R Transport Corp vs. E Pante 599 SCRA 747

R Transport Corp. vs. Eduardo Pante 599 SCRA 747 (2009) FACTS:  R Transport operates a bus line which transports passengers from Cubao, Quezon City to Gapan, Nueva Ecija.  27 January 1995: Pante rode a bus from Cubao (P48 fare). Along a highway in Bulacan, the bus hit a tree and a house due to the reckless driving of Johnny Mediquia.  Pante sustained a “laceration frontal area, with fracture of the right humerous1”. o His operation, confinement, and medications caused him P30K. He became unemployed as Goldilocks refused to re-employ him due to his condition. o He had to undergo a second operation after four years. He spent another P15k. o The only assistance petitioner gave was the amount of P7K to reimburse him for the stainless steel plate placed in his arm. Other than that, petitioner refused to assist Pante.  14 March 1995: Pante sued for damages.  Petitioner in its answer denied fault claiming that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees, and that the accident was force majeure.  The case went on for 7 years. The delays were due to the multiple postponements and unexplained absence of petitioner’s counsel. Its rights to cross-examine and present evidence were eventually forfeited as a consequence.  RTC ruled in favour of Pante. CA affirmed RTC’s decision. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is liable for damages despite Pante not presenting substantial evidence to support his claim. HELD: YES. Petitioner is liable for damages.

1 The bone that extends from shoulder to elbow.

 











Petitioner, as a common carrier, is expected to exercise extraordinary diligence, and has the duty to transport its passengers safely to their destination. ARTICLE 1756 OF THE CIVIL CODE: In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed at fault or negligent unless they are able to prove their exercise of extraordinary diligence. ARTICLE 1759: Common carriers are also liable for the negligence of their employees. o The liability of common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised extraordinary diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees. Petitioner cannot claim that it was denied due process which prevented it from presenting evidence in his defense. Due to the unexplained absences of his counsel, the hearings had to be constantly postponed, which resulted in a 7-year delay of the case. It was given the opportunity to present its evidence, but was considered to have waived its right. Petitioner also contends that the CA and TC erred in awarding damages in favour of Pante in the amount of P22,000 based on a statement issued by the Baliuag Hospital and not based on the receipt. The Court held that this was without merit since in another case, the Court awarded damages for hospitalization expenses based on the statement of account issued by the Makati Medical Center. The Court also affirmed the award of moral damages, citing Spouses Ong vs. CA where moral damages were given to passengers who suffered physical injuries. It is the usual practice to award moral damages for physical injuries sustained. Pante here suffered physical pain, mental anguish and anxiety as a result of the accident. P50,000 is proper. An award of exemplary damages is also proper, as the driver was manning the bus in a reckless, negligent, and imprudent manner. This will provide as an example or as a correction for the public good.

PETITION IS DENIED.