8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037 Page 1 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guest 1. 2. 3. [No. 12219. March 15, 1918.] AMADO PICART, plaintiff and appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, jr., defendant and appellee. NEGLIGENCE; CRITERION FOR DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF NEGLI-GENCE.·The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so con 810 810 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED Picart vs. Smith. stitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is the constitutive f act in negligence. ID.; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT ACTS.·Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR.·The plaintiff was riding a
II. Quasi-Delict, A. Elements
Aug 18, 2015
full text
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 1 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guest1.2.3.[No. 12219. March 15, 1918.]AMADOPICART,plaintiffandappellant,vs.FRANKSMITH, jr., defendant and appellee.NEGLIGENCE;CRITERIONFORDETERMININGEXISTENCEOFNEGLI-GENCE.Thetestfordeterminingwhetherapersonisnegligentindoinganactwhereby injury or damage results to the person or propertyofanotheristhis:Wouldaprudentman,inthepositionofthepersontowhomnegligenceisattributed,foreseeharmtothepersoninjuredasareasonableconsequenceofthecourse about to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty ontheactortorefrainfromthatcourseortotakeprecautionagainst its mischievous results, and the failure to do so con810810 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPicart vs. Smith.stitutesnegligence.Reasonableforesightofharm,followedbytheignoringoftheadmonitionbornofthisprevision,isthe constitutive f act in negligence.ID.;CONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCE;SUCCESSIVENEGLIGENTACTS.Wherebothpartiesareguiltyofnegligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of theotherbyanappreciableintervaloftime,theonewhohasthelastreasonableopportunitytoavoidtheimpendingharm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences,without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.ID.;ID.;ID.;CASEATBAR.Theplaintiffwasridinga8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 2 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guestponyonabridge,Seeinganautomobileaheadheimproperly pulled his horse over to the railing on the right.Thedriveroftheautomobile,however,guidedhiscartowardtheplaintiffwithoutdiminutionofspeeduntilhewasonlyafewfeetaway.Hethenturnedtotherightbutpassedsocloselytothehorsethatthelatterbeingfrightened,jumpedaroundandwaskilledbythepassingcar.Held:Thatalthoughtheplaintiffwasguiltyofnegligenceinbeingonthewrongsideofthebridge,thedefendantwasneverthelesscivillyliableforthelegaldamagesresultingfromthecollision,ashehadafairopportunitytoavoidtheaccidentafterherealizedthesituation created by the negligence of the plaintiff and failedto avail himself of that opportunity; while the plaintiff couldbynomeansthenplacehimselfinapositionofgreatersafety.APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ofLa Union. Camus, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.Alejo Mabanag for appellant.G. E. Campbell for appellee.STREET, J.:Inthisactiontheplaintiff,AmadoPicart,seekstorecoverofthedefendant,FrankSmith,jr.,thesumofP31,100,asdamagesallegedtohavebeencausedbyanautomobiledrivenbythedefendant.FromajudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheProvinceofLaUnionabsolvingthedefendant from liability the plaintiff has appealed.The occurrence which gave rise to the institution of thisactiontookplaceonDecember12,1912,ontheCarlatanBridge, at San Fernando, La Union. It appears that upon811VOL. 37, MARCH 15, 1918. 