Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24670)
Key Dates
Accident: Morning of October 8, 1959.
Trial and appellate proceedings culminated in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan’s judgment.
Applicable Constitution and Law
Constitution in force at the time of decision: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1966, pre-1987).
Principal statutory provisions invoked by the courts: Article 1764 and Article 2206 of the Civil Code (as applied by the courts to common-carrier liability for death of a passenger). Precedents relied upon by the Supreme Court decision include Necessito v. Paras; Mercado v. Lira; and Villa-Rey Transit v. Bello, as cited by the lower courts.
Procedural Posture and Relief Awarded Below
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment holding petitioners liable. The trial court had ordered the defendant-carrier to pay plaintiffs: P2,132.50 as actual damages; P14,400.00 as compensatory damages; P10,000.00 to each plaintiff as moral damages; and P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court by certiorari, assigning two principal errors: (1) incorrect refusal to treat the tire blowout as caso fortuito (fortuitous event) absolving the carrier of liability; and (2) improper award of moral damages.
Issues Presented
- Whether a sudden tire blowout constitutes a caso fortuito excusing the common carrier from liability for the resulting collision and death.
- Whether moral damages are recoverable by plaintiffs for death of a passenger caused by breach of contract by a common carrier.
Findings of Fact by the Courts
- The immediate cause of the collision was loss of control by the bus driver when the left front tire exploded.
- The inner tube of the left front tire was found pressed between the inner circle of the left wheel and the rim, which had slipped out of the wheel—a mechanical defect in the conveyance.
- The tire involved was not new; the bus was running "quite fast" immediately before the accident.
- These factual findings were made by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Analysis: Caso Fortuito and Carrier Liability
The Supreme Court distinguished earlier Court of Appeals decisions relied upon by petitioner (e.g., Rodriguez v. Red Line Transportation Co.; People v. Palapad) on the ground that those cases did not establish causative factors for the tire failure and confined themselves to whether a mere blowout, without proof of causation, would impose liability. In the present case the causative factor was established: a mechanical defect whereby the rim slipped and the inner tube was pinched. The defect was of a type reasonably discoverable through proper inspection. Coupled with the bus’s speed and the worn condition of the tire (described as "not so very worn out" but not new), the Court concluded the blowout was not an unforeseeable, unavoidable fortuitous event that would absolve the carrier. The Court treated the rim/inner-tube defect as an equipment fault and emphasized that a more thorough or rigid pre-trip inspection would likely have revealed the defect, thus imputing a degree of negligence to the carrier.
Analysis: Moral Damages and Common-Carrier Obligations
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ award of moral damages. It held that, under existing jurisprudence, moral damages are recoverable where the death of a passenger results from a breach of the carrier’s contractual duties. The Court expressly applied Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code as the legal basis for such recovery and cited prior cases where these articles were similarly applied
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24670)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 123 Phil. 875; G.R. No. L-21486; decided May 14, 1966.
- Appeal by certiorari filed by petitioners La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. (commonly known as La Mallorca-Pambusco) from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 2100, entitled "Valentin de Jesus and Manolo Tolentino vs. La Mallorca-Pambusco."
- Trial court judgment, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the petitioner to pay plaintiffs:
- P2,132.50 for actual damages;
- P14,400.00 as compensatory damages;
- P10,000.00 to each plaintiff by way of moral damages;
- P3,000.00 as counsel fees.
- The Supreme Court, per Justice Makalintal, rendered the decision affirming the lower courts' judgment, with costs against petitioner.
- Concurring justices listed: Bengzon, C.J.; Bautista Angelo; Concepcion; Reyes, J.B.L.; Barrera; Dizon; Regala; Bengzon, J.P.; Zaldivar; and Sanchez, JJ.
Parties and Their Positions
- Petitioners: La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. (La Mallorca-Pambusco), owner/operator of the bus involved in the accident.
- Respondents/Plaintiffs: Valentin de Jesus and Manolo Tolentino, parents/relatives of the deceased passenger (identities and relationships specified in facts).
- Petitioners' principal contentions on appeal:
- Error 1: The appellate court erred in sustaining the trial court’s holding that petitioners were liable for the accident which was allegedly caused by a blow-out of one of the tires and in failing to treat the blow-out as caso fortuito (fortuitous event).
- Error 2: The appellate court erred in holding petitioners liable for moral damages.
Facts of the Incident
- Date and place: Morning of October 8, 1959, in a barrio in Marilao, Bulacan.
- Victim: Lolita de Jesus, twenty (20) years old, daughter of Valentin de Jesus and wife of Manolo Tolentino, was a passenger on petitioner's bus and died as a result of the accident.
- Nature of accident: A head-on collision occurred between petitioner's bus and a freight truck traveling in the opposite direction.
- Immediate mechanical cause: The bus driver lost control of the wheel when the left front tire suddenly exploded (blow-out).
- Relevant mechanical detail found by courts: The inner tube of the left front tire "was pressed between the inner circle of the left wheel and the rim which had slipped out of the wheel."
- Condition and operation: Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found as a fact that the bus was running "quite fast" immediately before the accident. The tire was not new; petitioner described it as "hindi masyadong kalbo" (not so very worn out).
Issues Presented
- Whether the blow-out of the tire constituted caso fortuito such that the bus company (a common carrier) should be exonerated from liability.
- Whether moral damages are recoverable by reason of the death of a passenger resulting from the breach of contract of a common carrier.
Procedural and Persuasive Authorities Cited by Petitioners
- Petitioners cited rulings of the Court of Appeals:
- Rodriguez vs. Red Line Trans