Policronio Quintos, Jr. who, because of the
impact, fell from his seat and was sprawled on the floor. The pole landed on his left
eye and the bone of the left side of his face was fractured. He suffered other
multiple wounds and was rendered unconscious due, among other causes to severe
cerebral concussion.
 Policronio died.
 Policronio’s siblings are the private respondents. They filed an action against Villa
Rey Transit as owner and operator of said passenger bus for breach of the contract
of carriage, to recover the aggregate sum of P63,750.00 as damages, including
attorney's fees.
 RTC- in favor of Quintos. Awarded, as the complaint alleged a total damage of only
P63,750.00 although as elsewhere shown in this decision the damages for wake and
burial expenses, loss of income, death of the victim, and attorneys fee reach the
aggregate of P79,615.95, this Court finds it just that said damages be assessed at
total of only P63,750.00 as prayed for in Quintos’ amended complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether the amount of damages granted was proper? – No! The amount adjudged in the
decision appealed from should be reduced to the aggregate sum of P49,561.28, with
interest thereon, at the legal rate, from December 29, 1961, date of the promulgation of
the decision of the trial court.
The determination of such amount depends, mainly upon two (2) factors, namely: (1)
the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and (2) the
rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents should be fixed.
HELD: Thus modified, said decision and that of the Court of Appeals are hereby
affirmed, in all other respects, with costs against petitioner, Villa Rey Transit, Inc. It is so
ordered.
RATIO:
 The first factor was based by the trial court — the view of which was concurred in
by the Court of Appeals — upon the life expectancy of Policronio Quintos, Jr.,
which was placed at 33-1/3 years — he being over 29 years of age (or around 30
years for purposes of computation) at the time of his demise — by applying the
formula (2/3 x [80-30] = life expectancy) adopted in the American Expectancy
Table of Mortality or the actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.
 (Villa Rey maintains that damages should be computed on a four (4) year basis
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 8
2015.
based on the Alcantara case. – WRONG)
 The determination of the indemnity to be awarded to the heirs of a deceased
considering the moral and material damages involved, and so it has been said that
"(t)here can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of a human life and
the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation,
but the amount recoverable depends on the particular facts and circumstances of
each case. The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary, whichever is
shorter, is an important factor.' (25 C.J.S. 1241.) Other factors that are usually
considered are: (1) pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary (2) loss of support (3)
loss of service (4) loss of society (5) mental suffering of beneficiaries; and (6)
medical and funeral expenses.”
 Thus, life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an important element in fixing
the amount recoverable.
 Although payment of the award in the case at bar will have to take place upon the
finality of the decision therein, the liability of Villa Rey had been fixed at the rate
only of P2,184.00 a year, which is the annual salary of Policronio Quintos, Jr. at the
time of his death, as a young "training assistant" in the Bacnotan Cement Industries,
Inc.
 The lower courts did not consider, in the present case, Policronio's potentiality and
capacity to increase his future income. Indeed, upon the conclusion of his training
period, he was supposed to have a better job and be promoted from time to time,
and, hence, to earn more, if not — considering the growing importance of trade,
commerce and industry and the concomitant rise in the income level of officers and
employees therein — much more.
 We are mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or damages
sustained by Quintos et al, as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased, and
that said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support,
they received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of
the negligence of petitioner's agent.
 In fixing the amount of that support, We must reckon with the "necessary expenses
of Policronio’s own living", which should be deducted from his earnings.
 Thus, it has been consistently held that earning capacity, as an element of
damages to one's estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net
earning capacity or his capacity to acquire money, less the necessary expense
for his own living (aka net earnings).
 All things considered, We are of the opinion that it is fair and reasonable to fix the
deductible living and other expenses of the deceased at the sum of P1,184.00 a year,
or about P100.00 a month, and that, consequently, the loss sustained by his sisters
may be roughly estimated at P1,000.00 a year or P33,333.33 for the 33-1/3 years of
his life expectancy. To this sum of P33,333.33, the following should be added: (a)
P12,000.00, pursuant to Arts. 104 and 107 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Article 2206 of our Civil Code, as construed and applied by this Court; (b)
P1,727.95, actually spent by Quintos et al for medical and burial expenses; and (c)
attorney's fee, which was fixed by the trial court, at P500.00, but which, in view of
the appeal taken by Villa Rey Transit, first to the Court of Appeals and later to this
Supreme Court, should be increased to P2,500.00. In other words, the amount
adjudged in the decision appealed from should be reduced to the aggregate sum of

P49,561.28, with interest thereon, at the legal rate, from December 29, 1961, date
of the promulgation of the decision of the trial court.
4 DAVILA V. PAL, 49 SCRA 497* -MUTI
DAVILA v. PAL, G.R. No. L-28512, Feb. 28, 1973.
Common Carrier: Philippine Air Lines
Passenger: Pedro Davila, Jr.
Problem: plane crash resulted to death of passenger; amount of damages awarded by
trial court is disputed.
Who won: parents of Davila
ER: PAL plane crashed because it did not follow its prescribed flight plan along the
airway “Amber I”. One of the passengers, Pedro, died. His parents filed a suit against PAL
and were awarded damages. Both parties appealed the amount of damages. ISSUE:
whether the amount of damages awarded was proper. NO except for some
Death indemnity: 6K to 12K (Accdg. to jurisprudence, it should be increased.)
Loss of earning capacity: 60K to 195K
 Life expectancy is 33½ years according to Villa Rey case formula (2/3 x [80-30]);
however, this was reduced to 25 years because medical history shows he has back and
chest pains. Gross income (15K) LESS living expenses (7,2K) is 7,8K. 7,8K times 25 years
= 195K
Other actual damages (loss of Rolex watch, pistol, etc.), moral damages, and attorney’s
fees: RETAINED.
Exemplary damages: DELETED. The failure of PAL to exercise extraordinary diligence, as
required by law, does not amount to acting in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive
or malevolent manner (Art. 2232)
Facts:
 The case arose from the tragic crash of a passenger plane of the PAL which took the
lives of all its crew and passengers. The plane crashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro.
 The plaintiffs, parents of Pedro T. Davila, Jr., who was one of the passengers, had no
definite news of what had happened to their son until they received a letter of
condolence from the PAL’s president informing them that their son had died in the
crash. The body was recovered after 10 days.
 The parents filed a suit against PAL and were awarded compensatory damages for
his death and lost earning capacity, among others.
 Both parties appealed directly to SC in view of the aggregate of the amounts
awarded. The parents seek an increase in said amounts, and PAL, complete
exoneration from, or at least mitigation of, liability.
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 9
2015.
Issue:
1. W/N PAL was negligent – YES
2. W/N the amount of trial court’s award was proper – NO! (except for moral, actual,
and attorney’s fees)
Ratio:
As to negligence
 The route prescribed for the flight was Iloilo-Romblon-Manila, the latter stage,
denominated as airway "Amber I," being a straight lane from Romblon to Manila.
o However, the plane did not intercept airway "Amber I" over Romblon as it
was supposed to do, and the pilot did not give his position then although
Romblon was a compulsory checking point.
 The prescribed elevation of the flight was 6,000 ft.
o The reading of the altimeter of the plane when its wreckage was found
was 6,800 ft.
 There is a suggestion that in the course of the flight between Romblon and Mindoro
the aircraft was drifted westward by the cross-winds then blowing in the region.
o PAL, however, has not given a definite explanation as to why, if such was
the case, the pilot failed to make the necessary correction in his flight to
compensate for the drift.
 What is undisputed therefore is that the pilot did not follow the route prescribed
for his flight, at least between Romblon and Manila. Since up to that point over
Romblon, where he was supposed to intersect airway "Amber I" the weather was
clear, the most reasonable conclusion is that his failure to do so was intentional,
and that he probably wanted to fly on a straight line to Manila. It was a violation of
air-craft traffic rules to which, under the circumstances, the accident may be
directly attributable.
 In any case, absent a satisfactory explanation on the part of the defendant as to how
and why the accident occurred, the presumption is that it was at fault, under Article
1756 of the Civil Code.
As to the award (OUR TOPIC)
1. Death indemnity = P12,000 (TC: P6,000)
 Pursuant to current jurisprudence, it should be increased to P12,000.00.
2. Loss of earning capacity = P195,000 (TC: P60,000)
 The deceased was employed as manager of a radio station 1, a lawyer and junior
partner of his father in the law office, and getting income from farming. All in all. the
1 Chronicle Broadcasting Network

deceased had gross earnings of P15,000.00 a year.
 According to Article 2206, paragraph (1), of the Civil Code, "the defendant shall be
liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and indemnity shall be
paid to the heirs of the latter." This Article, while referring to "damages for death
caused by crime or quasi-delict," is expressly made applicable by Article 1764 "to
the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier."
 The deceased was single and 30 years of age when he died. At that age one's normal
life expectancy is 33-1/3 years, according to the formula (2/3 x [80-30]) adopted
by this Court in the case of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. CA.
o However, his medical history shows that he had complained of and been
treated for such ailments as backaches, chest pains and occasional feelings
of tiredness. It is reasonable to make an allowance for these circumstances
and consider, for purposes of this case, a reduction of his life expectancy
to 25 years.
 The amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earnings, but rather the loss of that
portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received. In other words,
only net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered.
 Considering the fact that the deceased was getting his income from three (3)
different sources, the expenses incidental to the generation of such income were
necessarily more than if he had only one source.
o Together with his living expenses, a deduction of P600.00 a month, or
P7,200.00 a year, seems to Us reasonable, leaving a net yearly income of
P7,800.00. This amount, multiplied by 25 years, or P195,000.00 is the
amount which should be awarded to the plaintiffs in this particular
respect.
