Case Summary (G.R. No. 157002)
Facts
On August 23, 1989, Sunga boarded a passenger jeepney owned/operated by Calalas. The jeepney was filled to capacity; Sunga sat on an "extension seat" (a wooden stool at the rear door). While the jeepney stopped to let a passenger alight and Sunga gave way, an Isuzu truck driven by Verena and owned by Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. Sunga suffered a fracture of the distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe skin necrosis, underwent treatment and casting, and was hospitalized from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her physician recommended three months in a cast and ambulation with crutches.
Procedural history
Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas for breach of the contract of carriage. Calalas filed a third-party complaint against Salva. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 36) absolved Calalas and held Salva liable (the RTC took cognizance of a related Civil Case No. 3490 wherein Branch 37 had found Salva and Verena liable to Calalas for damage to the jeepney). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Calalas liable under the contract of carriage and awarding P50,000 actual damages, P50,000 moral damages, P10,000 attorney’s fees, and P1,000 litigation expenses. Calalas petitioned by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues presented
- Whether the prior finding in Civil Case No. 3490 (liability of Salva and driver Verena for quasi-delict) bars Sunga’s action against Calalas by res judicata.
- Whether the collision was a caso fortuito exempting Calalas from liability.
- Whether Calalas, as a common carrier, exercised the extraordinary diligence required under the Civil Code.
- Whether the award of moral damages to Sunga was supported by law and evidence.
Res judicata and distinction between quasi-delict and breach of contract
The Court held that the prior ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 did not bind Sunga because she was not a party to that case; res judicata therefore does not apply. More importantly, the cases involved distinct causes of action: Civil Case No. 3490 concerned quasi-delict (tort liability for damage to the jeepney), while Sunga’s suit was founded on breach of the contract of carriage (contractual liability). The Court emphasized the legal distinction: quasi-delict requires proof of the tortfeasor’s negligence (culpa aquiliana), while breach of contract for carriers focuses on the carrier’s failure to perform contractual obligations (culpa contractual). Thus, the proximate-cause analysis applicable to quasi-delict is inapposite to an action against a common carrier under the contract of carriage.
Presumption of negligence and duty of extraordinary diligence
Under Art. 1756 of the Civil Code, in cases of death or injury to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or negligent unless they prove they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755. The Court applied this statutory presumption: once the accident occurred and resulted in passenger injury, the burden shifted to Calalas to prove he exercised the requisite extraordinary diligence. Art. 1755 requires carrying passengers safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide" with "utmost diligence of very cautious persons."
Court’s findings of breach of duty and statutory/traffic violations
The Court found that Calalas failed to overcome the presumption of negligence and, on the evidence, was actually negligent. Key factual findings supporting this conclusion included: (1) the jeepney was improperly parked, with its rear protruding about two meters into the highway and angled toward the middle of the road, thereby obstructing traffic in violation of Sec. 54 of R.A. No. 4136; and (2) the jeepney was overloaded beyond its registered seating capacity, with Sunga occupying an "extension seat," violating A32(a) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. Because the extension seat placed Sunga at greater peril than other passengers and because the parking exposed the vehicle to foreseeable danger, the Court held Calalas did not exercise extraordinary diligence.
Caso fortuito and assumption of risk arguments
Calalas argued the truck’s bumping of the jeepney was a caso fortuito and that Sunga assumed the risk by taking an extension seat. The Court rejected both arguments. It explained the elements of caso fortuito (independence from the debtor’s will; unforeseeability or inevitability; impossibility to perform; and non-participation by the debtor in causing the injury) and concluded that Calalas should have foreseen the danger from illegally parking the jeepney protruding into the highway. Likewise, the notion that Sunga impliedly assumed the risk by accepting an extension seat was deemed inapposite; the Court analogized the argument to denying compensation to victims of overloaded ferries, stressing public-policy concerns and the carrier’s duty to ensure safety.
Moral damages: legal basis and Court’
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157002)
Facts
- On the morning of August 23, 1989, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga, then a first-year college student majoring in Physical Education at Silliman University, boarded a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Vicente Calalas.
- The jeepney was filled to capacity of about 24 passengers; because of overcrowding, Sunga was given an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle.
- While the jeepney stopped to let a passenger alight on the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, Sunga rose to give way to the outgoing passenger.
- An Isuzu truck, driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva, bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney as the jeepney was stopped, causing injury to Sunga.
- Sunga sustained a fracture of the "distal third of the left tibia-fibula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin."
- Medical treatment comprised closed reduction of the fracture, long leg circular casting, and cast wedging performed under sedation.
- Sunga was confined in the hospital from August 23 to September 7, 1989.
- Her attending orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Danilo V. Oligario, certified that she would remain in a cast for three months and would have to ambulate on crutches during that period.
- On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Vicente Calalas alleging breach of the contract of carriage for failure to exercise the diligence required of a common carrier.
- Calalas filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, owner of the Isuzu truck.
Lower Court Proceedings and Related Case
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City, rendered judgment absolving Calalas of liability to Sunga and holding Salva (third-party defendant) liable for the accident.
- The lower court considered another action, Civil Case No. 3490, filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for damage to the jeepney.
- Sunga was not a party to Civil Case No. 3490.
Court of Appeals Ruling (Appellate Disposition)
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that Sunga's cause of action was based on a contract of carriage (not quasi-delict) and that the common carrier failed to exercise the required diligence under the Civil Code.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable to Sunga.
- The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision ordered Vicente Calalas to pay Sunga:
- P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
- P50,000.00 as moral damages;
- P10,000.00 as attorney's fees;
- P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and
- to pay the costs.
- (The petition for review on certiorari followed; the source records the Court of Appeals decision as dated March 31, 1991, and later references to decisions/resolutions dated March 31, 1995 and September 11, 1995 appear in the record.)
Petitioner's Contentions on Review
- Petitioner Vicente Calalas argued that the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 (finding Salva and his driver Verena liable for quasi-delict to Calalas) negated his liability to Sunga and that a contrary rule would make the common carrier an insurer of passenger safety.
- Petitioner asserted the bumping of the jeepney by Salva's truck was a caso fortuito.
- Petitioner challenged the award of moral damages on the ground that such award was not supported by evidence and was without legal basis.
Issues Presented
- Whether the principle of res judicata or the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490 bindingly precludes Sunga from recovering against Calalas.
- Whether the common carrier (Calalas) is liable to Sunga under the contract of carriage standard despite evidence that the truck driver was negligent.
- Whether the collision constituted a caso fortuito excusing the carrier from liability.
- Whether moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to Sunga are supported by law and fact.
Applicable Law and Distinctions of Legal Doctrine
- Contracts of carriage and common carriers:
- Art. 1733, Civil Code: Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in vigilance over goods and safety of passengers.
- Art. 1755, Civil Code: A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide," using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons.
- Art. 1756, Civil Code: In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or negligent unless they prove they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by Arts. 1733 and 1755.
- Quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual) differs from breach of contract (culpa contractual):
- Quasi-delict remedies are predicated on establishing negligence of the tortfeasor; the court imputes liability where there is no pre-existing contractual relation.
- Breach of contract claims focus on the contractual obligation and may be prosecuted by proving existence of the contract and failure to perform the duty to transport safely.
- The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable primarily in quasi-delict actions, not in actions for breach of contract arising from contracts of carriage.
- Caso fortuito (force majeure) under Civil Cod