Tamayo vs. Aquino et al & Rayos G.R. Nos.
G.R. Nos. L-12634 and L-12720 manager when it went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the
May 29, 1959
Facts:
Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo,
holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate. Allegedly, while
Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert
on the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for
damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that the truck is
owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3rd party complaint against him (Rayos).
The CFI ruled that Tamayo is the registered owner, under a public
convenience certificate but such truck was sold to Rayos one month after
the accident, but he (Tamayo) did not inform the Public Service
Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo and Rayos jointly and severally
liable to Aquino. CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner
(Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be
considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance
with Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary).
Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how
should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate
with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable.
Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable.
The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure
of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The
liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the
passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the
registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty
of tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY.
As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to the
public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct. If
the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered
owner should not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has
become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the
responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who operated the
vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the
accident and death he should in turn be made responsible to the
registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In
operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by
the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of
the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered
owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence.
AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO (GRN L-21438/September 28, 1966)
SANCHEZ, J.:
FACTS:
Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that
left Manila forLourdes on March 30, 1958. Air France issued a “first class”
round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok,
passenger Carrascoso traveled in first class but at Bangkok, the Manager
of Air France forced him to vacate the first class seat because a white
man had a better right to it. The purser wrote in his record book “First
class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and
the captain refused to intervene” which was written in French. Petitioner
contends that damages must be averred that there was fraud and bad
faith in order that claim for damages should set in.
ISSUE:
Whether or not passenger Carrascoso was entitled to damages.
RULING:
Although true that there was no mention of bad faith in the
complaint, the inference of bad faith can be drawn from the facts and
circumstances therein.The petitioner violated its contract of
transportation with the aggravating circumstance committed by its
presence of many passengers.
Northwest Airlines V. Cuenca
G.R. L-22425 August 31, 1965
FACTS
•
When his contract of carriage was violated by the petitioner, respondent
held theoffice of Commissioner of Public Highways of the Republic of the
Philippines.Having boarded petitioner's plane in Manila with a first class
ticket to Tokyo, he was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to the
tourist class compartment. Although he revealed that he was traveling in
his official capacity as official delegateof the Republic to a conference in
Tokyo, an agent of petitioner rudely compelledhim in the presence of
other passengers to move, over his objection, to the touristclass, under
threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order to reach
theconference on time, respondent had no choice but to obey.
•
This is an action for damages for alleged breach of contract. After
appropriateproceedings the Court of First Instance of Manila, in which
the case was originally filed, rendered judgment sentencing defendant
Northwest Airlines, Inc. — hereinafter referred to as petitioner — to pay
to plaintiff Cuenca — hereinafterreferred to as respondent — the sum of
P20,000 as moral damages, together withthe sum of P5,000 as exemplary
damages, with legal interest thereon from the dateof the filing of
complaint," December 12, 1959, "until fully paid, plus the furthersum of
P2,000 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation." On appeal taken
by petitioner, said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except
as to theP5,000.00 exemplary damages, which was eliminated, and the
P20,000.00 award formoral damages, which was converted into nominal
damages.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS Whether or not the court erred in awarding
nominal damage?
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINo.
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages." In the
case at bar, theCourt of Appeals has adjudicated no such compensatory,
moral and exemplary damagesto respondent herein. There are special
reasons why the P20,000.00 award in favor of respondent herein is
justified, even if said award were characterized as nominal damages.It is
true that said ticket was marked "W/L," but respondent's attention was
not calledthereto. Much less was he advised that "W/L" meant "wait
listed." Upon the other hand,having paid the first class fare in full and
having been given first class accommodation ashe took petitioner's plane
in Manila, respondent was entitled to believe that this was aconfirmation
of his first class reservation and that he would keep the same until
hisultimate destination, Tokyo. Then, too, petitioner has not tried to
explain or even allegedthat the person to whom respondent's first class
seat was given had a better right thereto.In other words, since the
offense had been committed with full knowledge of the factthat
respondent was an official representative of the Republic of the
Philippines, the sumof P20,000 awarded as damages may well be
considered as merely nominal. At any rate,considering that petitioner's
agent had acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressivemanner, said award
may also be considered as one for exemplary damages. WHEREFORE, the
decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
thepetitioner. It is so ordered
3D 2009-2010 DIGESTS – TORTS & DAMAGES
Page 465 of 528
417. Armovit v Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990
FACTS
•
Dr. Armovit, a Filipino physician and his family residing in the United
States cameto the Philippines on a Christmas visit. They were bumped off
at the ManilaInternational Airport on their return flight to the United
States because of anerroneous entry in their plane ticket relating to their
time of departure.