3. Other actual damages – P5,000 (same with TC’s award)
 Actual losses sustained consist of the following, as found by the trial court: "Rolex
Watch — P600.00; pistol — P300.00; Burial Expenses — P600.00; and cost of
cemetery lot and mausoleum - P3,500.00."
4. Moral damages – P10,000 (same)
 Under Article 2206, in relation to Article 1764, of the Civil Code, the parents of the
deceased are entitled to moral damages for their mental anguish.
5. Exemplary damages – 0 (TC: P10,000)
 According to Article 2232 of the Civil Code, in contracts and quasi-contracts the
court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
o The failure of the defendant here to exercise extraordinary diligence, as
required by law, does not amount to anyone of the circumstances
contemplated in the said provision.
6. Attorney’s fees – P10,000 (same)
TOTAL of everything: P232,000.00. (TC: P100,000)
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 10
2015.
5 PAL V. CA, 185 SCRA 110 –NARVASA
Carrier: PAL
Passenger: Nicanor Padilla
Problem: Whose life expectancy was to be used in ascertaining damage.
Who Won: Padilla
ER:
A 29 yo Atenean lawyer died in a plane crash at mount Baco, on his way to Manila.
W/N indemnity for death of Padilla should be on the basis of his life expectancy or
that of his only legal heir?
Under Article 1764 and Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, the award of damages for
death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased, not of his
beneficiary.
 Multiplying his annual net income of P13,900 by his life expectancy of 30 years,
the product is P417,000 (not P477,000) which is the amount of death
indemnity due his mother and only forced heir.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The decision of the trial court is
affirmed with modification. The petitioner is ordered to pay the private
respondent or her heirs death indemnity in the sum of P417,000 (not
P477,000), with legal rate of interest of 6% per annum from the date of the
judgment.
CJN: The plane crash was 30 years removed from the promulgation of SC judgment in
1990.
GRIÑ O-AQUINO, J.:
 Starlight Flight No. 26 of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) took off from the
Manduriao Airport in Iloilo, on its way to Manila, with 33 persons on board,
including the plane's complement.
o The plane crashed on Mt. Baco, Mindoro, one hour and fifteen
minutes after takeoff .
o The plane was a PI-C133, a DC-3 type aircraft manufactured in 1942
and acquired by PAL in 1948.
o It had flown almost 18,000 hours at the time of its illfated flight. It
had been certified as airworthy by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration.
 Among the fatalities was Nicanor Padilla.

o He was 29 years old, single. His mother, Natividad A. Vda. de Padilla,
was his only legal heir.
 As a result of her son's death, Mrs. Padilla filed a complaint (which was
amended twice) against PAL.
o demanding payment of P600,000 as actual and compensatory
damages, plus exemplary damages and P60,000 as attorney's fees.
Facts about Padilla
 29 years old when he died.
 life insurance of P20,000, the proceeds of which were paid to his sister.
 Nicanor A. Padilla graduated the Reserve Officer's Course (Infantry Basic
Course) Armed Forces of the Philippines in 1949, and graduated with the
degree of Bachelor of Literature in 1951 and the degree of Bachelor of Laws in
1954, all in Ateneo de Manila.
o Was a lawyer, he was associated with the law offices of Senator
Ambrosio Padilla, brother of his father, Alberto R. Padilla.
o the President and General Manager of the Padilla Shipping Co., Inc. He
was also Vice-President and Treasurer of the Allied Overseas Trading
Co., Inc.
 Eduardo Mate, manager of the Allied Overseas Trading Company, testified that
the deceased, Nicanor Padilla, was one of the incorporators of the company
and also its vice-president and treasurer, receiving a monthly salary of P455.
 Isaac M. Reyes, auditor of the Padilla Shipping Company, declared that the
deceased was the President and General of the firm and received a salary of
P1,500 monthly
o He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Junior Chamber of
Commerce (Jaycees) International and Chairman of its Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Second stipulation of facts:
 That in the book written by Salvador B. Salvosa, "Filipino Experience Mortality
Table,"
o A person aged 29 has 42.60 years of life expectancy
o While one aged 60 has 17.90 years.
 Also contained is the table used by numerous insurance companies.
TC: PAL pay P477,000.00 as award for the expected income of the deceased Nicanor;
P10,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.
W/N indemnity for death of Padilla should be on the basis of his life expectancy or
that of his only legal heir?
 Under Article 1764 and Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, the award of damages
for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased, not of
his beneficiary.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi- delict
shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 11
2015.
