B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gatchalian vs Delim
Recit-ready summary
Petitioner Gatchalian was a passenger on respondent's "Thames" mini-bus.
While the bus was running along the highway, "a snapping sound" was
suddenly heard at one part of the bus and, shortly thereafter, the vehicle
bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road,
turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers, including petitioner
Gatchalian, were injured. They were promptly taken to the hospital. While
injured passengers were confined in the hospital, Mrs. Adela Delim, wife of
respondent, visited them and later paid for their hospitalization and medical
expenses. She also gave petitioner P12.00 with which to pay her
transportation expense in going home from the hospital.
However, Mrs. Delim had made the injured passengers sign an already
prepared Joint Affidavit which stated, among other things: That we are no
longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver
and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said
driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us
to be treated upon our injuries.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid waiver? NO.
RULING:
Petitioner did not made a valid waiver of her cause of action.
A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in
clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a
person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. A waiver
may not casually be attributed to a person when the terms thereof do not
explicitly and clearly evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such
person.
Applying the standard in Yepes and Susaya, the terms of the Joint Affidavit
in the instant case cannot be regarded as a waiver cast in "clear and
unequivocal" terms.
G.R. NO: 56487
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Waiver
VOL [October 21,1991]
Gatchalian vs Delim
Moreover, petitioner testified that she was still reeling from the effects of
the vehicular accident, having been in the hospital for only three days, when
the purported waiver in the form of the Joint Affidavit was presented to her
for signing;
And while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but seeing the other
passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed
without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its entirety.
Considering these circumstances, there appears substantial doubt whether
petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit she signed and
whether she actually intended thereby to waive any right of action against
private respondent.
For a waiver to be valid and effective, it must not be contrary to law, morals,
public policy or good customs. To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to
claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like those
exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of
extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence
to render that standard unenforceable. We believe such a purported waiver is
offensive to public policy.
FACTS:
Petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian was a passenger on respondent's "Thames"
mini-bus at a point in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union, bound for Bauang,
of the same province.
While the bus was running along the highway, "a snapping sound" was
suddenly heard at one part of the bus and, shortly thereafter, the vehicle
bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road,
turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers, including petitioner
Gatchalian, were injured.
They were promptly taken to Bethany Hospital at San Fernando, La Union,
for medical treatment. Upon medical examination, petitioner was found to
have sustained physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead, specifically
PONENTE: Feliciano, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Eon
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gatchalian vs Delim
described as follows: lacerated wound, forehead; abrasion, elbow, left;
abrasion, knee, left; abrasion, lateral surface, leg, left.
While injured passengers were confined in the hospital, Mrs. Adela Delim,
wife of respondent, visited them and later paid for their hospitalization and
medical expenses. She also gave petitioner P12.00 with which to pay her
transportation expense in going home from the hospital. However, before
Mrs. Delim left, she had the injured passengers, including petitioner, sign
an already prepared Joint Affidavit which stated, among other things: That
we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the
said driver and owner of the said Thames, because it was an accident and
the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of
helping us to be treated upon our injuries.
Trial Court: dismissed the complaint on the ground that when petitioner
signed the Joint Affidavit, she relinquished any right of action
CA: reversed the TC’s decision that there was a vali waiver but denied the
petitioner’s claim for damages.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid waiver? NO.
RULING: Petitioner did not made a valid waiver of her cause of action.
A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in
clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a
person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. A waiver
may not casually be attributed to a person when the terms thereof do not
explicitly and clearly evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such
person.
Yepes and Susaya v. Samar Express Transit: All that said document proves
is that they expressed a 'desire' to make the waiver — which obviously is
not the same as making an actual waiver of their right. A waiver of the kind
invoked by appellant must be clear and unequivocal which is not the case of
the one relied upon in this appeal.
G.R. NO: 56487
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Waiver
VOL [October 21,1991]
Gatchalian vs Delim
If we apply the standard used in Yepes and Susaya, we would have to
conclude that the terms of the Joint Affidavit in the instant case cannot be
regarded as a waiver cast in "clear and unequivocal" terms.
Moreover, the circumstances under which the Joint Affidavit was signed by
petitioner Gatchalian need to be considered.
- Petitioner testified that she was still reeling from the effects of the
vehicular accident, having been in the hospital for only three days,
when the purported waiver in the form of the Joint Affidavit was
presented to her for signing;
- While reading the same, she experienced dizziness but seeing the
other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document,
she too signed without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its
entirety.
Considering these circumstances, there appears substantial doubt whether
petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit (prepared by or
at the instance of private respondent) she signed and whether she actually
intended thereby to waive any right of action against private respondent.
For a waiver to be valid and effective, it must not be contrary to law,
morals, public policy or good customs. To uphold a supposed waiver of any
right to claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like
those exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of
extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence
to render that standard unenforceable. We believe such a purported waiver
is offensive to public policy.
OTHER RULINGS: Liability of a common carrier
The obvious continued failure of respondent to look after the
roadworthiness and safety of the bus, coupled with the driver's refusal or
neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the "snapping
sound" and the cry of alarm from one of the passengers, constituted wanton
disregard of the physical safety of the passengers, and hence gross
negligence on the part of respondent and his driver.
PONENTE: Feliciano, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Eon
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gatchalian vs Delim
To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to
passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show
not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of
the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation
by the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the
defense of force majeure.
Claim for damages
Petitioner maintains that on the day that the mini-bus went off the road, she
was supposed to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a
substitute teacher's job, a job which she had held off and on as a "casual
employee.
But the CA found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer
employed in a public school since. She could not be said to have in fact lost
any employment after and by reason of the accident.
Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the
condition that she was before the mishap. A person is entitled to the
physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or
diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory
damages are due and assessable. A scar, especially one on the face of the
woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of
bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her
conditio ante. If the scar is relatively small and does not grievously
disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may be expected to be
correspondingly modest.
Disposition
Decision of the CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby
ORDERED to pay petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian actual or compensatory
damages to cover the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on
petitioner's forehead; moral damages; and attorney's fees/
Notes
G.R. NO: 56487
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Waiver
VOL [October 21,1991]
Gatchalian vs Delim
In the cases of Gatchailan and Sanico, what is the difference between these cases,
if any? Both involve common carriers, both involve injured passengers, and both
involved waivers. In Gatchailan, when was the waiver executed? After the accident
Under what circumstances? Gatchailan was dizzy and felt pressured because everyone
else was sigining the waiver.
And in Sanico, when was the affidavit of desistance executed? After the accident.
In both cases, the waivers were valid or void? Void.
Why was the waiver void in the case of Gatchailan? What reasons were given by
the Court?First, the waiver was not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms, which leaves
no doubt as to the intention of the person waiving their right or benefit.
The court distinguished this case from the previous case of Yepes. What is the
significance of the Yepes case?In the Yepes case, the person injured stated in his waiver
“I hereby manifest our desire to waive any and all claims”.
Was that clear and unequivocal enough? No because the desire to waive is not the
same as saying “I waive any and all claims”.
So, the first reason why the waiver was not valid in Gatchailan was because the
waiver was not in clear and unequivocal language. Any other reason?Yes, that the
waiver must not be against morals and public policy.
How is the waiver contrary morals and public policy? Because based on the
circumstances, the individual who caused the injury is a common carrier. Also, based on the
circumstance that she was dizzy and was pressure to sigh the waiver. It would be
considered against public policy because it would in fact diminish the duty required by the
common carrier.
Turning to Sanico, what are the elements of a valid waiver? The elements of a valid
waiver are:
(1) The person possesses the right;
(2) The person has the capacity to dispose the right;
(3) That the waiver must be clear and unequivocal although it may be made expressly or
impliedly; and
(4) That the waive is not contrary law, morals, good customs, and public policy.
What 2 elements were missing in this case? The 3rd and 4th elements were absent.
Why was the 3rd element absent? Because the plaintiff could not understand English,
and it was not explained to her. In clear terms, it was not fully explained to her.
How about the 4th element? It was contrary to public policy. It cited Gatchalian, which
talked about the public policy that is inherent in a common carrier. It has something to do
with the safety of the passenger and social welfare of the community.
PONENTE: Feliciano, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Eon
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL [October 21,1991]