•
In October 1981, they decided to spend their Christmas holidays with
relatives andfriends in the Philippines so they purchased from Northwest
three roundtrip Airlinetickets from the United States to Manila and back,
plus three tickets for the rest of the children, though not involved in the 3. By the same token to provide an example for the public good, an
suit. award of exemplary damages is also proper, the award of the appellate
• court is adequate.
o
Each ticket of the petitioners which was in the handwriting of
Northwest’s ticketssales agent contains the following entry on the Manila 4
to Tokyo portion of thereturn flight 'Manila to Tokyo, NW flight 002 dated . The deletion of nominal damages by the appellate court is well-
17 January, time 10:30 a.m.Status OK." takensince there is an award of actual damages. Nominal damages
• cannot co-exist with actual and compensatory damages
Trans World Airlines (TWA) vs. CA
On their return trip from Manila to the U.S. scheduled on January Facts:
17,1982, Armovitarrived at the check in counter of Northwest at the Vinluan, a practicing lawyer in Manila had to travel to several cities in
Manila International Airport at9:15 in the morning, a good one (1) hour Europe and US. While in
and Fifteen (15) minutes ahead of the10:30 a.m. scheduled flight time Paris, he went to the office of TWA to confirm his reservation for first
recited in their ticket. They were rudely informedthat they cannot be class accommodation. It
accommodated inasmuch as flight 002 scheduled at 9:15 was confirmed twice. During the time of the flight, he was told that there
a.m. was already taking off and the 10:30 a.m. flight entered in their plan was no 1st class seat
e ticket waserroneous. available. Hence, he was downgraded to economy. He protested but he
• was arrogantly treated by
a TWA employee. And while waiting for his flight, he saw white
Previous to the said date of departure the petitioners re-confirmed their Caucasians who arrived much
reservationsthrough their representatives who personally presented the later than him, in first class seats.
three (3) tickets at theNorthwest office. The departure time in the three Issue: WON Vinluan is entitled to damages.
(3) tickets of the petitioners wasnot changed when re-confirmed. The Held:
names of petitioners appeared in thepassenger manifest and confirmed. Yes.
• 1 The discrimination is obvious and the humiliation to which private
respondent was subjected is
Petitioner Dr. Armovit protested that because of the bumped-off he will undeniable. Consequently, the award of moral and exemplary damages
not be ableto keep his appointment with his patients in the United by the respondent court is
States. Petitioners sufferedanguish, wounded feelings, and serious in order.
anxiety day and night of January 17th untilthe morning of January 18th 2 Inattention and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are
when they were finally informed that seats will beavailable for them on entitled to its utmost
the flight of that day. The trial court rendered judgmentagainst the airline consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith
as follows: P1,300.00 actual damages; P500,000.00 moral which entitles the
damages;P500,000.00 exemplary damages; and passenger to the award of moral damages. More so in this case where
P100,000.00 nominal damages in favor of Dr. Armovit; instead of courteously
also moral damages of P300,000.00; exemplary damages of P300,000.00; informing private respondent of his being downgraded under the
nominal damages of P50,000.00 each in favor of Mrs. Armovit andMiss circumstances, he was angrily
Jacqueline Arrnovit. rebuffed by an employee of petitioner.
•
Zulueta vs. Pan Am
The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s judgment as follows: TheP Facts:
900,000.00 moral damages and Mr. Zulueta and his wife and child boarded a flight of Pan Am from Wake
P100,000.00 nominal damages awarded to petitioners were eliminated Island to the Phil. Mr.
; exemplary damages were reduced from P500,000.00to P50,000.00 in Zulueta, however, had to relieve himself and thus looked for a secluded
favor of Mrs. Armovit and from P300,000.00 to P20,000.00 infavor of place in the beach. As a
Miss Jacqueline Armovit. result, he was delayed in boarding for some 20 or 30 minutes. While Mr.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTSW/N the Armovits are entitled to Nominal Zulueta was reaching
Damages the ramp, the captain of the plane demonstrated an intemperate and
arrogant tone thereby
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINO. NOMINAL DAMAGES CANNOT CO- impelling Mr. Zulueta to answer back. Thus, Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded.
