TRANSPO CASE DIGEST.docx

Tamayo vs. Aquino et al & Rayos May 29, 1959

G.R. Nos. L-12634 and L-12720

Facts: Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned by Tamayo, holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate. Allegedly, while Epifania was making a trip aboard the truck, it bumped against a culvert on the side of the road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that the truck is rd owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3 party complaint against him (Rayos). The CFI ruled that Tamayo is the registered owner, under a public convenience certificate but such truck was sold to Rayos one month after the accident, but he (Tamayo) did not inform the Public Service Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo and Rayos jointly and severally liable to Aquino. CA affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner (Tamayo) and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary). Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and, if NOT, how should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public convenience) participate with Rayos (transferee/operator) in the damages recoverable. Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable. The action instituted in this case is one for breach of contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty of tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is NOT SOLIDARY. As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the accident and death he should in turn be made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence.

AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO (GRN L-21438/September 28, 1966) SANCHEZ, J.: FACTS: Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila forLourdes on March 30, 1958. Air France issued a “first class” round trip ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, passenger Carrascoso traveled in first class but at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the first class seat because a white man had a better right to it. The purser wrote in his record book “First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and the captain refused to intervene” which was written in French. Petitioner contends that damages must be averred that there was fraud and bad faith in order that claim for damages should set in. ISSUE: Whether or not passenger Carrascoso was entitled to damages. RULING: Although true that there was no mention of bad faith in the complaint, the inference of bad faith can be drawn from the facts and circumstances therein.The petitioner violated its contract of transportation with the aggravating circumstance committed by its

manager when it went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the presence of many passengers. Northwest Airlines V. Cuenca G.R. L-22425 August 31, 1965 FACTS • When his contract of carriage was violated by the petitioner, respondent held theoffice of Commissioner of Public Highways of the Republic of the Philippines.Having boarded petitioner's plane in Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo, he was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to the tourist class compartment. Although he revealed that he was traveling in his official capacity as official delegateof the Republic to a conference in Tokyo, an agent of petitioner rudely compelledhim in the presence of other passengers to move, over his objection, to the touristclass, under threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order to reach theconference on time, respondent had no choice but to obey. • This is an action for damages for alleged breach of contract. After appropriateproceedings the Court of First Instance of Manila, in which the case was originally filed, rendered judgment sentencing defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc. — hereinafter referred to as petitioner — to pay to plaintiff Cuenca — hereinafterreferred to as respondent — the sum of P20,000 as moral damages, together withthe sum of P5,000 as exemplary damages, with legal interest thereon from the dateof the filing of complaint," December 12, 1959, "until fully paid, plus the furthersum of P2,000 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation." On appeal taken by petitioner, said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except as to theP5,000.00 exemplary damages, which was eliminated, and the P20,000.00 award formoral damages, which was converted into nominal damages. ISSUES & ARGUMENTS Whether or not the court erred in awarding nominal damage? HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINo. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages." In the case at bar, theCourt of Appeals has adjudicated no such compensatory, moral and exemplary damagesto respondent herein. There are special reasons why the P20,000.00 award in favor of respondent herein is justified, even if said award were characterized as nominal damages.It is true that said ticket was marked "W/L," but respondent's attention was not calledthereto. Much less was he advised that "W/L" meant "wait listed." Upon the other hand,having paid the first class fare in full and having been given first class accommodation ashe took petitioner's plane in Manila, respondent was entitled to believe that this was aconfirmation of his first class reservation and that he would keep the same until hisultimate destination, Tokyo. Then, too, petitioner has not tried to explain or even allegedthat the person to whom respondent's first class seat was given had a better right thereto.In other words, since the offense had been committed with full knowledge of the factthat respondent was an official representative of the Republic of the Philippines, the sumof P20,000 awarded as damages may well be considered as merely nominal. At any rate,considering that petitioner's agent had acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressivemanner, said award may also be considered as one for exemplary damages. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against thepetitioner. It is so ordered

