G.R. No. 206468 - Darines vs. Quinones

Petitioners Judith D. Darines and Joyce D. Darines (mother and daughter) boarded the Amianan Bus Line on December 31, 2005, as paying passengers traveling from Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to Baguio City.
Respondent Rolando M. Quitan was the driver of the bus at the time of the incident. Respondent Eduardo QuiAones was the bus operator.
While traveling on Kennon Road in Camp 3, Tuba, Benguet, the bus collided with a truck parked on the shoulder of the road.

Both vehicles were damaged; two bus passengers died; several passengers, including petitioners, were injured.
Joyce suffered a cerebral concussion; Judith sustained an eye wound requiring surgery.
Judith claimed inability to work for two months due to injuries.

Petitioners alleged breach of contract of carriage due to respondents’ failure to safely transport them and contended that reckless and negligent driving caused the accident.
They sought actual, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages, plus costs of suit.
Respondents asserted that Quitan was driving carefully at 40 kph and that negligence of truck driver Ronald C. Fernandez was the proximate cause.
Respondents claimed due diligence in employee supervision, with Quitan attending road safety seminars and holding a professional driver’s license.
Respondents admitted payment of petitioners’ medical and hospitalization expenses.

Judith testified Quitan was driving too fast and caused the crash, resulting in her eye injury.
Receipts for medicines and expenses for a customary ritual (dao-is) were presented to prove actual damages.
Judith explained that as Igorots (Ibaloi, Kankanay-ey tribe), the dao-is ritual was a customary practice to ward off bad luck after an accident.
For moral damages, Judith testified about sleepless nights and worry about her operation’s outcome.
Respondents submitted receipts indicating payment for petitioners’ hospitalization and medicines through Ernesto Benitez.

On July 14, 2010, the RTC held respondents liable for breach of contract of carriage.
Respondents were ordered to pay moral damages (₱100,000), exemplary damages (₱30,000), attorney’s fees (15% of damages), appearance fees (₱16,500), and costs of suit.
Actual damages for hospitalization and medical expenses were not awarded since respondents already paid them.
Actual damages for ritual expenses and Judith’s lost income were denied for lack of evidence.
Moral damages were awarded based on pain and suffering; exemplary damages given as correction and warning to common carriers.

On October 29, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC judgment.
CA deleted moral damages because petitioners failed to prove fraud or bad faith on respondents’ part. Payment of medical expenses evidenced no bad faith.
Exemplary damages were deleted due to absence of moral damages.
Attorney’s fees were deleted since they are contingent on moral and exemplary damages being awarded.
Motion for reconsideration was denied on March 6, 2013.

Whether petitioners are entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees under Articles 20, 1157, 1759, 2176, 2180, and 2219 of the Civil Code for breach of contract of carriage.

Whether the RTC’s award of damages and attorney’s fees became final and executory since respondents allegedly only questioned the amounts, not the grants, in their appeal.