EXIST WITH ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. The airport manager of
• then sent Mr. Zulueta a letter stating that his stay in Wake Island would
be for a minimum of one
The Supreme Court further modified the Court of Appeals judgment as fo week during which he would be charged $13.30 per day.
llows: Actual damages in favor of Dr. Armovit, P1,300.00 with legal Issue: WON Pan Am should be held liable.
interest from January 17, 1982; moral damages at P100,000.00, and Held:
exemplary damages at P100,000.00 infavor of Dr. Armovit; Moral Yes. Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded to retaliate and punish him for the
damages at P100,000.00 and exemplary damages atP50,000.00 in favor embarrassment and loss of
of Mrs. Armovit; Moral damages at P100,000.00 and exemplary damages face thus suffered by defendant’s agent.
of P20,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Jacqueline Armovit; and attorneys fees The Zuluetas had a contract of carriage with the defendant, as a common
at5% of the total awards under above paragraphs, plus costs of suit, and carrier, pursuant to
o which the latter was bound, for a substantial monetary consideration
paid by the former, not
1. The gross negligence committed by Northwest in the issuance of the merely to transport them to Manila, but, also, to do so with
tickets with entries as to the time of the flight; the failure to correct such “extraordinary diligence” or “utmost
erroneousentries and the manner by which petitioners were rudely diligence.” The responsibility of the common carrier, under said contract,
informed that as regards the
they were bumped off` are clear indicia of such malice and bad faith and passenger’s safety, is of such a nature, affecting as it does public interest,
establishthat respondent has committed a breach of contract which that it “cannot
entitle petitioners tomoral damages. be dispensed with” or even “lessenedby stipulation, by the posting of
o notices, by statements on
tickets, or otherwise.”
2. Considering the circumstances of this case whereby Northwest In the present case, the defendant did not only fail to comply with its
attended tothe flight of the petitioners, taking care of their obligation to transport Mr. Zulueta to Manila, but, also, acted in a
accommodation while waiting and boarding them in the flight back to the manner calculated to humiliate him, to chastise him, to
United States the following dag;. theCourt finds that petitioners are make him suffer, to cause to him the greatest possible inconvenience.
entitled to moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. ———————————————————
o With regard to DAMAGES
It is obvious, however, that in off-loading plaintiff at Wake Island, under
the circumstances,
defendant’s agents had acted with malice aforethought and evident bad
faith. If “gross
negligence” warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more
reason is its imposition
justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with
bad faith.
The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name
implies, to provide an
example or correction for public good. Defendant having breached its
contracts in bad faith, the
court, as stated earlier, may award exemplary damages in addition to
moral damages
ORTIGAS V. LUFTHANSA
Francisco Ortigas, and defendant Luthansa German Airlines, from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila Branch Y, “condemning
the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000 as moral damages,
P30,000 as exemplary or corrective damages, with interest of both sums
at the legal rate from the commencement of this suit until fully paid,
P20,000 as attorney’s fees and the costs” for the former failure to
“comply with its obligation to give first accommodation to (the latter) a
(Filipino) passenger holding a first class ticket,” aggravated by the giving
of the space instead to a Belgian and the improper conduct of its agents
in dealing with him during the occasion of such discriminatory violence of
its contract of carriage.
Issue: Whether Lufthansa is liable for damages?
Held: The court said that when it comes to contracts of common carriage,
inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the
failure of the passenger to be accommodated in class contracted for
amounts to bad faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the award
of moral damages in accordance with the 2220 of the Civil Code. But in
the instant case, the breach appears to the graver nature, since the
preference given to the Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done
willfully and in wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights and his dignity as a
human being and as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated against
with impunity, as found by the court below what worsened the situation
of Ortigas was that Lufthansa succeeded in keeping him as its passenger
by assuring him that he would be given first class accommodation at
Cairo, the next station, the proper arrangements therefore having been
made already, when in truth such was not the case.
Transportation Law Case DigestsPetitioner is booked on a first
class accommodation in defendants airline from Rome to
Manila. T h e b o o k i n g w a s c o n f i r m e d b y i t s a i r l i n e s o f f
ice. The airline employee upong seeing his Filipino
nationality disallowed his boarding and the seat was given
to a Belgian. Petitioner has a heart ailment and is advised by
physician to take only frst class accommodations. He was promised to be
transferredto first class on all succeeding layovers from Cairo
to Hongkong to no avail. Damages was filed. Trialcourt awarded Moral
and Exemplary damages.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is liable for damages.