3D 2009-2010 DIGESTS – TORTS & DAMAGES Page 465 of 528 417. Armovit v Court of Appeals G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 FACTS • Dr. Armovit, a Filipino physician and his family residing in the United States cameto the Philippines on a Christmas visit. They were bumped off at the ManilaInternational Airport on their return flight to the United States because of anerroneous entry in their plane ticket relating to their time of departure. • In October 1981, they decided to spend their Christmas holidays with relatives andfriends in the Philippines so they purchased from Northwest three roundtrip Airlinetickets from the United States to Manila and back,

plus three tickets for the rest of the children, though not involved in the suit. • Each ticket of the petitioners which was in the handwriting of Northwest’s ticketssales agent contains the following entry on the Manila to Tokyo portion of thereturn flight 'Manila to Tokyo, NW flight 002 dated 17 January, time 10:30 a.m.Status OK." • On their return trip from Manila to the U.S. scheduled on January 17,1982, Armovitarrived at the check in counter of Northwest at the Manila International Airport at9:15 in the morning, a good one (1) hour and Fifteen (15) minutes ahead of the10:30 a.m. scheduled flight time recited in their ticket. They were rudely informedthat they cannot be accommodated inasmuch as flight 002 scheduled at 9:15 a.m. was already taking off and the 10:30 a.m. flight entered in their plan e ticket waserroneous. • Previous to the said date of departure the petitioners re-confirmed their reservationsthrough their representatives who personally presented the three (3) tickets at theNorthwest office. The departure time in the three (3) tickets of the petitioners wasnot changed when re-confirmed. The names of petitioners appeared in thepassenger manifest and confirmed. • Petitioner Dr. Armovit protested that because of the bumped-off he will not be ableto keep his appointment with his patients in the United States. Petitioners sufferedanguish, wounded feelings, and serious anxiety day and night of January 17th untilthe morning of January 18th when they were finally informed that seats will beavailable for them on the flight of that day. The trial court rendered judgmentagainst the airline as follows: P1,300.00 actual damages; P500,000.00 moral damages;P500,000.00 exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 nominal damages in favor of Dr. Armovit; also moral damages of P300,000.00; exemplary damages of P300,000.00; nominal damages of P50,000.00 each in favor of Mrs. Armovit andMiss Jacqueline Arrnovit. • The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s judgment as follows: TheP 900,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00 nominal damages awarded to petitioners were eliminated ; exemplary damages were reduced from P500,000.00to P50,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Armovit and from P300,000.00 to P20,000.00 infavor of Miss Jacqueline Armovit. ISSUES & ARGUMENTSW/N the Armovits are entitled to Nominal Damages HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINO. NOMINAL DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. • The Supreme Court further modified the Court of Appeals judgment as fo llows: Actual damages in favor of Dr. Armovit, P1,300.00 with legal interest from January 17, 1982; moral damages at P100,000.00, and exemplary damages at P100,000.00 infavor of Dr. Armovit; Moral damages at P100,000.00 and exemplary damages atP50,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Armovit; Moral damages at P100,000.00 and exemplary damages of P20,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Jacqueline Armovit; and attorneys fees at5% of the total awards under above paragraphs, plus costs of suit, and o 1. The gross negligence committed by Northwest in the issuance of the tickets with entries as to the time of the flight; the failure to correct such erroneousentries and the manner by which petitioners were rudely informed that they were bumped off` are clear indicia of such malice and bad faith and establishthat respondent has committed a breach of contract which entitle petitioners tomoral damages. o 2. Considering the circumstances of this case whereby Northwest attended tothe flight of the petitioners, taking care of their accommodation while waiting and boarding them in the flight back to the United States the following dag;. theCourt finds that petitioners are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. o