811Picart vs. Smith.the occasion in question the plaintiff was riding on his ponyover said bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, the8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 3 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guestdefendantapproachedfromtheoppositedirectioninanautomobile,goingattherateofabouttenortwelvemilesperhour.Asthedefendantnearedthebridgehesawahorsemanonitandblewhishorntogivewarningofhisapproach.Hecontinuedhiscourseandafterhehadtakenthebridgehegavetwomoresuccessiveblasts,asitappeared to him that the man on horseback before him wasnot observing the rule of the road.The plaintiff, it appears, saw the automobile coming andheardthewarningsignals.However,beingperturbedbythenoveltyoftheapparitionortherapidityoftheapproach, he pulled the pony closely up against the railingontherightsideofthebridgeinsteadofgoingtotheleft.He says that the reason he did this was that he thought hedidnothavesufficienttimetogetovertotheotherside.Thebridgeisshowntohavealengthofabout75metersand a width of 4.80 meters. As the automobile approached,thedefendantguidedittowardhisleft,thatbeingthepropersideoftheroadforthemachine.Insodoingthedefendantassumedthatthehorsemanwouldmovetotheotherside.Theponyhadnotasyetexhibitedfright,andtheriderhadmadenosignfortheautomobiletostop.Seeingthattheponywasapparentlyquiet,thedefendant,insteadofveeringtotherightwhileyetsomedistanceawayorslowingdown,continuedtoapproachdirectlytowardthehorsewithoutdiminutionofspeed.Whenhehad gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of thehorsegettingacrosstotheotherside,thedefendantquicklyturnedhiscarsufficientlytotherighttoescapehitting the horse alongside of the railing where it was thenstanding;butinsodoingtheautomobilepassedinsuchclose proximity to the animal that it became frightened andturned its body across the bridge with its head toward therailing.Insodoing,itwasstruckonthehockofthelefthind leg by the flange of the car and the limb was broken.The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some812812 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPicart vs. Smith.8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 4 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guestviolence. From the evidence adduced in the case we believethatwhentheaccidentoccurredthefreespacewheretheponystoodbetweentheautomobileandtherailingofthebridge was probably less than one and one half meters. Asa result of its injuries the horse died. The plaintiff receivedcontusionswhichcausedtemporaryunconsciousnessandrequired medical attention for several days.Thequestionpresentedfordecisioniswhetherornotthe defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner abovedescribedwasguiltyofnegligencesuchasgivesrisetoacivilobligationtorepairthedamagedone;andweareoftheopinionthatheissoliable.Asthedefendantstartedacross the bridge, he had the right to assume that the horseandriderwouldpassovertotheproperside;butashemoved toward the center of the bridge it was demonstratedtohiseyesthatthiswouldnotbedone;andhemustinamoment have perceived that it was too late for the horse tocrosswithsafetyinfrontofthemovingvehicle.Inthenature of things this change of situation occurred while theautomobilewasyetsomedistanceaway;andfromthismoment it was not longer within the power of the plaintifftoescapebeingrundownbygoingtoaplaceofgreatersafety. The control of the situation had then passed entirelyto the defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his cartoanimmediatestopor,seeingthattherewerenootherpersonsonthebridge,totaketheothersideandpasssufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger ofcollision.Insteadofdoingthis,thedefendantranstraightonuntilhewasalmostuponthehorse.Hewas,wethink,deceivedintodoingthisbythefactthatthehorsehadnotyetexhibitedfright.Butinviewoftheknownnatureofhorses, there was an appreciable risk that, if the animal inquestion was unacquainted with automobiles, he might getexcitedandjumpundertheconditionswhichhereconfronted him. When the defendant exposed the horse andrider to this danger he was, in our opinion, negligent in theeye of the law.813VOL. 37, MARCH 15, 1918. 