Soberano vs Manila Railroad Co - Torts

[CASES]

Torts & Damages

Juana Soberano and Jose Soberano (appellants) vs. Manila Railroad Co. (MRR), The Benguet Auto Line (BAL), and Santiago Caccam (defendants). Facts:  In the moring of March 8, 1955 in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, Juana Soberano boarded the Baguiobound Bus No. 155 of the Benguet Auto Line (BAL), a subsidiary of Manila Railroad Company (MRR), driven by Santiago Caccam. She brought with her 3,024 chicken eggs to be sold in Baguio and some personal belongings.  Along Naguilian Road, 3 km from Baguio, the bus hit a stone embankment causing it to fall into a 65-foot deep precipice, resulting in the death of 2 passengers and serious physical injuries to Juana with the loss of all her belongings.  She sustained comminuted fracture in the left mandible near the articulation, cracked fracture in the right temporal bone, crushed fractures, both scapular, and fracture in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ribs. She was confined in the Baguio General Hospital until April 14, 1955 and was transferred to the National Orthopedic Hospital where she stayed until June 6, 1955. Her injuries left her permanently disfigured and partially disabled as she walks with a stiff neck and her arms have partly lost their full freedom.  Caccam was criminally charged in the CFI of Baguio. Juana Soberano did not intervene, filing a formal reservation to file a separate civil action for damages and indemnity against MRR and BAL.  Because of the loss of the eggs and her personal effects, Juana demanded from the defendant the value of P370.66, of which MRR paid P300. MRR also paid the daily expenses, allowances, subsistence, hospitalization, medical fees and medicines of Juana Soberano as well as the services fees of her caretaker.  MRR offered to settle the case extrajudicially, offering P5,000, but the spouses rejected the offer, filing a civil action against the defendant companies and Caccam with damages with total sum of P76,757.76.  CFI Baguio: Ordered defendant to pay the plaintiffs and her husband the sum of P5,070.60, and to pay the costs. The complaint with respect to Caccam was dismissed .  The spouses appealed, mainly contending whether the award for damages was adequate. Issue: Whether or not the following damages should be awarded: (1) expenses and attorney’s fees in connection with Juana Soberano attending as a witness in the criminal case - no; (2) moral damages to Jose Soberano- no; (3) moral damages to Juana Soberano -no; (4) attorney’s fees – no; and (5) compensatory damages with unearned profts- yes. Ruling: (1) The expenses and attorney’s fees for attending as a witness in the criminal case were properly taxable in the criminal case. Since appellants did not intervene therein, this claim must be considered as having been impliedly adjudicated in the criminal case and cannot be ventilated in the present action. (2) In case of physical injuries, moral damages are recoverable only by the party injured and not by his next of kin, unless there is express statutory provision to the contrary. 1

K.C. Ochoa| UST – Faculty of Civil Law

[CASES]

Torts & Damages

(3) In case of breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are recoverable only “where the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith”, and the terms fraud and bad faith have reference to wanton reckless, oppressive, malevolent conduct, or in the very least, to negligence so gross as to amount to malice. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants intentionally omitted the name of Juana as the offended parties in the information, having been included only upon intervention of the spouses; that the companies prevailed upon Caccam to plead guilty to a lesser offense to prevent introduction of evidence of gross negligence amounting to malice against defendants; that the BAL physician disowned having been the attending physician of Juana and together with the MRR physician suppressed the introduction of the X-ray plates taken of Juana as proof of the extent of her injuries; and that the defendants exerted undue influence upon another doctor not to testify as to the dental injuries. These incidents, even if true, cannot be considered as acts committed fraudulently or in bad faith. The allegation that the incident was due to the negligence and reckless imprudence of the driver does not per se justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the defendant companies. The absence of fraud, malice, or bad faith on the part of the carrier justifies denial of claim for moral and exemplary damages. (4) Attorney’s fees are not recoverable if claimants refuse settlement of the case.Defendants did not compel appellants to litigate or incur expenses in connection with the litigation. Defendants were not in bad faith because the appellants have asked for too much and the former was justified in resisting this action. (5) The claim for additional unpaid allowances of Juana while she was undergoing medical and dental treatment in Manila and QC has merit. The allowance was recommended for approval by respective BAL and MRR physicians and approved by an MRR administrative officer, where the companies agreed to pay the Soberanos the sum of P10/ day for her stay in a private house while undergoing treatment beginning June 7, 1955 not to exceed 60 days depending on the advice of the physician or other bone specialist. The deposition of the EENT specialist show that he treated her for more than 60 days. The balance of P600 should be paid to Soberano. With respect to loss of earning capacity, P5,000 is inadequate. The extent of Juana’s injuries were attested by 3 reputable physicians from Baguio General Hospital, National Orthopedic Hospital and an EENT specialist, respectively. Her injuries left her “abnormal and naturally she could not be expected to live a normal life.” The resultant physical handicaps would entail loss of positive economic values. Compensatory damages were increased to P15,000. The sum of P45.35 representing unrealized profits from the loss of the chicken eggs was also awarded.

2

K.C. Ochoa| UST – Faculty of Civil Law