3. By the same token to provide an example for the public good, an award of exemplary damages is also proper, the award of the appellate court is adequate. o 4 . The deletion of nominal damages by the appellate court is welltakensince there is an award of actual damages. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual and compensatory damages Trans World Airlines (TWA) vs. CA Facts: Vinluan, a practicing lawyer in Manila had to travel to several cities in Europe and US. While in Paris, he went to the office of TWA to confirm his reservation for first class accommodation. It was confirmed twice. During the time of the flight, he was told that there was no 1st class seat available. Hence, he was downgraded to economy. He protested but he was arrogantly treated by a TWA employee. And while waiting for his flight, he saw white Caucasians who arrived much later than him, in first class seats. Issue: WON Vinluan is entitled to damages. Held: Yes. 1 The discrimination is obvious and the humiliation to which private respondent was subjected is undeniable. Consequently, the award of moral and exemplary damages by the respondent court is in order. 2 Inattention and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages. More so in this case where instead of courteously informing private respondent of his being downgraded under the circumstances, he was angrily rebuffed by an employee of petitioner. Zulueta vs. Pan Am Facts: Mr. Zulueta and his wife and child boarded a flight of Pan Am from Wake Island to the Phil. Mr. Zulueta, however, had to relieve himself and thus looked for a secluded place in the beach. As a result, he was delayed in boarding for some 20 or 30 minutes. While Mr. Zulueta was reaching the ramp, the captain of the plane demonstrated an intemperate and arrogant tone thereby impelling Mr. Zulueta to answer back. Thus, Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded. The airport manager of then sent Mr. Zulueta a letter stating that his stay in Wake Island would be for a minimum of one week during which he would be charged $13.30 per day. Issue: WON Pan Am should be held liable. Held: Yes. Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded to retaliate and punish him for the embarrassment and loss of face thus suffered by defendant’s agent. The Zuluetas had a contract of carriage with the defendant, as a common carrier, pursuant to which the latter was bound, for a substantial monetary consideration paid by the former, not merely to transport them to Manila, but, also, to do so with “extraordinary diligence” or “utmost diligence.” The responsibility of the common carrier, under said contract, as regards the passenger’s safety, is of such a nature, affecting as it does public interest, that it “cannot be dispensed with” or even “lessenedby stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.” In the present case, the defendant did not only fail to comply with its obligation to transport Mr. Zulueta to Manila, but, also, acted in a manner calculated to humiliate him, to chastise him, to make him suffer, to cause to him the greatest possible inconvenience. ——————————————————— With regard to DAMAGES It is obvious, however, that in off-loading plaintiff at Wake Island, under the circumstances,

defendant’s agents had acted with malice aforethought and evident bad faith. If “gross negligence” warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with bad faith. The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name implies, to provide an example or correction for public good. Defendant having breached its contracts in bad faith, the court, as stated earlier, may award exemplary damages in addition to moral damages ORTIGAS V. LUFTHANSA Francisco Ortigas, and defendant Luthansa German Airlines, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila Branch Y, “condemning the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary or corrective damages, with interest of both sums at the legal rate from the commencement of this suit until fully paid, P20,000 as attorney’s fees and the costs” for the former failure to “comply with its obligation to give first accommodation to (the latter) a (Filipino) passenger holding a first class ticket,” aggravated by the giving of the space instead to a Belgian and the improper conduct of its agents in dealing with him during the occasion of such discriminatory violence of its contract of carriage.

Issue: Whether Lufthansa is liable for damages?

Held: The court said that when it comes to contracts of common carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in class contracted for

Transportation Law Case DigestsRespondent herein boarded a bus of the plaintiff herein which was bound for Pampanga fromManila. He sat a few seats behind the driver on the left side of the bus near the window. While on routeto Pampanga, the bus sideswiped with a freight truck owned and operated by Transport Contractors, thelatter coming from the opposite side of the highway. The window glass near the driver's seat of the buswas detached and the left side of its body was damaged. During the course of the accident, the left f o r e a r m o f E s g u e r r a w a s h i t b y a hard blunt object. It caused the breaking of its b o n e s i n t o s m a l l fragments whi le the soft tissues of the muscles and the skin were mascerated. He was immediately brought to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital in Malolos, Bulacan for treatment. Unfortunately, because of the severe damage caused, his left arm was amputated.Defendant herein filed a case to recover damages. The lower court rendered a decision in favor o f Esguerra, finding that both vehicles were reckless i n d r i v i n g . O n a p p e a l , t h e c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e decision of the lower court and awarded actual and moral damages to the respondent herein. Hence thispetition. Issue: Whether or not the respondent is entitled to receive moral damages. Held: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages to the respondentherein. As a general rule moral damages are not reco verable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation, as in the instant case, in view of the provisions of Articles 2219and 2220 of the New Civil Code. The exceptions are (1) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger, and (2) where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death doesnot result. In the case at bar, the Court finds that both vehicles were in their respective lanes and bothwere equally negligent. The Court does not find that there was malice or bad faith on the part of the driver of the petitioner herein. Therefore the award of moral damages is deleted and the rest affirmed Sweet Lines v. Court of Appeals121 SCRA 769Facts: 100