813Picart vs. Smith.8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 5 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=GuestThe test by which to determine the existence of negligenceinaparticularcasemaybestatedasfollows:Didthedefendantindoingtheallegednegligentactusethatreasonablecareandcautionwhichanordinarilyprudentperson would have used in the same situation? If not, thenhe is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts thestandard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conductofthediscreetpaterfamiliasoftheRomanlaw.Theexistence of negligence in a given case is not determined byreferencetothepersonaljudgmentoftheactorinthesituationbeforehim.Thelawconsiderswhatwouldbereckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinaryintelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.The question as to what would constitute the conduct ofaprudentmaninagivensituationmustofcoursebealways determined in the light of human experience and inview of the f facts involved in the particular case. Abstractspeculationcannotherebeofmuchvaluebutthismuchcanbeprofitablysaid:Reasonablemengoverntheirconductbythecircumstanceswhicharebeforethemorknowntothem.Theyarenot,andarenotsupposedtobe,omniscientofthefuture.Hencetheycanbeexpectedtotakecareonlywhenthereissomethingbefforethemtosuggestorwarnofdanger.Couldaprudentman,inthecaseunderconsideration,foreseeharmasaresultofthecourse actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actorto take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonableforesightofharm,followedbytheignoringofthesuggestionbornofthisprevision,isalwaysnecessarybeforenegligencecanbeheldtoexist.Statedintheseterms, the proper criterion for determining the existence ofnegligenceinagivencaseisthis:Conductissaidtobenegligentwhenaprudentmaninthepositionofthetortfeasorwouldhaveforeseenthataneffectharmfultoanotherwassufficientlyprobabletowarranthisforegoingthe conduct or guarding against its consequences.Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in thepresentcasewethinkthatnegligenceisclearlyestablished.8148/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 6 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guest814 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPicart vs. Smith.Aprudentman,placedinthepositionofthedefendant,would,inouropinion,haverecognizedthatthecoursewhichhewaspursuingwasfraughtwithrisk,andwouldthereforehaveforeseenharmtothehorseandriderasareasonableconsequenceofthatcourse.Underthesecircumstancesthelawimposedonthedefendantthedutyto guard against the threatened harm.It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was notfreefromfault,forhewasguiltyofantecedentnegligenceinplantinghimselfonthewrongsideoftheroad.Butaswehavealreadystated,thedefendantwasalsonegligent;andinsuchcasetheproblemalwaysistodiscoverwhichagentisimmediatelyanddirectlyresponsible.Itwillbenotedthatthenegligentactsofthetwopartieswerenotcontemporaneous,sincethenegligenceofthedefendantsucceededthenegligenceoftheplaintiffbyanappreciableinterval.Underthesecircumstancesthelawisthattheperson who has the last fair chance to avoid the impendingharmandfailstodosoischargeablewiththeconsequences,withoutreferencetothepriornegligenceofthe other party.ThedecisioninthecaseofRakes vs.Atlantic,GulfandPacific Co. (7 Phil. Rep., 359) should perhaps be mentionedinthisconnection.ThisCourtthereheldthatwhilecontributorynegligenceonthepartofthepersoninjureddidnotconstituteabartorecovery,itcouldbereceivedinevidencetoreducethedamageswhichwouldotherwisehavebeenassessedwhollyagainsttheotherparty.Thedefendantcompanyhadthereemployedtheplaintiff,alaborer, to assist in transporting iron rails from a barge inManila harbor to the company's yards located not far away.Therailswereconveyeduponcarswhichwerehauledalonganarrowtrack.Atacertainspotnearthewater'sedge the track gave way by reason of the combined effect oftheweightofthecarandtheinsecurityoftheroadbed.The car was in consequence upset; the rails slid off; and theplaintiff'slegwascaughtandbroken.Itappearedinevidencethattheaccidentwasduetotheeffectsofatyphoon8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 7 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guest815VOL. 37, MARCH 15, 1918. 