The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in
every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity
at the time of his death;
 In the case of Davila vs. PAL, 49 SCRA 497 which involved the same tragic
plane crash, this Court determined not only PALs liability for negligence or
breach of contract, but also the manner of computing the damages due the
plaintiff therein which it based on the life expectancy of the deceased:
o The deceased was single and 30 years of age when he died. At that
age one's normal life expectancy is 33-1/3 years, according to the
formula (2/3 x [80-30)
o However, although the deceased was in relatively good health, his
medical history shows that he had complained of and been treated
for such ailments as backaches, chest pains and occasional feelings of
tiredness. It is reasonable to make an allowance for these
circumstances and consider, for purposes of this case, a reduction of
his life expectancy to 25 years.
o Deceased was getting his income from three (3) different sources,
namely, from managing a radio station, from law practice and from
farming, the expenses incidental to the generation of such income
were necessarily more than if he had only one source. Together with
his living expenses, a deduction of P600.00 a month, or P7,200.00 a
year, seems to Us reasonable, leaving a net yearly income of
P7,800.00. This amount, multiplied by 25 years, or P195,000.00 is the
amount which should be awarded to the plaintiffs in this particular
respect.
 PAL’s contention that actual damages under Article 2206 of the Civil Code must
be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence is correct and it was proven in
this case.
o The witnesses Mate and Reyes, who were respectively the manager
and auditor of Allied Overseas Trading Company and Padilla Shipping
Company, were competent to testify on matters within their personal
knowledge because of their positions, such as the income and salary
of the deceased, Nicanor A. Padilla.
o they were cross-examined by petitioner's counsel, any objections to
their competence and the admissibility of their testimonies, were
deemed waived.
o The payrolls of the companies and the decedent's income tax returns
could, it is true, have constituted the best evidence of his salaries, but
there is no rule disqualifying competent officers of the corporation
from testifying on the compensation of the deceased as an officer of
the same corporation, and in any event, no timely objection was made
to their testimonies.

 victims gross annual income to be P23,100 based on his yearly salaries of
P18,000 from the Padilla Shipping Company and P5,100 from the Allied
Overseas Trading Corporation.
o Considering that he was single, the court deducted P9,200 as yearly
living expenses, resulting in a net income of P13,900 (not P15,900 as
erroneously stated in the decision).
o Since Nicanor Padilla was only 29 years old and in good health, the
trial court allowed him a life expectancy of 30 years.
 Multiplying his annual net income of P13,900 by his life expectancy of 30 years,
the product is P417,000 (not P477,000) which is the amount of death
indemnity due his mother and only forced heir.
 While as a general rule, an appellee who has not appealed is not entitled to
affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below
o we nevertheless find merit in the private respondent's plea for relief
for the long delay this case has suffered on account of the petitioner's
multiple appeals. Indeed, because of the 16 year delay in the
disposition of this case, the private respondent herself has already
joined her son in the Great Beyond without being able to receive the
indemnity she well deserved.
Considering how inflation has depleted the value of the judgment in her favor, in the
interest of justice, the petitioner should pay legal rate of interest on the indemnity due
her. The failure of the trial court to award such interest amounts to a "plain error" which
we may rectify on appeal although it was not specified in the appellee's brief (Sec. 7,
Rule 51, Rules of Court).
6 DE CALISTON V. CA, 122 SCRA 958 -PEREZ DE TAGLE
G.R. No. L-63135 June 24, 1983
GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS AND GERONIMO DALMACIO, respondents. 
Common Carrier:
Passenger:
Problem:
Who won:
ER:
Dalmacio, bus driver, ran over Juana who died instantly and was survived by Gloria,
herein petitioner. Dalmacio was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence and
ordered to pay 15k for death of Juana, 5K (moral), 5K (burial expenses), and 10K (loss of
pension). The CA modified it by deleting the 10K for pension and crediting 5,000 paid by
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 12
2015.
the insurance of the bus company. Issue: WON CA was correct. Held: The deletion of
the 10K was wrong because Art. 2206 provides that the defendant shall be liable for
loss of earning capacity of the deceased. That’s the case here. The crediting of the 5K was
right because the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the bus company for the death caused by
his driver is subsidiary and, at bottom, arises from the same culpa, and thus the
insurance proceeds should be credited in favor of the errant driver.
Facts:
 While driving a passenger bus in Bacolod City, private respondent Geronimo
Dalmacio ran over Juana Sonza Vda. de Darrocha (a USVA pensioner) who died
instantly, survived by her only child, Gloria Darrocha de Caliston, the herein
petitioner.
 Prosecuted for homicide thru reckless imprudence, Dalmacio was convicted by the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, sentenced to imprisonment and
ordered to pay the herein petitioner P15,000.00 for the death of the victim,
P5,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 for burial expenses and P10,000.00 for loss
of pension which the deceased had failed to receive.
 On appeal, the former Court of Appeals modified the CFI decision by absolving
Dalmacio from the payment of the P10,000.00 for loss of pension and credited him
for the amount of P5,000.00 previously paid to the herein petitioner under a
vehicular insurance policy obtained by the bus owner.
Issue: W/N the modifications made by the CA are correct.The above modifications are
now assailed in this petition for review on which the private respondent has filed his
comment.
Held: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted partially in that the P10,000.00
award for loss of pension deleted in the appealed Court of Appeals decision is hereby
reinstated. Costs against private respondent.
Ratio:
 The deletion of the P10,000.00 awarded for loss of pension is unjustified. Under
Article 2206 of the Civil Code —
o The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances.
o In addition: The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of
the latter. . .
 The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her death for
which Dalmacio was responsible, the surviving heir of the former is entitled to the
award of P 10,000.00 which is just equivalent to the pension the decedent would
have received for one year if she did not die.

On the other hand, the P5,000.00 paid to the herein petitioner by the insurer of the
passenger bus which figured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the bus
owner who procured the insurance. Since the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the latter for
the death caused by his driver is subsidiary and, at bottom, arises from the same culpa,
the insurance proceeds should be credited in favor of the errant driver.
7 DE LIMA V. LTB, 160 SCRA 70 –RAZON
ELADlA DE LIMA, POTENCIANO REQUIJO, NEMESIO FLORES, REYNALDO REQUIJO,
DOMINADOR REQUIJO and MARIO REQUIJO, petitioners, vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS CO.,
CLARO SAMONTE, SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC., (SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO., OF THE
PHILIPPINES) and PORVENIR ABAJAR BARRETO, respondents.
DOCTRINE:
COMMON CARRIER: Laguna Tayabas Co.
PASSENGER: De Lima et. al
PROBLEM: death and injuries of passengers due to collision of passenger bus and
delivery truck
Who WON: De Lima et. al
EMERGENCY DIGEST: This present action arose from a collision between a passenger
bus of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. (LTB) and a delivery truck of the Seven-up Bottling
Co. of the Philippines which took place on June 3, 1958 resulting in the death of Petra de
la Cruz and serious physical injuries of Eladia de Lima and Nemesio Flores, all
passengers of the LTB bus. Three civil suits were filed against herein respondents which
were consolidated for trial before the Court of First Instance of Laguna (San Pablo City).
Trial court rendered judgment in favor of De Lima et. al awarding damages thereof. De
Lima and Requijos (heirs of dela cruz) filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision
seeking an award of legal interest on the amounts adjudged in their favor from the date
of the said decision but their motion was not acted upon by the lower court . Thereafter,
they voluntarily desisted to appeal due to financial constraint and in the hope that the
bus company would pay immediately.
But then the bus company appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. De Lima et. al
filed a motion with Court of Appeals seeking for immediate resolution of the case with
prayer for grant of legal interest from the date of the decision of the lower court and for
the increase to P12,000.00 of the civil indemnity of P3,000.00 awarded for the death of
Petra de la Cruz. CA rendered decision awarding legal interest but to commence only
from time of judgment of CA, and not from time of judgment in the lower court. De Lima
et.al filed MR of such decision. CA denied MR holding that since the plaintiffs did not
appeal from the failure of the court a quo to award interest on the damages and that the
court on its own discretion awarded such interest in view of Art. 2210 of the Civil Code,
the effectivity of the interest should not be rolled back to the time the decision of the
lower court was rendered. The Supreme Court reversed CA and ruled that legal interest
should start to run from date of judgment in the lower court, the Court likewise granted
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 13
2015.
increase of damages from 12k to 30k in favor of heirs of dela Cruz. The Court applied
liberal interpretation of the rule in favor of the passengers, who were indigent litigants,
and took note of the fact that the case has been running for 30 years already. Also, it
noted that the failure to appeal was for reason of financial constraint.
COMPLETE DIGEST:
 See ER for the facts
ISSUE: Whether or not the legal interest awarded for the first time by the Court of
Appeals should run from time of judgment of trial court or that of CA? Start to run from
judgment of trial court
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED, the subject decision is modified
in that the legal interest on the damages awarded to petitioners commences from the
date of the decision of the court a quo until actual payment while the civil indemnity for
the death of Petra de la Cruz is increased to P 30,000.00. This judgment is immediately
executory and no motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained.
RATIO:
 It is true that the rule is well-settled that a party cannot impugn the
correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him, and while he may make
counter assignment of errors, he can do so only to sustain the judgment on
other grounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof, for in such case
he must appeal. A party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain
any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained
from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.
However, respondents failed to note that the legal interest was awarded by the
Appellate Court in its discretion based on equitable grounds which is duly
sanctioned by Art. 2210 of the Civil Code which provides — Interest may, in
the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of
contract.
 At any rate, this Court is inclined to adopt a liberal stance in this case as We
have done in previous decisions where We have held that litigations should, as
much as possible be decided on their merits and not on technicality.
 We take note of the fact that petitioners are litigating as paupers. Although
they may not have appealed, they had filed their motion for reconsideration
with the court a quo which unfortunately did not act on it. By reason of their
indigence, they failed to appeal but petitioners De Lima and Requijo had filed
their manifestation making reference to the law and jurisprudence upon which
they base their prayer for relief while petitioner Flores filed his brief.