amounts to bad faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages in accordance with the 2220 of the Civil Code. But in the instant case, the breach appears to the graver nature, since the preference given to the Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights and his dignity as a human being and as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated against with impunity, as found by the court below what worsened the situation of Ortigas was that Lufthansa succeeded in keeping him as its passenger by assuring him that he would be given first class accommodation at Cairo, the next station, the proper arrangements therefore having been made already, when in truth such was not the case. Transportation Law Case DigestsPetitioner is booked on a first class accommodation in defendants airline from Rome to Manila. T h e b o o k i n g w a s c o n f i r m e d b y i t s a i r l i n e s o f f ice. The airline employee upong seeing his Filipino nationality disallowed his boarding and the seat was given to a Belgian. Petitioner has a heart ailment and is advised by physician to take only frst class accommodations. He was promised to be transferredto first class on all succeeding layovers from Cairo to Hongkong to no avail. Damages was filed. Trialcourt awarded Moral and Exemplary damages. Issue: Whether or not defendant is liable for damages. Held: Yes. Inattenton and lack of care on the carrier rsul ting in the failure of the passenger to beaccommodated in a class availed of and contracted amounts to bad faith and fraud. Furthermore, the p r e f e r e n c e t o a B e l g i a n p a s s e n g e r i s also a wanton disregard of his right from d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h e successive false representations of transferring him to first class is an act of malice and bad faith. Thisentitles petitioner to moral damages in accordance to Articlec 2220. Moral damages is increased toPhp15,000 and Exemplary damages to Php100,000. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Esguerra117 SCRA 741Facts: 99

Transportation Law Case DigestsThe responden ts, having first class tickets, boarded the M/V Sweet Grace to Catbalogan. Thevessel had some engine problems which led to a change of schedule and they were thus delayed for asubstantial amount of time. Furthermore, the vessel bought the respondents to Ta cloban instead of Catbalogan. This led the respondents to purchase another set of tickets and to ride another ferryboatgoing to Catbalogan. The respondents then sued the petitioner carrier for damages for the breach of contract of carriage. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages. Held: The Court held that the petitioner is liable for damages specifically moral damages because therewas bad faith on its part. The Court found that such bad faith is present based on three circumstances namely:1 . P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t g i v e a n y n o t i c e t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a s t o t h e c h a n g e o f s c h e d u l e o f the vessel.2 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r k n e w f u l l y t h a t i t w o u l d t a k e n o l e s s t h a n f i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) h o u r s t o e f f e c t t h e repairs of the damaged engine. The petitioner also assured that the vessel will leave within ashort period of time and when the defendants wanted to leave the trip petitioner stated that the“the vessel is already leaving.”3 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t e v e n o f f e r t o r e f u n d t h e t i c k e t s a n d p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r transportation from Tacloban to Catbalogan. Prudencio v. Alliance Transport System148 SCRA 440Facts: 101 Transportation Law Case DigestsDra. Sofia L. Prudenciado was driving her own car along Taft Avenue to go to the Philippine Normal College Compound where she would hold classes. As she was moving slowly in a normal rate,her car was then hit by the taxi operated by the respondent. The accident caused the petitioner