Held:
Yes. Inattenton and lack of care on the carrier rsul ting in the
failure of the passenger to beaccommodated in a class
availed of and contracted amounts to bad faith and fraud.
Furthermore, the p r e f e r e n c e t o a B e l g i a n p a s s e n g e r i s
also a wanton disregard of his right from
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h e successive false representations
of transferring him to first class is an act of malice and
bad faith. Thisentitles petitioner to moral damages in
accordance to Articlec 2220. Moral damages is increased
toPhp15,000 and Exemplary damages to Php100,000.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Esguerra117 SCRA 741Facts:
99
Transportation Law Case DigestsRespondent herein boarded a bus
of the plaintiff herein which was bound for Pampanga
fromManila. He sat a few seats behind the driver on the left side of the
bus near the window. While on routeto Pampanga, the bus sideswiped
with a freight truck owned and operated by Transport Contractors,
thelatter coming from the opposite side of the highway. The window
glass near the driver's seat of the buswas detached and the left
side of its body was damaged. During the course of the
accident, the left f o r e a r m o f E s g u e r r a w a s h i t b y a
hard blunt object. It caused the breaking of its
b o n e s i n t o s m a l l fragments whi le the soft tissues of the
muscles and the skin were mascerated. He was
immediately brought to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital in Malolos,
Bulacan for treatment. Unfortunately, because of the severe damage
caused, his left arm was amputated.Defendant herein filed a case to
recover damages. The lower court rendered a decision in favor o f
Esguerra, finding that both vehicles were reckless
i n d r i v i n g . O n a p p e a l , t h e c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e decision
of the lower court and awarded actual and moral damages to the
respondent herein. Hence thispetition.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is entitled to receive moral damages.
Held:
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding
moral damages to the respondentherein. As a general rule
moral damages are not reco verable in actions for damages
predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation, as in the
instant case, in view of the provisions of Articles 2219and 2220 of the
New Civil Code. The exceptions are (1) where the mishap
results in the death of a passenger, and (2) where it is proved that
the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death doesnot
result. In the case at bar, the Court finds that both vehicles
were in their respective lanes and bothwere equally
negligent. The Court does not find that there was malice or
bad faith on the part of the driver of the petitioner herein.
Therefore the award of moral damages is deleted and the rest affirmed
Sweet Lines v. Court of Appeals121 SCRA 769Facts:
100
Transportation Law Case DigestsThe respondents, having first
class tickets, boarded the M/V Sweet Grace to Catbalogan.
Thevessel had some engine problems which led to a change
of schedule and they were thus delayed for asubstantial
amount of time. Furthermore, the vessel bought the
respondents to Ta cloban instead of Catbalogan. This led the
respondents to purchase another set of tickets and to ride
another ferryboatgoing to Catbalogan. The respondents then
sued the petitioner carrier for damages for the breach
of contract of carriage.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages.
Held:
The Court held that the petitioner is liable for damages specifically moral
damages because therewas bad faith on its part. The Court
found that such bad faith is present based on three
circumstances namely:1 . P e t i t i o n e r d i d
n o t g i v e a n y n o t i c e t o
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a s t o t h e c h a n g e
o f s c h e d u l e o f the
vessel.2 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r k n e w f u l l y t h a t
i t w o u l d t a k e n o l e s s t h a n f i f t e e n
( 1 5 ) h o u r s t o e f f e c t t h e repairs of the
damaged engine. The petitioner also assured that the vessel
will leave within ashort period of time and when the
defendants wanted to leave the trip petitioner stated that
the“the vessel is already
leaving.”3 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r d i d n
o t e v e n o f f e r t o r e f u n d t
h e t i c k e t s a n d p r o v i d e f o
r t h e i r transportation from Tacloban to Catbalogan.
Prudencio v. Alliance Transport System148 SCRA 440Facts:
101
Transportation Law Case DigestsDra. Sofia L. Prudenciado was
driving her own car along Taft Avenue to go to the
PhilippineNormal College Compound where she would hold classes. As
she was moving slowly in a normal rate,her car was then hit by the taxi
operated by the respondent. The accident caused the petitioner
physicalinjuries and a brain concussion. She then filed for an action for
damages against respondent. The lower court, finding the
respondent’s driver to be negligent, granted the damages
and the Court of Appeals reduced the damages. The petitioner then
appealed from the decision of the appellate court.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was
correct.