 Moreover, under the circumstances of this case where the heirs of the victim in
the traffic accident chose not to appeal in the hope that the transportation
company will pay the damages awarded by the lower court but unfortunately
said company still appealed to the Court of Appeals, which step was obviously
dilatory and oppressive of the rights of the said claimants: that the case had

been pending in court for about 30 years from the date of the accident in 1958
so that as an exception to the general rule aforestated, the said heirs who did
not appeal the judgment, should be afforded equitable relief by the courts as it
must be vigilant for their protection. The claim for legal interest and increase
in the indemnity should be entertained in spite of the failure of the claimants to
appeal the judgment.
 We take exception to the ruling of the Appellate Court as to the date when the
legal interest should commence to ran. In view of the consistent rulings of this
Court, We hold that the legal interest of six percent (6) on the amounts
adjudged in favor of petitioners should start from the time of the rendition of
the trial court's decision on December 27, 1963 instead of January 31, 1972,
the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
As to the second issue, civil indemnity for the death of Petra de la Cruz was properly
awarded by virtue of Art. 1764 in relation to Art. 2206 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines which allows a minimum indemnity of P3,000.00 for the death of a
passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. In accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence the indemnity of P3,000.00 should be increased to P30,000.00
and not P12,000.00 as prayed for by petitioner.
8 SULPICIO V. CA, 246 SCRA 376 –SANTOS
Sulpicio Lines v. CA (1995)
SULPICIO LINES, INC., vs.CA and TITO DURAN TABUQUILDE and ANGELINA DE PAZ
TABUQUILDE
Ship: M/V DONA MARILYN
Carrier: Sulpicio
Passenger: Tito and Jennifer
Problem: Ship sank, issue as to the damages
ER: TITO and his 3 year old daughter JENNIFER ANNE boarded Sulpicio’s ship. There
was a typhoon (Unsang), and there was a declaration by PAGASA of the fact of a Storm
Signal Nol. 2. It was raised to Signal No. 3. Despite these warngings, the ship captain
ordered the vessel to proceed to Tacloban. The mother of JENNIFER and wife of TITO,
ANGELINA contacted SULPICIO OFFICE to verify the radio reports that the vessel was
missing. The employees of Sulpicio assured her that the ship was merely hiding. The
truth was the vessel capsized and threw TITO and JENNIFER along with other
passengers to the sea. TITO survived and was found in an island in Samar. JENNIFER
died. Cases filed and TITO AND ANGELINA WON getting damages (actual for loss of
luggage etc., death of child, moral, exemplary, atty fees)
ISSUE: W/N the damages were proper.
SC: Yes but with modifications. Actual damages were deleted since there was no basis.
The indemnity for JENNIFER’s death was increased to 50k. aside from that everything
was correct. The vessel’s sinking was due to the gross negligence of Sulpicio.
 
FACTS:
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 14
2015.
 Tito Duran Tabuquilde (TITO) and his 3-year old daughter Jennifer Anne (ANNE)
boarded the M/V Dona Marilyn at North Harbor, Manila, bringing several luggage.
 In the morning, the ship, while in transit, encountered inclement weather which
caused huge waves due to Typhoon Unsang.
 Oct 23, 1988 - Notwithstanding the fact that Storm Signal No. 2 had been raised by
the PAG-ASA authorities over Leyte as early as 5:30 P.M. and it was raised to Signal
No. 3 by 10 P.M. of the same day, the ship captain ordered the vessel to proceed to
Tacloban when prudence dictated that he should have taken it to the nearest port
for shelter, thus violating his duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the
carrying of passengers safely to their destination.
 At about the same time, Angelina Tabuquilde (ANGELINA) mother of Jennifer Anne,
contacted the Sulpicio Office to verify radio reports that the vessel M/V Dona
Marilyn was missing.
 Employees of said Sulpicio Lines assured her that the ship was merely "hiding"
thereby assuaging her anxiety.
 Oct 24, 1988, 2 pm - said vessel capsized, throwing Tito and Jennifer Anne, along
with hundreds of passengers, into the tumultuous sea.
 Tito tried to keep himself and his daughter afloat but to no avail as the waves got
stronger and he was subsequently separated from his daughter despite his efforts.
 He found himself on Almagro Island in Samar and immediately searched for his
daughter among the survivors in the island, but the search proved fruitless.
 In the meantime, ANGELINA tried to seek the assistance of the Sulpicio Lines in
Manila to no avail, the latter refusing to entertain her and hundreds of relatives of
the other passengers who waited long hours outside the Manila Office.
 Angelina spent sleepless nights worrying about her husband Tito and daughter
Jennifer Anne in view of the refusal of Sulpicio Lines to release a verification of the
sinking of the ship.
 October 26, 1988 - Tito and other survivors in the Almagro Island were fetched and
were brought to Tacloban Medical Center for treatment.
 October 31, 1988 - Tito reported the loss of his daughter, was informed that the
corpse of a child with his daughter's description had been found. Subsequently, Tito
wrote a letter to his wife, reporting the sad fact that Jennifer Anne was dead.
Angelina suffered from shock and severe grief upon receipt of the news.
o The child was buried in Leyte.
