Title
Supreme Court
Construction Development Corp. of the Philippines vs. Estrella
Case
G.R. No. 147791
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2006
Bus collision injures passengers; BLTB and CDCP found solidarily liable for negligence. Damages awarded, including moral and exemplary, with legal interest. CDCP’s insurance claim dismissed due to prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147791)

Factual Background and Injury Details

On December 29, 1978, respondents Estrella and Fletcher boarded a BLTB bus in San Pablo City bound for Pasay City. Their journey was cut short when CDCP’s tractor-truck rammed the BLTB bus from behind along the South Expressway. The collision severely injured both respondents, as evidenced by detailed medical certificates diagnosing fractures, lacerations, contusions, and partial amputation. Rescue involved extricating their legs pinned under seats. They were then hospitalized at Makati Medical Center.

Procedural History and Claims

Respondents filed a complaint for damages against CDCP, BLTB, and the respective drivers Payunan, Jr. and Datinguinoo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 13 (Civil Case No. R-82-2137). They alleged negligent driving, breach of duty in employee supervision by both companies, improper maintenance of the bus, and resultant actual and moral damages. Claims also sought exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. CDCP countered with an amended answer and a third-party complaint against its insurer Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc.

RTC Decision

The RTC ruled CDCP, BLTB, and their drivers jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding actual damages totaling ₱79,254.43, attorney’s fees of ₱10,000.00, and moral damages with specific amounts to the respondents. The Court emphasized BLTB’s extraordinary diligence obligation as a common carrier and imposed presumed negligence for failure to safely transport passengers. CDCP was found liable due to reckless driving by its employee and its failure to exercise due diligence in employee selection and supervision. Counterclaims and cross-claims were dismissed, and the third-party complaint against Phoenix was declared prescribed.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modifications:

  • Interest on actual damages set at 6% per annum, running from the filing of the complaint (February 4, 1980) until judgment.
  • Attorney’s fees increased to 30% of the total recovered, based on the parties’ retainer agreement.
  • Exemplary damages awarded to respondents (₱20,000 each) and increased moral damages to Rachel Fletcher (₱80,000).
  • Affirmed dismissal of Phoenix’s liability on the basis of prescription of the claim.

Issues on Review

The petition raised:

  1. Whether BLTB and/or its driver alone should be liable for damages.
  2. Whether the damages, attorney’s fees, and legal interest awarded were excessive or unfounded.
  3. Whether Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance should be held liable under its policy.

Liability of CDCP and BLTB under Quasi-Delict and Contractual Theories

The Court applied Article 2176 of the Civil Code, invoking liability arising from quasi-delict for CDCP under Article 2180, establishing that an employer is responsible for acts of employees with the exception if due diligence in hiring and supervision is proven. The reckless conduct of CDCP’s driver and the company’s failure to disprove negligence established their solidary liability together with BLTB under the doctrine that when negligence of multiple parties concurs to cause injury, they are jointly and severally liable. This is consistent with jurisprudence holding that a common carrier and a negligent third party are solidarily liable to injured passengers, regardless of the differing bases of liability (contractual for BLTB and quasi-delict for CDCP). The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the award was ambiguous or resulted in double recovery, clarifying that actual and moral damages are separate.

Damages and Attorney’s Fees Award

The Court reviewed and adjusted damages to align with established precedents:

  • Moral damages reduced to ₱50,000 each for both respondents, reaffirming the principle that moral damages compensate for physical injury and mental anguish without unjust enrichment.
  • Exemplary damages upheld at ₱20,000 each, as justified by gross negligence, reaffirming that exemplary damages serve as a deterrent.
  • Attorney’s fees set at 30% of the total amount awarded, supported by the parties’ agreement and the doctrine that attorney’s fees may be granted as actual damages when the defendant acted in bad faith or was grossly negligent.

Legal Interest

Pursuant to established rules on legal interest, the Court held that:

  • Interest at 6% per annum applies to damages awarded for non-monetary obligations and starts to accrue only when the damages are quantifiable with reasonable certainty.
  • Since damages were unliquidated at the time of filing the complaint, interest should run from the date of the RTC judgment (February 9, 1993) until finality.
  • Upon finality of the decision, legal interest increases to 12% per annum until full satisfaction.

Insurance Claim of CDCP agains

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.