815Picart vs. Smith.whichhaddislodgedoneofthesupportsofthetrack.Thecourtfoundthatthedefendantcompanywasnegligentinhavingfailedtorepairthebedofthetrackandalsothattheplaintiffwas,atthemomentoftheaccident,guiltyofcontributorynegligenceinwalkingatthesideofthecarinstead'ofbeinginfrontorbehind.Itwasheldthatwhilethedefendantwasliabletotheplaintiffbyreasonofitsnegligenceinhavingfailedtokeepthetrackinproperrepair,neverthelesstheamountofthedamagesshouldbereducedonaccountofthecontributorynegligenceoftheplaintiff. As will be seen the defendant's negligence in thatcaseconsistedinanomissiononly.Theliabilityofthecompanyarosefromitsresponsibilityforthedangerouscondition of its track. In a case like the one now before us,wherethedefendantwasactuallypresentandoperatingtheautomobilewhichcausedthedamage,wedonotffeelconstrainedtoattempttoweighthenegligenceoftherespectivepartiesinordertoapportionthedamageaccordingtothedegreeoftheirrelativefault.Itisenoughtosaythatthenegligenceofthedeffendantwasinthiscasetheimmediateanddeterminingcauseoftheaccidentandthattheantecedentnegligenceoftheplaintiffwasamore remote factor in the case.Apointofminorimportanceinthecaseisindicatedinthespecialdefensepleadedinthedefendant'sanswer,totheeffectthatthesubjectmatteroftheactionhadbeenpreviously adjudicated in the court of a justice of the peace.In this connection it appears that soon after the accident inquestion occurred, the plaintiff caused criminal proceedingstobeinstitutedbeforeajusticeofthepeacechargingthedefendantwiththeinflictionofseriousinjuries(lesionesgraves). At the preliminary investigation the defendant wasdischargedbythemagistrateandtheproceedingsweredismissed.Concedingthattheacquittalofthedeffendantat a trial upon the merits in a criminal prosecution for theoffensementionedwouldberesadjudicatauponthe8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 8 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guestquestionofhiscivilliabilityarisingfromnegligenceapoint upon which it is unnecessary to express an opinionthe action of816816 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDPicart vs. Smith.thejusticeofthepeaceindismissingthecriminalproceeding upon the preliminary hearing can have no sucheffect. (See U. S. vs. Banzuela and Banzuela, 31 Phil. Rep.,564.)From what has been said it results that the judgment ofthelowercourtmustbereversed,andjudgmentishererenderedthattheplaintiffrecoverofthedefendantthesumoftwohundredpesos(P200),withcostsofbothinstances.Thesumhereawardedisestimatedtoincludethe value of the horse, medical expenses of the plaintiff, thelossordamageoccasionedtoarticlesof-hisapparel,andlawfulinterestonthewholetothedateofthisrecovery.Theotherdamagesclaimedbytheplaintiffareremoteorotherwiseofsuchcharacterasnottoberecoverable.Soordered.Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, Araullo, Avancea, andFisher, JJ., concur.Johnson, J., reserves his vote.MALCOLM, J., concurring:Aftermaturedeliberation,Ihavefinallydecidedtoconcurwiththejudgmentinthiscase.Idosobecauseofmyunderstandingofthe"lastclearchance"ruleofthelawofnegligenceasparticularlyappliedtoautomobileaccidents.Thisrulecannotbeinvokedwherethenegligenceoftheplaintiff is concurrent with that of the defendant. Again, ifatravellerwhenhereachesthepointofcollisionisinasituationtoextricatehimselfandavoidinjury,hisnegligence at that point will prevent a recovery. But JusticeStreetfindsasafactthatthenegligentactofthedefendant succeeded that of the plaintiff by an appreciable8/8/15, 6:24 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 037Page 9 of 9 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a42db44da74051c000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV543/?username=Guestinterval of time, and that at that moment the plaintiff hadnoopportunitytoavoidtheaccident.Consequently,the"last clear chance" rule is applicable. In other words, whenatravellerhasreachedapointwherehecannotextricatehimselfandvigilanceonhispartwillnotaverttheinjury,hisnegligenceinreachingthatpositionbecomestheconditionandnottheproximatecauseoftheinjuryandwillnotprecludearecovery.(NoteespeciallyAikenvs.Metcalf [1917], 102 Atl., 330.)Judgment reversed.817VOL. 37, MARCH 15, 1918. 817Lim vs. Singian and Soler Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 1 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guest1.2.3.VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 587Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.