 A claim for damages was filed by Tito with the defendant Sulpicio Lines in
connection with the death of his daughter and the loss of Tito's belongings.
 Trial court ruled in favour of Tito.
o P27, 580 – actual damages
o P30, 000 – for JENNIFER’s death
o P100,000 – moral damages
o P50,000 – exemplary damages
o P50, 000 – attorneys fees
 CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the findings of damages were correct
HELD: Actual Damages removed, 30k increased to 50k for the death of Jennifer
RATIO:

 Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and not
disturbed except for cogent reasons. One of the accepted reasons is when the
findings of fact are not supported by the evidence. Corollary to this is the rule that
actual or compensatory damages, to be recovered, must be proved; otherwise, if the
proof is flimsy, no damages will be awarded.
 ACTUAL DAMAGES – not supported by evidence - In the case at bench, the trial
court merely mentioned the fact of the loss and the value of the contents of the
pieces of baggage without stating the evidence on which it based its findings. There
is no showing that the value of the contents of the lost pieces of baggage was based
on the bill of lading or was previously declared by respondent Tito D. Tabuquilde
before he boarded the ship. Hence, there can be no basis to award actual damages
in the amount of P27,850.00.
 DEATH of DAUGHTER JUSTIFIED - The Court of Appeals was correct in confirming
the award of damages for the death of the daughter of the spouses, a passenger on
board vessel of Sulpicio. It is true that under Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, only deaths caused by a crime as quasi delict are entitled to actual and
compensatory damages without the need of proof of the said damages. Said Article
provides:
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi
delict shall be at least Three Thousand Pesos, even though there may
have been mitigating circumstances. . . .
 Deducing alone from said provision, one can conclude that damages arising
from culpa contractual are not compensable without proof of special damages
sustained by the heirs of the victim.
 However, the Civil Code, in Article 1764 thereof, expressly makes Article 2206
applicable "to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a
common carrier." Accordingly, a common carrier is liable for actual or
compensatory damages under Article 2206 in relation to Article 1764 of the Civil
Code for deaths of its passengers caused by the breach of the contract of
transportation.
 The trial court awarded an indemnity of P30,000.00 for the death of the daughter of
private respondents. The award of damages under Article 2206 has been increased
to P50,000.00
 MORAL DAMAGES are recoverable in case of death of passenger - With respect
to the award of moral damages, the general rule is that said damages are not
recoverable in culpa contractual except when the presence of bad faith was proven.
However, in breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may be recovered when
it results in the death of a passenger
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES are CORRECT - With respect to the award of exemplary
damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code of the Philippines gives the Court the
discretion to grant said damages in breach of contract when the defendant acted in
a wanton, fraudulent and reckless manner.
 The trial court correctly concluded that the sinking of M/V Dona Marilyn was due to
gross negligence, thus:
…the crew of the vessel M/V Dona Marilyn took a calculated risk
when it proceeded despite the typhoon brewing somewhere in the
general direction to which the vessel was going. The crew assumed a
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 15
2015.
greater risk when, instead of dropping anchor in or at the periphery
of the Port of Calapan, or returning to the port of Manila which is
nearer, proceeded on its voyage on the assumption that it will be able
to beat and race with the typhoon and reach its destination before it
(Unsang) passes
 Attorney’s Fees CORRECT - The decision that Sulipicio relies on is inapposite to
the instant case where the decision clearly mentions the facts and the law upon
which the award of attorney's fees were based.
9 CERVANTES V. CA, 304 SCRA 25 -SUPERABLE
NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC., respondent; March 2, 1999
KEYWORD: diverted PAL plane, had to disembark in Cotabato instead of Ozamis
DIVISION: Third Division
PONENTE: Purisima
Common Carrier Philippine Airlines
Passenger Nicholas Cervantes
Problem Ticket will expire in one year. Cervantes used it near expiry date,
used it for one leg of the journey, then when he used it again, the
ticket already expired and he can’t used it anymore. Sued PAL for
breach of contract of carriage.
Who won PAL (YAY!)
EMERGENCY RECIT: In a previous case, a compromise between PAL and Nicholas
Cervantes resulted to PAL issuing Cervantes a round trip ticket to the US which will
expire in one year. Cervantes knew that to get an extension, he has to write a request to
PAL’s office in the Philippines. Cervantes left in March 23, 1990 and when there, he
confirmed his return ticket then rebooked it so that he will leave via San Francisco and
not LA. The ticket was for April 2, 1990, when the compromise ticket was already
expired. When Cervantes tried to board on April 2, he was denied by PAL since his ticket
had already expired on March 27.
ISSUE: Whether PAL breached its contract of carriage with Cervantes when Cervantes
was not allowed to board using the compromise ticket
HELD: NO! Cervantes knew that his ticket will expire on March 27. The expiration was
written on the ticket itself and the Conditions of Contract. The ticket is the contract
between parties, and when it is clear and umabiguous, it should be strictly followed.