physicalinjuries and a brain concussion. She then filed for an action for damages against respondent. The lower court, finding the respondent’s driver to be negligent, granted the damages and the Court of Appeals reduced the damages. The petitioner then appealed from the decision of the appellate court. Issue: Whether or not the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was correct. Held: The Court held that the reduction of the moral damages by the appellate court to the petitioner was unreasonable and drastic. The reason was that the trial court found the respondent to be gro sslynegligent in injuring the petitioner. The award of moral damages was proper. The appeal by the petitioner is proper because, as a doctor, she has reasonable fears that such accident due to the carelessness of the respondent’s driver can greatly affect her profession.Exemplary damages are also awarded to the petitioner to provide for an example or correction topublic good. The reason is that the respondent’s driver was driving at a high speed on a rainy day and ona slippery road with complete disregard with the safety of other people. PAN-AM V. IAC Private respondent Tinitigan, filed a complaint agai nst petitioner for damages arising fromdefendant's alleged refusal to accommodate her on Pan Am Fli g h t N o . 4 3 1 f r o m S t o . D o m i n g o , Republica Dominica to San Juan, Puerto Rico notwithstanding that she possessed a confirmed planeticket. She is a businesswoman and a multimillionaire (proprietor of Sampaguita Restaurant, New YorkCity USA; Treasurer of the Molave Development Corp., Phil., proprietor of Cavite Household Appliancesand Rowena's Handicraft, Phil.), was on a business trip with a Pan-Am ticket. While in Sto. Domingo,Tinitigan is expected to be in San Juan that same day to meet a client to sign a contract or lose it. Shewas expected to make a profit of $1,000 in said contract but her failure to board the flight, said profit waslost. The refusal of accommodation caused her to suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirchedreputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation She prayed that she be awarded moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary damages of P200,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00 and actual damagess u s t a i n e d b y h e r i n t h e a m o u n t o f U S $ 1 , 5 4 6 . 1 5 . D e f e n d a n t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s a c o n f i r m e d passenger since the ticket issued to her was on an open space basis, which meant that she could onlybe accommodated if any of the confirmed passengers failed to show up at the airport before departure.The lower court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded the amount of damages as prayedfor. Said decision was affirmed hence the instant petition. Issue: Whether or not the award of damages was proper.

Held: Yes, but subject to modifications. Other instances which caused moral damage to the plaintiff arethe following:1. While plaintiff was standing in line to board the aircraft, a Pan Am employee ordered her in a loud voice to step out of line because her ticket was not confirmed to her embarrassment in the presence of several people who heard and order. Despite her Pleas she was not allowed to board the aircraft. And her seat was also given to a Caucasian.2. When the plane took off without her but with her lugga ge on board. She was forced to return to her hotel without any luggage much less an extra dress.Evidence shows petitioner as confirmed passenger. 1.) Defendant issued a Passenger Ticket andBaggage Check with assigned seat and the corresponding pass and baggage claim symbol. 2.) Plaintiff paid the fare and terminal fee. 3.) plaintiff's passport was stamped by immigration. 4.) Plaintiff's namewas included in the passenger manifest. There is a contract or carriage perfected between plaintiff anddefendant for the latter to take plaintiff to her place of destination. By refusing to accommodate plaintiff insaid flight, defendant had willfully and knowingly violated the contract of carriage and failed to bring theplaintiff to her place of destination under its cont ract with plaintiff. There is showing of bad faith. Self -enrichment or fraternal interest and not personal ill will may have been the motive of

defendant, but it ismalice nevertheless. Malice is shown by the fact that that plaintiff was ordered out of the line under somepretext in order to accommodate a white man.Exemplary damages and Attorney’s fees are also awarded. The rational behind exemplary or corrective damages is, to provide an example or correction for public good. SC reduced the moral andexemplary damages to the combined total sum of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos and theattorney's fees to Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos. The award of actual damages in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Six American dollars and fifteen cent s (US$1,546.15) computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment is hereby retained and granted.