[No. 13505. February 4, 1919.]GEO.W.DAYWALT,plaintiffandappellant,vs.LACORPORACI!NDELOSPADRESAGUSTINOSRECOLETOS ET AL., defendants and appellees.CONTRACTS;DAMAGESFORBREACH;LIABILITYOFTHIRDPARTY.Whatevermaybethecharacteroftheliability, if any, which a stranger to a contract may incur byadvisingorassistingoneofthepartiestoevadeperformance,hecannotbecomemoreextensivelyliableindamagesforthenonperformanceofthecontractthantheparty in whose behalf he intermeddles.ID.;ID.;MEASUREOFDAMAGESFORBREACHOFCONTRACT.Thedamagesrecoverableuponbreachofcontract are, primarily, the ordinary, natural and in a sensethenecessarydamageresultingfromthebreach.Otherdamages, known as special damages, are recoverable whereitappearsthattheparticularconditionswhichmadesuchdamages a probable consequence of the breach were knowntothedelinquentpartyatthetimethecontractwasmade.Thispropositionmustbeunderstoodwiththequalificationthat,ifthedamagesareinthelegalsenseremoteorspeculative,knowledgeofthespecialconditionswhichrendersuchdamagespossiblewillnotmakethemrecoverable.Specialdamagesofthischaractercannotberecovered unless made the subject of special stipulation.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; DAMAGESFORBREACHOFCONTRACTFORSALEOFLAND.Thedamagesordinarilyrecoverable against a vendor8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 2 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guest588588 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.for failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliveristhevalueoftheuseandoccupationofthelandforthetime during which it is wrongfully withheld.APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ofManila. Ostrand, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.C. C. Cohn and Thos. D. Aitken for appellant.Crossfield & O'Brien for appellee.STREET, J.:Intheyear1902,TeodoricaEndencia,anunmarriedwoman,residentintheProvinceofMindoro,executedacontract whereby she obligated herself to convey to Geo. W.Daywalt,.atractoflandsituatedinthebarrioofMangarin, municipality of Bulalacao, now San Jose, in saidprovince.ItwasagreedthatadeedshouldbeexecutedassoonasthetitletothelandshouldbeperfectedbyproceedingsintheCourtofLandRegistrationandaTorrens certificate should be procured therefor in the nameofTeodoricaEndencia.Adecreerecognizingtheright,ofTeodoricaasownerwasenteredinsaidcourtinAugust1906, but the Torrens certificate was not issued until later.Theparties,however,metimmediatelyupontheenteringofthisdecreeandmadeanewcontractwithaviewtocarryingtheiroriginalagreementintoeffect.ThisnewcontractwasexecutedintheformofadeedofconveyanceandbearsdateofAugust16,1906.ThestipulatedpricewasfixedatP4,000,andtheareaofthelandenclosedinthe boundaries defined in the contract was stated to be 452hectares and a fraction.Thesecondcontractwasnotimmediatelycarriedintoeffect for the reason that the Torrens certificate was not yetobtainableandinfactsaidcertificatewasnotissueduntilthe period of performance contemplated in the contract had8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 3 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestexpired.Accordingly,uponOctober3,1908,thepartiesenteredintostillanotheragreement,supersedingtheold,by which Teodorica Endencia agreed, upon589VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 589Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.receiving the Torrens title to the land in question, to deliverthesametotheHongkongandShanghaiBankinManila,tobeforwardedtotheCrockerNationalBankinSanFrancisco, where it was to be delivered to the plaintiff uponpayment of a balance of P3,100.TheTorrenscertificatewasintimeissuedtoTeodoricaEndencia,butinthecourseoftheproceedingsrelativetothe registration of the land, it was f ound by official surveythat the area of the tract inclosed in the boundaries statedinthecontractwasabout1,248hectaresinsteadof452hectaresasstatedinthecontract.InviewofthisdevelopmentTeodoricaEndenciabecamereluctanttotransferthewholetracttothepurchaser,assertingthatsheneverintendedtosellsolargeanamountoflandandthat she had been misinformed as to its area.ThisattitudeofhersledtolitigationinwhichDaywaltfinallysucceeded,uponappealtotheSupremeCourt,inobtainingadecreeforspecificperformance;andTeodoricaEndenciawasorderedtoconveytheentiretractoflandtoDaywalt pursuant to the contract of October 3, 1908, whichcontractwasdeclaredtobeinfullforceandeffect.Thisdecree appears to have become finally effective in the earlypart of the year 