Also, PAL’s agents are only guilty of simple negligence when they confirmed the ticket.
The actions of PAL’s agents are beyond their authority and cannot bind PAL. Further,
since Cervantes knew that his ticket is already expired on his expiry date, he can’t use
the negligence of PAL’s agents against PAL.
COMPLETE

FACTS:
 A compromise in a previous case (no mention of why there was a previous case)
between Nicholas Cervantes and PAL in the RTC of Surigao City, Cervantes was
issued a plane ticket by PAL.
 The round trip ticket for Manila-Honolulu-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Manila was issued
on March 27 1989, with an express stipulation (as agreed upon in the compromise
between Cervantes and PAL) that it was non-refundable, non-endorsable and will
only be valid until March 27, 1990.
 Cervantes used the ticket on March 23, 1990 and arrived in LA on the same day.
On the same day, he also booked his LA-Manila return flight with PAL, and it was
confimed on April 2, 1990 flight. (Remember, ticket will expire on March 27).
 When Cervantes learned that the PAL plane will make a stopover in San Francisco
before going to Manila on April 2, 1990, he rebooked the ticket so that he will board
in San Francisco (since he was there already) instead of LA.
 While checking in the San Francisco flight on April 2, 1990, Cervantes was not
allowed to board, and the notation on his ticket was “TICKET NOT ACCEPTED
DUE EXPIRATION OF VALIDITY.”
 Because of this, he filed a Complaint for Damages for breach of contract of carriage
against PAL in the RTC of Surigao. The RTC dismissed it, and the CA also dismissed
it on appeal. Cervantes appeals to the SC via Petition for Review.
ISSUES: Whether PAL breached its contract of carriage with Cervantes when Cervantes
was not allowed to board the San Francisco flight back to Manila
HELD: NO! Ticket already expired on March 27, 1990, and Cervantes knew this.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July
25, 1995 AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
RATIO:
 Cervantes knew that his ticket will expire on March 27, 1990. This was stated in his
plane ticket as well the Conditions of Contract between Cervantes and PAL.
 In Lufthansa vs. Court of Appeals, the SC found that Lufthansa was not liable for
breach of contract of carraige when it refused to extend already expired tickets.
There, the Tolentinos whose first class tickets were to expire on April 10, 1983,
changed their accomodations to economy on June 10, 1982, with the same
stipulation that it will expire on April 10. On May 7, 1983, Tolentino requested the
tickets be extended but Lufthansa refused since the tickets were already expired.
o In ruling against the award of damages, the Court held that the “ticket
constitute the contract between the parties. It is axiomatic that when
the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the
contracting parties, contracts are to be interpreted according to their
literal meaning.”
 Cervantes’ argument that the confirmation of PAL’s agents in Los Angeles and San
Francisco changed the compromise agreement between the parties is without
merit. PAL’s agents have no authority to change the compromise between PAL and
Cervantes. The agents were not privy to the compromise when they confirmed
06 Transpo Compiled Digests. Atty. Ampil. 3C 16
2015.
Cervantes’ ticket in LA and San Francisco. Under Art. 1889 of the Civil Code, the acts
of an agent beyond the scope of his authority does not bind his principal.
 Moreover, Cervantes knew that to get an extension of his ticket he had to file a
written request for extension at the Philippine PAL Office. He knew this because he
called up PAL’s legal department in the Philippine before leaving for the US.
 According to Tolentino, when the third person (Cervantes in this case) knows that
the agent was acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held
liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of such limits of
authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover damages from the agent,
unless the latter undertook to secure the principal’s ratification.
 Cervantes’ contention that since the defense of lack of authority of PAL’s employees
was not stated in PAL’s MTD and Answer, it should be deemed waived pursuant to
Rule 9, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court.
 This is without merit since the issue was litigated upon by the RTC when Nicholas
Cervantes was presented as a witness (where he admitted that he knew that to get
an extension he had to write to PAL’s Philippine office) and the depositions of the
PAL employees, Georgina M. Reyes and Ruth Villanueva, were presented. This is
pursuant to Rule 10, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court where it is stated that, “when issues
not raised by the pleadings are tried with express or implied consent of the parties,
as if they had been raised in the pleadings. “
 Cervantes also cannot be awarded damages because he failed to show that PAL
acted in bad faith in refusing to allow him to board its plane in San Francisco. In
awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must
be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted
fraudulently or with malice or bad faith.
 Here, Cervantes knew that there was a strong possibility that he can’t board the
retrn flight to Manila that he bought a back up ticket. PAL’s employees are guilty of
simple negligence, and Cervantes suffered no injury since he had a back up ticket. If
there be a finding of bad faith, the SC is of the opinion that it should be on
Cervantes.
Cervantes cannot also claim exemplary damages. Such kind of damages is imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good, and the existence of bad faith is
established. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of
damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless or malevolent manner. Here, there is no showing that PAL acted in such a
manner. An award for attorney’s fees is also improper.