Case Summary (G.R. No. 56487)
Joint Affidavit and Waiver Issue
On July 14, 1973, Mrs. Adela Delim, respondent’s wife, paid the injured passengers’ medical bills, provided transportation money, and procured their signatures on a pre-prepared Joint Affidavit. That document declared they would not pursue criminal or civil actions against the mini-bus owner or driver, citing respondent’s “help” in securing medical treatment.
Lower Courts’ Rulings
• Trial Court: Dismissed petitioner’s extra-contractual action, finding a valid waiver by the Joint Affidavit.
• Court of Appeals: Majority held no valid waiver but nonetheless affirmed dismissal for lack of proven negligence or damages.
Waiver Requirements and Analysis
A valid waiver must be “clear and unequivocal” and reflect an informed intention to relinquish a legal right. The Joint Affidavit’s language expressed only a “desire” not to file suit and was signed while petitioner was still injured and dizzy. Under jurisprudence, such circumstances and wording fail to satisfy the exacting standard for waivers, especially against a common carrier.
Duty of Common Carriers and Statutory Presumptions
Common carriers owe passengers extraordinary diligence—“utmost diligence of a very cautious person.” Article 1756 of the Civil Code presumes fault or negligence for passenger injuries unless the carrier proves exercise of such diligence. No express finding of negligence is required once the presumption stands unrebutted.
Force Majeure Defense Refuted
Respondent alleged force majeure but presented no proof. To invoke force majeure, a carrier must show an unforeseeable, irresistible event wholly beyond its control and devoid of participation in the harm. The absence of any evidentiary showing defeated this defense.
Evidence of Negligence
Testimony revealed a recurring “snapping sound” in the bus engine, ignored by the driver who dismissed passenger alarms. Failure to investigate or repair a known mechanical defect constituted gross negligence and a wanton disregard for passenger safety.
Claim for Lost Income
Petitioner alleged loss of substitute teaching opportunities. The Court of Appeals found that her casual, episodic employment had already ceased by the accident date, making any claim speculative. That factual determination stands.
Compensation for Plastic Surgery
A permanent forehead scar violated petitioner’s bodily integrity. Expert testimony estimated corrective surgery costs between ₱5,000 and ₱15,000. Considering delay and increased complexity, ₱15,000 was deemed reasonable to r
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 56487)
Facts of the Case
- On July 11, 1973 at noon, petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian boarded respondent’s “Thames” mini-bus (Plate No. 52-222 PUJ Phil. 73) in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union, bound for Bauang.
- While traversing Barrio Payocpoc Norte on National Highway No. 3, a sudden “snapping sound” was heard; the bus then struck a cement flower pot, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch.
- Several passengers, including petitioner, suffered injuries and were brought to Bethany Hospital, San Fernando, La Union.
- Medical findings for petitioner: lacerated wound on forehead; abrasions on left elbow, left knee and lateral surface of left leg.
Joint Affidavit and Waiver Attempt
- On July 14, 1973, Mrs. Adela Delim (respondent’s wife) visited the hospitalized victims, paid their medical and hospitalization expenses, and gave petitioner ₱12.00 for transportation home.
- Before departing, Mrs. Delim presented a pre-prepared Joint Affidavit stating:
- The accident was due to mechanical defect.
- Petitioners were no longer interested in filing any criminal or civil complaint against the bus driver or owner due to the assistance rendered.
- Petitioner signed while still injured, feeling dizzy and observing other passengers sign.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed an extra-contractual action for:
• ₱10,000 for loss of employment and opportunities
• ₱10,000 for plastic surgery for scar removal
• ₱30,000 moral damages
• ₱1,000 attorney’s fees - Respondent invoked force majeure and the Joint Affidavit waiver.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint, accepting waiver as valid.
- Court of Appeals ruled waiver was invalid but still dismissed petitioner’s damages claims for lack of basis.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Joint