1914.1Thedefendant,LaCorporacindelosPadresRecoletos,isareligiouscorporation,withitsdomicileinthecityofManila. Said corporation was formerly the owner of a largetractofland,knownastheSanJoseEstate,ontheislandofMindoro,whichwassoldtotheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsintheyear1909.ThesamecorporationwasatthistimealsotheownerofanotherestateonthesameislandimmediatelyadjacenttothelandwhichTeodericaEndenciahadsoldtoGeo.W.Daywalt;andformanyyearstheRecoletosFathershadmaintainedlarge8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 4 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestherdsofcattleonthefarmsreferredto.Theirrepresentative,chargedwiththemanagementofthesefarms, was____________1 Daywalt vs. Endencia, R.G.No.7331,decidedNovember16,1912,not published.590590 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.father Isidoro Sanz, himself a member of the order. FatherSanzhadlongbeenwellacquaintedwithTeodoricaEndenciaandexertedoverheraninfluenceandascendencyduetohisreligiouscharacteraswellastothepersonal friendship which existed between them. Teodoricaappearstobeawomanoflittlepersonalforce,easilysubject to influence, and upon all the important matters ofbusiness was accustomed to seek, and was given, the adviceof Father Sanz and other members of his order with whomshe came in contact.FatherSanzwasfullyawareoftheexistenceofthecontract of 1902 by which Teodorica Endencia agreed to sellherlandtotheplaintiffaswellasofthelaterimportantdevelopmentsconnectedwiththehistoryofthatcontractandthecontract-substitutedsuccessivelyforit;andinparticularFatherSanz,aswellasothermembersofthedefendant corporation, knew of the existence of the contractof October 3, 1908, which, as we have already seen, finallyfixedtherightsofthepartiestothepropertyinquestion.WhentheTorrenscertificatewasfinallyissuedin1909infavorofTeodoricaEndencia,shedelivereditforsafekeepingtothedefendantcorporation,anditwasthentakentoManilawhereitremainedinthecustodyandunderthecontrolofP.JuanLabargatheprocuradorandchief official of the defendant corporation, until the deliverythereoftotheplaintiffwasmadecompulsorybyreasonofthe decree of the Supreme Court in 1914.WhenthedefendantcorporationsoldtheSanJose8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 5 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestEstate,itwasnecessarytobringthecattleoffofthatproperty;and,inthefirsthalfof1909,some2,368headwere removed to the estate of the corporation immediatelyadjacent to the property which the plaintiff had purchasedfromTeodoricaEndencia.AsTeodoricastillretainedpossessionofsaidpropertyFatherSanzenteredintoanarrangementwithherwherebylargenumbersofcattlebelongingtothedefendantcorporationwerepastureduponsaidlandduringaperiodextendingfromJune1,1909, to May 1, 1914.591VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 591Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.Under the first cause stated in the complaint in the presentactiontheplaintiffseekstorecoverfromthedefendantcorporation the sum of P24,000, as damages for the use andoccupationofthelandinquestionbyreasonofthepasturingofcattlethereonduringtheperiodstated.Thetrialcourtcametotheconclusionthatthedefendantcorporation was liable for damages by reason of the use andoccupation of the premises in the manner stated; and fixedtheamounttoberecoveredatP2,497.Theplaintiffappealedandhasassignederrortothispartofthejudgment of the court below, insisting that damages shouldhavebeenawardedinamuchlargersumandatleasttothefullextentofP24,000,theamountclaimedinthecomplaint.Asthedefendantdidnotappeal,theproprietyofallowing damages f or the use and occupation of the land totheextentofP2,497,themountawarded,isnotnowinquestion;andtheonlythingheretobeconsidered,inconnectionwiththisbranchofthecase,iswhetherthedamages allowed under this head should be increased. ThetrialcourtrightlyignoredthefactthatthedefendantcorporationhadpaidTeodoricaEndenciaforuseandoccupationofthesamelandduringtheperiodinquestionattherateofP425perannum,inasmuchasthefinaldecree of this court in the action for specific performance isconclusiveagainstherright,andasthedefendant8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 6 