Gatchalian vs Delim Gatchalian vs Delim

So, that means that all waivers of the liabilities of common carriers are void? They
are not all void.

So, why were they invalidated in the cases of Gatchalian and Sanico?
The Court must take into consideration the circumstances of signing the waiver. In
Gatchalian and Sanico, both passengers did not have capacity to dispose such right.
(Gatchalian – dizzy and pressured to sign; Sanico – did not understand English)

Can you ever have a waiver of a common carrier's liability that is not contrary to
law, morals, good custom, or public policy? When can a waiver on the liability of a
common carrier be valid?
Yes, you can. If all the elements of a valid waiver are present, then it will be considered a
valid waiver of a common carrier’s liability.

Atty. Jess Lopez: Let’s say if you’re assisted by a lawyer and the common carrier pays you
a hefty sum, then I don’t see why that waiver won’t be valid.

T/F. Waivers of liabilities of common carriers resulting from injuries to passengers

are void.
False. The case provided that it would be void if it had the same circumstances. In neither
case did the SC say that these waivers are always void. In both cases, the SC said they were
void because of the circumstances.

Again, what were the circumstances in Gatchalian?

Waiver was not in clear and unequivocal terms and that the petitioner was dizzy when she
was signing the waiver.

How about it Sanico? What were the circumstances in Sanico?

The injured party did not understand English which was the language in which the waiver
was written in.

So, you can have a waiver of the liability of a common carrier even one involving
the liability arising from injury to passengers?
Yes, provided that the requirements for a valid waiver are present.

Going back a bit to fortuitous events. The 1st element requires that the cause of
the unforeseen or unavoidable event that causes injury must be independent of
human will. What was taught to you in Oblicon? Must it be independent of human
will or only independent of the obligor's will? Only independent of the obligor’s will.

So, terrorism is not a fortuitous event because it is an act of man? No. It is a

fortuitous event.

Kahit act of man siya? Yes because it was still independent of the obligor’s will.

Atty. Jess Lopez: So, a fortuitous event may include both acts of God and acts of man
provided that when dealing with acts of man, they are independent, at the very least, of the
obligor's will.

G.R. NO: 56487 PONENTE: Feliciano, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Waiver DIGEST MAKER: Eon