Armovit v. Court of Appeals184 SCRA 476 Facts: The petitioners in this case all resided in the United States and went home to the Philippines for aChristmas visit. On their return trip to the United States, they were bumped off at the airport due to anerroneous entry in their plane tickets relating to the departure time. The petitioners checked in the airportan hour and fifteen minutes earlier than what was indicated in their airline tickets. Upon their check in,the employees of the respondent airlines impolitely informed them that the plane was already taking off and that their check in time was way earlier and entirely different from what was stated in their tickets.The petitioners then sued the respondent airlines for damages. Issue: Whether or not the respondent is liable for damages. Held: The Court held that the respondent is liable for damages. Actual damages were awarded to thepetitioner due to bumped off that occurred. Moral damages were also awarded because the Court foundthat the respondent was gross negligent in the issuance of the tickets as to the correct time of departure.In addition, the act of the respondent in rudely informing the petitioner of such bumped off is an indicationt h a t t h e r e was bad faith and malice on the part of the r e s p o n d e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e l a t i v e o f t h e petitioner stated how badly wounded the feelings of the petitioners were. Exemplary damages were alsoawarded as to provide for an example to the public good. Lastly, nominal damages were properly deletedsince such damages cannot co-exist with actual damages. Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab FACTS: Atty. Cachero, plaintiff herein, boarded a taxicab owned by the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. The said taxicab bumped against a Meralco post. The taxicab was badly smashed and the plaintiff fell out of the vehicle to the ground. As a result of the accident, he suffered slight physical injuries. The driver of the taxi was prosecuted and convicted criminally. Respondent herein offered to settle the case and the plaintiff demanded the amount of P79,245.65 as for damages. Respondent refused to pay the said amount. Plaintiff then proceeded to file a case to recover the same amount through the courts. The CFI rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that respondent pay the amount of P700 for medical and transportation allowances, attorney’s fees and professional fees. Both parties appealed and the decision was affirmed. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Cachero is entitled to recover damages other than those already awarded. HELD: The Court modified the decision of the lower court. The award of professional fees were reduced to P2,000 and the award of moral damages of P2,000. Plaintiff in this case did not maintain his action against all persons liable for the breach of the contract of common carriage. Since he did not include the driver in this complaint he may not recover moral damages. Respondent herein did not commit any criminal offense against the plaintiff, it was the driver who was the reason behind the injury. This case does not fall under Article 2219 of the NCC therefore he is not entitled to be awarded moral damages. Fores v. Miranda FACTS: Ireneo Miranda, a professor of Fine Arts, was a passenger of a passenger jeepney registered to Fores but actuall operated by

Sackerman. The vehicle was descending the Sta. Mesa bridge at an excessive rate of speed, and the driver lost control of the same which caused it to swerve and to hit the bridge wall. As a result of the accident, Five of the passengers were injured, including the respondent herein. He suffered a fracture of the upper right humerus. He was taken to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment, and later was subjected to a series of operations. At the time of the trial, it appears that respondent had not yet recovered the use of his right arm. The driver was charged with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and upon interposing a plea of guilty was sentenced accordingly. The lower court awarded actual damages to the respondent. On appeal, the Court reduced the amount of actual damages and added the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of moral damages and attorney’s fee was proper. HELD: The Court held that the award of moral damages is not proper in this case. As a general rule, moral damages are not awarded to the victim in cases of breach of contract of common carriage. The exception is that if such accident resulted in the death of the passenger, in which case Article 1764 of the NCC, makes the carrier subject to Article 2206 of the NCC. In case death did not result from the accident, moral damages may be recovered if the common carrier is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith or malice. In the case at bar there was no bad faith on the part of the common carrier. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to moral damages. As to the issue of attorney’s fee, the court may moto proprio award moral damages as the case may be. Attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court if it is deemed to be just and equitable. Therefore, the Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals as far as moral damages are concerned. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Cornista FACTS: Appeal of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., from a judgment of Court of First Instance of Batangas wherein appellee Herminio L. Nocum was plaintiff, sentencing Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. to pay Nocum the sum of P1,351.00 for actual damages and P500.00 as attorney's fees with legal interest from the filing of the complaint plus costs. Nocum, who was a passenger in Lagunna Tayabas Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the barrio of Dita, Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers, contained in a box, loaded in said bus and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous items by a co-passenger. The findings of fact of the trial court are not assailed. The appeal is purely on legal questions.