Facts:
Petitioner
Reynalda Gatchalian boarded respondent
Arsenio Delim’s "Thames" mini-bus as a paying passenger at noon on 11 July 1973 in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union, bound for Bauang, La Union. While the bus traveled along the national highway in Barrio Payocpoc, Bauang, a “snapping sound” was heard, the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch, injuring several passengers including petitioner, who sustained a lacerated wound on the forehead and multiple abrasions on the left elbow, knee and lateral surface of the left leg; the injured were taken to Bethany Hospital in San Fernando, La Union. On 14 July 1973 Mrs. Adela Delim, wife of private respondent, visited and paid the hospitalized passengers’ medical expenses and gave petitioner P12.00 for transportation, but before leaving had the injured passengers sign a prepared
Joint Affidavit stating, among other things, that they were “no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil” against the driver and owner because they had been helped; notwithstanding that document, petitioner filed an action extra contractu in the then Court of First Instance of La Union seeking compensatory and moral damages for a conspicuous scar on her forehead and alleged loss of employment opportunities. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioner had waived her cause of action by signing the Joint Affidavit; the Court of Appeals, by a split decision, held there was no valid waiver but nevertheless affirmed dismissal of the case; petitioner then filed the present petition for review seeking actual and moral damages.
Issues:
Was the
Joint Affidavit signed by petitioner a valid and enforceable
waiver of her civil cause of action? Did respondent, as a
common carrier, prove that he exercised the
extraordinary diligence required by law or otherwise establish
force majeure to exculpate himself from liability for petitioner’s injuries? If no valid waiver or exculpatory defense exists, what damages, if any, should petitioner be awarded?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: