Case Summary (G.R. No. 209969)
Petitioner
Jose Sanico – owner and operator of the jeepney;
Vicente Castro – driver and mere employee of Sanico.
Respondent
Werherlina P. Colipano – paying passenger and injured party.
Key Dates
• Incident: December 25, 1993
• Complaint filed: January 7, 1997
• RTC Decision: October 27, 2006
• CA Decision: September 30, 2013
• Supreme Court Decision: September 27, 2017
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (public policy on common carriers)
• Civil Code Articles 1733–1736, 1755–1759 (common‐carrier extraordinary diligence; presumption of negligence; liability for employees)
• Civil Code Article 1170 (liability for negligence)
• Civil Code Article 1174 (fortuitous event defense)
• Civil Code Article 1409 (requisites for valid waiver)
• Civil Code Article 2210 (discretionary award of interest)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (Review on Certiorari).
Antecedents
Colipano boarded Sanico’s jeepney driven by Castro. Lacking proper seating, she sat on an empty beer case at the rear exit with her child on her lap. The jeepney lost power on an uphill stretch, slid back, and struck a coconut tree. In her attempt to hold on, her left foot slipped and was crushed, leading to amputation. She sought actual and compensatory damages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Sanico and Castro admitted the accident but attributed fault to Colipano and relied on an Affidavit of Desistance and Release after paying her medical bills.
Issues
- Whether both petitioners breached the contract of carriage.
- Whether the Affidavit of Desistance and Release binds Colipano.
- Whether the awarded damages are correct in amount.
Liability Under the Contract of Carriage
• Only Sanico is liable. A contract of carriage exists solely between the passenger and the owner/operator. Castro, as a mere employee, is not a party and must be dismissed.
• Sanico, as a common carrier, was bound to exercise extraordinary diligence (Civ. Code Art. 1733). The presumption of negligence under Art. 1756 arose upon injury; Sanico failed to rebut it.
• Permitting improvised seating on a beer case at the rear exit placed Colipano in greater peril (Calalas v. CA). Engine failure indicated inadequate maintenance. Article 1759 makes the carrier liable for employee negligence regardless of selection or supervision efforts.
Validity of the Affidavit of Desistance and Release
• Waiver requirements (Civ. Code Art. 1409) demand a clear, informed, and voluntary act. Colipano could not understand English; the document was not explained to her.
• Such a waiver is contrary to public policy protecting passenger safety and the standard of extraordinary diligence (Gatchalian v. Delim). Therefore, the release is void.
Damages
• Actual damages of ₱2,098.80 (medical and hospital expenses) are affirmed.
• Compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity are recalculated using the formula:
Net
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209969)
Antecedent Facts
- On December 25, 1993 at around 4:00 P.M., respondent Werherlina P. Colipano and her sleeping daughter boarded a jeepney owned by petitioner Jose Sanico and driven by petitioner Vicente Castro.
- Colipano was seated on an empty beer case at the edge of the rear exit, with her daughter on her lap.
- While ascending an uphill incline on the road to Natimao-an, Carmen, Cebu, the jeepney lost power and slid backwards.
- To avoid being thrown out, Colipano pressed her feet against the step board; the board was wet, her left foot slipped and was crushed between the board and a coconut tree.
- The injury resulted in Colipano’s left leg being badly damaged and eventually amputated.
Procedural History
- January 7, 1997: Colipano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages before the RTC of Danao City (Branch 25).
- Defendants admitted the loss of power and injury but attributed fault to Colipano and presented an Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim.
- October 27, 2006: RTC rendered judgment finding both Sanico and Castro liable, awarding actual damages (₱2,098.80) and compensatory damages for loss of income (₱360,000.00).
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA–G.R. CEB-CV No. 01889).
- September 30, 2013: CA affirmed with modification, reducing compensatory damages to ₱200,000.00.
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Did Sanico and Castro breach the contract of carriage with Colipano?
- Is the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim binding on Colipano?
- Was the amount of damages awarded proper and correctly computed?
Breach of Contract of Carriage and Party Liability
- Only the owner-operator (Sanico) is a party to the contract of carriage; the driver (Castro) is a mere employee and not suab