Case Digest (G.R. No. 203902)
Facts:
Spouses Dionisio Estrada and Jovita R. Estrada v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Eduardo R. Saylan, G.R. No. 203902, July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Dionisio and Jovita Estrada filed a Complaint for Damages on April 13, 2004 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, against Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (the carrier) and its driver Eduardo R. Saylan, arising from an April 9, 2002 collision between a Philippine Rabbit passenger bus and an oncoming Isuzu truck in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. As a result of the accident Dionisio’s right arm was amputated; petitioners sought P500,000 as moral damages, P60,000 as actual damages, and P25,000 as attorney’s fees. Philippine Rabbit denied liability (alleging fortuitous event and blaming the truck), and Eduardo defaulted for failing to answer.
The RTC (Branch 48, Urdaneta City) issued its Decision on December 1, 2009 finding Eduardo negligent for tailgating and unlawfully swerving into the oncoming lane, and holding Philippine Rabbit jointly and severally liable for failing to show it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in hiring and supervising its driver. The RTC awarded P500,000 moral damages, P57,766.25 actual damages, P25,000 attorney’s fees, and costs. Philippine Rabbit’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 31, 2010.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 95520, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision dated May 16, 2012 which modified the RTC judgment: it held Philippine Rabbit liable as carrier but deleted the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees (reasoning moral damages are not recoverable for breach of contract of carriage except in death or fraud/bad faith), sustained actual damages supported by receipts, and ruled the driver could not be held jointly and severally liable under the contract of carriage. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on October 1, 2012.
Petitioners brought a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45), arguing the CA erred in finding no fraud or bad faith b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith by Philippine Rabbit such that moral damages could not be awarded?
- Should the cost of replacing Dionisio’s amputated right arm with an artificial limb and/or loss of earning capacity be awarded as actual damages, or should temperate ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)