Held:
The Court held that the reduction of the moral damages by
the appellate court to the petitioner was unreasonable and
drastic. The reason was that the trial court found the
respondent to be gro sslynegligent in injuring the petitioner. The
award of moral damages was proper. The appeal by the petitioner is
proper because, as a doctor, she has reasonable fears that such accident
due to the carelessness of the respondent’s driver can greatly affect her
profession.Exemplary damages are also awarded to the petitioner to
provide for an example or correction topublic good. The reason is that
the respondent’s driver was driving at a high speed on a rainy day and
ona slippery road with complete disregard with the safety of other
people.
PAN-AM V. IAC
Private respondent Tinitigan, filed a complaint agai
nst petitioner for damages arising fromdefendant's
alleged refusal to accommodate her on Pan Am Fli
g h t N o . 4 3 1 f r o m S t o . D o m i n g o , Republica Dominica to
San Juan, Puerto Rico notwithstanding that she possessed a
confirmed planeticket. She is a businesswoman and a multimillionaire
(proprietor of Sampaguita Restaurant, New YorkCity USA; Treasurer of
the Molave Development Corp., Phil., proprietor of Cavite Household
Appliancesand Rowena's Handicraft, Phil.), was on a business
trip with a Pan-Am ticket. While in Sto. Domingo,Tinitigan is
expected to be in San Juan that same day to meet a client to sign a
contract or lose it. Shewas expected to make a profit of $1,000 in said
contract but her failure to board the flight, said profit waslost. The refusal
of accommodation caused her to suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirchedreputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation She
prayed that she be awarded moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary
damages of P200,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00 and actual
damagess u s t a i n e d b y h e r i n t h e a m o u n t o f U S $ 1 , 5 4 6 . 1 5 .
D e f e n d a n t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s a c o n f i r m e d passenger
since the ticket issued to her was on an open space basis, which meant
that she could onlybe accommodated if any of the confirmed passengers
failed to show up at the airport before departure.The lower court
rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded the
amount of damages as prayedfor. Said decision was affirmed
hence the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
Held:
Yes, but subject to modifications. Other instances which caused moral
damage to the plaintiff arethe following:1. While plaintiff was
standing in line to board the aircraft, a Pan Am employee
ordered her in a loud voice to step out of line because her ticket was
not confirmed to her embarrassment in the presence of several
people who heard and order. Despite her Pleas she was not
allowed to board the aircraft. And her seat was also given to a
Caucasian.2. When the plane took off without her but with
her lugga ge on board. She was forced to return to her hotel
without any luggage much less an extra dress.Evidence shows petitioner
as confirmed passenger. 1.) Defendant issued a Passenger Ticket
andBaggage Check with assigned seat and the corresponding pass and
baggage claim symbol. 2.) Plaintiff paid the fare and terminal fee.
3.) plaintiff's passport was stamped by immigration. 4.)
Plaintiff's namewas included in the passenger manifest. There is a
contract or carriage perfected between plaintiff anddefendant for the
latter to take plaintiff to her place of destination. By refusing to
accommodate plaintiff insaid flight, defendant had willfully and
knowingly violated the contract of carriage and failed to bring
theplaintiff to her place of destination under its cont ract
with plaintiff. There is showing of bad faith. Self -enrichment
or fraternal interest and not personal ill will may have been the motive of
defendant, but it ismalice nevertheless. Malice is shown by the fact that
that plaintiff was ordered out of the line under somepretext in order to
accommodate a white man.Exemplary damages and Attorney’s
fees are also awarded. The rational behind exemplary
or corrective damages is, to provide an example
or correction for public good. SC reduced the moral
andexemplary damages to the combined total sum of Two Hundred
Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos and theattorney's fees to Twenty
Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos. The award of actual damages in the
amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Six American
dollars and fifteen cent s (US$1,546.15) computed at the
exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment is hereby retained and
granted.
Armovit v. Court of Appeals184 SCRA 476
Facts: The petitioners in this case all resided in the United States and went
home to the Philippines for aChristmas visit. On their return trip
to the United States, they were bumped off at the airport
due to anerroneous entry in their plane tickets relating to the
departure time. The petitioners checked in the airportan hour and
fifteen minutes earlier than what was indicated in their
airline tickets. Upon their check in,the employees of the
respondent airlines impolitely informed them that the plane was already
taking off and that their check in time was way earlier and
entirely different from what was stated in their tickets. The
petitioners then sued the respondent airlines for damages.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for damages.
Held:
The Court held that the respondent is liable for damages. Actual damages
were awarded to thepetitioner due to bumped off that occurred. Moral
damages were also awarded because the Court foundthat the
respondent was gross negligent in the issuance of the tickets as to the
correct time of departure.In addition, the act of the respondent in rudely
informing the petitioner of such bumped off is an indicationt h a t t h e r e
was bad faith and malice on the part of the
r e s p o n d e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e l a t i v e o f t h e petitioner
stated how badly wounded the feelings of the petitioners were.
Exemplary damages were alsoawarded as to provide for an example to
the public good. Lastly, nominal damages were properly deletedsince
such damages cannot co-exist with actual damages.
Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab
FACTS: Atty. Cachero, plaintiff herein, boarded a taxicab owned by the
Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. The said taxicab bumped against a
Meralco post. The taxicab was badly smashed and the plaintiff fell out of
the vehicle to the ground. As a result of the accident, he suffered slight
physical injuries. The driver of the taxi was prosecuted and convicted
criminally. Respondent herein offered to settle the case and the plaintiff
demanded the amount of P79,245.65 as for damages. Respondent
refused to pay the said amount. Plaintiff then proceeded to file a case to
recover the same amount through the courts. The CFI rendered a
decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that respondent pay the
amount of P700 for medical and transportation allowances, attorney’s
fees and professional fees. Both parties appealed and the decision was
affirmed. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cachero is entitled to recover damages other than
those already awarded.
HELD: The Court modified the decision of the lower court. The award of
professional fees were reduced to P2,000 and the award of moral
damages of P2,000. Plaintiff in this case did not maintain his action
against all persons liable for the breach of the contract of common
carriage. Since he did not include the driver in this complaint he may not
recover moral damages. Respondent herein did not commit any criminal
offense against the plaintiff, it was the driver who was the reason behind
the injury. This case does not fall under Article 2219 of the NCC therefore
he is not entitled to be awarded moral damages.
Fores v. Miranda
FACTS: Ireneo Miranda, a professor of Fine Arts, was a passenger of a
passenger jeepney registered to Fores but actuall operated by
Sackerman. The vehicle was descending the Sta. Mesa bridge at an
excessive rate of speed, and the driver lost control of the same which
caused it to swerve and to hit the bridge wall. As a result of the accident,
Five of the passengers were injured, including the respondent herein. He
suffered a fracture of the upper right humerus. He was taken to the
National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment, and later was subjected to a
series of operations. At the time of the trial, it appears that respondent
had not yet recovered the use of his right arm. The driver was charged
with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and upon
interposing a plea of guilty was sentenced accordingly. The lower court
awarded actual damages to the respondent. On appeal, the Court
reduced the amount of actual damages and added the award of moral
damages and attorney’s fees. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the award of moral damages and attorney’s fee
was proper.

HELD: The Court held that the award of moral damages is not proper in
this case. As a general rule, moral damages are not awarded to the victim
in cases of breach of contract of common carriage. The exception is that
if such accident resulted in the death of the passenger, in which case
Article 1764 of the NCC, makes the carrier subject to Article 2206 of the
NCC. In case death did not result from the accident, moral damages may
be recovered if the common carrier is found guilty of gross negligence
amounting to bad faith or malice. In the case at bar there was no bad
faith on the part of the common carrier. Therefore, respondent is not
entitled to moral damages. As to the issue of attorney’s fee, the court
may moto proprio award moral damages as the case may be. Attorney’s
fees may be awarded by the court if it is deemed to be just and equitable.
Therefore, the Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals as far
as moral damages are concerned.

Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Cornista

FACTS: Appeal of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., from a judgment of Court
of First Instance of Batangas wherein appellee Herminio L. Nocum was
plaintiff, sentencing Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. to pay Nocum the sum of
P1,351.00 for actual damages and P500.00 as attorney's fees with legal
interest from the filing of the complaint plus costs. Nocum, who was a
passenger in Lagunna Tayabas Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the
barrio of Dita, Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence
of the explosion of firecrackers, contained in a box, loaded in said bus
and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous
items by a co-passenger. The findings of fact of the trial court are not
assailed. The appeal is purely on legal questions.