Title
Marchan vs. Mendoza
Case
G.R. No. L-24471
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1968
A 1954 bus accident caused by driver negligence led to severe passenger injuries. The Supreme Court upheld liability, awarding damages for gross negligence under the implied contract of carriage.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24471)

Court of Appeals' Findings

The Court of Appeals found that the driver, Marchan, acted with gross negligence while operating the bus. The bus, identified as No. 141, was traveling at a high speed without regard for passenger safety, despite a passenger’s request for him to slow down. It ultimately veered to avoid a stationary truck, leading to the bus falling into a ditch and injuring all passengers, particularly Arsenio Mendoza, who suffered permanent paralysis.

Legal Basis of Liability

Petitioners challenged the Court of Appeals' decision, asserting that there was no implied contract of carriage, which would establish their liability for damages. However, the appellate court upheld that the existence of such a contract was evident, as respondents had paid their fares and were treated as passengers. Under Article 1759 of the Civil Code, common carriers are liable for the actions of their employees, irrespective of whether those employees exceeded their authority.

Compensatory and Exemplary Damages

The Court of Appeals awarded P40,000 as compensatory damages to Mendoza, citing his lifelong paralysis suffered as a result of the incident, which would impair his ability to work and earn a living. Considering his age and occupational history, the sum was deemed reasonable. Additionally, P30,000 was awarded as exemplary damages based on the egregious nature of the negligence exhibited by Marchan. The appellants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose exemplary damages, but the appellate court found that the request for unspecified damages in the complaint permitted the inclusion of such awards.

Legal Reasoning and Affirmation of the Ruling

The legal reasoning articulated by the Court reinforced the principle that exemplary damages serve not as a right but as a judicial discretion. The appellate court established that, given the circumstances presented, it was appropriate to impose punitive damages alongside compensatory ones to address the misconduct. This position was supported by established precedents, affirming that punitive damages could be awarded even in the absence of specific prayer in the complaint for them.

Conclusion on Damages and Attorney's Fees

The appellate court modified the total judgments regarding interest on damages; compensatory damages would accrue interest from the lower court's decision date, whi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.