Cariaga vs LTB Co

Cariaga vs LTB Co J. Dizon Facts  Moncada was driving a bus of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (LTB) and Cariaga was one of the passengers. The bus is bound for Lilio, Laguna (coming from Manila).  As the bus reached the poblacion of Bay, Laguna, where the national highway crossed a railroad track, it (bus) bumped against the engine of a train then passing by. The impact was so strong that it caused the first six wheels of the train to be derailed, while the engine and front part of the body of the bus were wrecked.  Moncada (bus driver) died while Cariaga suffered major injuries. o Cariaga was unconscious during the first 35 days after the accident. o A portion of his brain was removed. According to the doctors, due to this operation, Cariaga’s mentality has been so reduced (by 50%) that can no longer finish his studies as a medical student o Also, Cariaga ended up in a helpless ocndition, virtually an invalid, both physically and mentally.  LTB paid Cariaga’s hospital, medical and miscellaneous expenses. Also, LTB gave him Php 10.00 daily allowance from January until April 1953.  Complaint was filed agains LTB and MRR Co. for recovery of damages.  LTB’s argument o The accident was due to the negligence of MRR for not providing a crossing bar at the point where the national highway crossed the railway track o That the driver of the train violated the law  In sounding the whistle only when the collision was about to take place instead of at a distance of at least 300 meters from the crossing  And in not ringing the locomotive bell at all  MRR’s argument o It was the reckless negligence of the bus driver that caused the accident  RTC held that it was the negligence of the bus driver that caused the accident. It ordered LTB to pay Cariaga compensatory damages.  Hence, this appeal where the Carriagas claim that the RTC should have also awarded them moral and actual damages. ISSUE + RATIO  WON the bus driver was negligent - Yes o Evidence shows that the train whistle had been sounded several times before it reached the crossing and the bus driver simply ignored the warnings.



Instead of slowing down, Moncada (bus driver) tried to make the bus pass the crossing before the train by not stopping a few meters from the railway track and in proceeding ahead.  In fact, there was a bus which arrived at the crossing ahead of the one driven by Moncada. Said bus stopped before the crossing, hence nothing happened to it. o WON the amound awarded by the RTC as compensatory damages shall be increased – Yes  Liability of common carriers  In contracts, the obligor in good faith (common carrier) is liable only for the natural and probable consequences of the breach and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.  If in bad faith, fraud, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor in breach is liable for all damages reasonably attributed to the breach.  In both instances, provided that the damages have been proven  In the case at bar, LTB is liable not only for the actual damages suffered for medical and hospital expenses but also for the income which the passenger would have earned had he finished medical school. These are likewise considered as actual damages because they could have been reasonably foreseen by the parties at the time the passenger boarded the bus.  No moral damages could be awarded (passenger did not die), because it was not shown that the breach of contract, for which the action is based, was not tainted with fraud or bad faith.  The claim made by spouses Cariaga for actual and compensatory damages cannot be awarded due to the fact that the present action is based upon a breach of contract of carriage to which said spouses were not a party, and neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasidelict of LTB because they were not the ones injured in the accident. DISPOSITION: RTC afformed with modification.