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestcorporationhadnoticeoftherightsoftheplaintiffunderhiscontractofpurchase,itcannotbepermittedthatthecorporation should escape liability in this action by provingpayment of rent to a person other than, the true owner.Withreferencetotherateatwhichcompensationshouldbeestimatedthetrialcourtcametothefollowingconclusion:"As to the rate of the compensation, the plaintiff contends that thedefendantcorporationmaintainedatleastonethousandheadofcattleonthelandandthatthepasturagewasofthevalueoffortycentavos per head monthly, or P4,800 annually, for the whole tract.Thecourtcannotacceptthisview.Itisratherimprobablethat1,248 hec-592592 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.taresofwildMindorolandwouldfurnishsufficientpasturageforone thousand head of cattle during the entire year, and, consideringthelocality,therateoffortycentavosperheadmonthlyseemstoohigh. The evidence shows that after having recovered possession ofthe land the plaintiff rented it to the defendant corporation for fiftycentavosperhectareannually,thetenanttopaythetaxesontheland, and this appears to be a reasonable rent. There is ,no reasontosupposethatthelandwasworthmoreforgrazingpurposesduringtheperiod-from1909to1913,thanitwasatthelaterperiod.Uponthisbasistheplaintiffisentitledtodamagesin.thesumofP2,497,andisundernoobligationtoreimbursethedefendantsforthelandtaxespaidbyeitherfthemduringtheperiodthelandwasoccupiedbythedefendantcorporation.Itmaybe mentioned in this connection that the Lontok tract adjoining thelandinquestionandcontainingoverthreethousandhectaresappears to have been leased for only P1,000 a year, plus the taxes."From this it will be seen that the trial court estimated therental value of the land for grazing purposes at 50 centavosperhectareperannum,androughlyadoptedtheperiodoffour years as the time for which compensation at that rateshouldbemade.Asthe.courthadalreadyfoundthatthe8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 7 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestdefendant was liable for these damages from June, 1, 1909,toMay1,1914,oraperiodoffouryearsandelevenmonths, there seems some ground for the contention madein the appellant's first assignment of error that the court'scomputationwaserroneous,evenacceptingtheruleuponwhich the damages were assessed, as it is manifest that attherateof50centavosperhectareperannum,thedamagesforfouryearsandelevenmonthswouldbeP3,090.Notwithstandingthiscircumstance,weareoftheopinionthatthedamagesassessedaresufficienttocompensatetheplaintifffortheuseandoccupationofthelandduringthewholetimeitwasused.Thereisevidenceintherecordstronglytendingtoshowthatthewrongfuluse of the593VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 593Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.landbythedefendantwasnotcontinuousthroughouttheyearbutwasconfinedmostlytotheseasonwhentheforageobtainableonthelandofthedefendantcorporationwas not sufficient to maintain its cattle, for which reason itbecamenecessarytoallowthemtogoovertopastureonthelandinquestion;anditisnotclearthatthewholeofthelandwasusedforpasturageatanytime.Considerations of this character probably led the trial courttoadoptfouryearsasroughlybeingtheperiodduringwhichcompensationshouldbeallowed.Butwhetherthiswas advertently done or not, we see no sufficient reason, inthe uncertainty of the record with reference to the numberof the cattle grazed and the period when the land was used,forsubstitutingourguessfortheestimatemadebythetrialcourt.InthesecondcauseofactionstatedinthecomplainttheplaintiffseekstorecoverfromthedefendantcorporationthesumofP500,000,asdamages,onthegroundthatsaidcorporation,foritsownselfishpurposes,unlawfully induced Teodorica Endencia to refrain from theperformanceofhercontractforthesaleofthelandin8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 8 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestquestionandtowithholddeliverytotheplaintiffoftheTorrenstitle,andfurther,maliciouslyandwithoutreasonablecause,maintainedherinherdefensetotheaction of specific performance which was finally decided infavor of the plaintiff in this court. The cause of action herestatedisbasedonaliabilityderivedfromthewrongfulinterferenceofthedefendantintheperformanceofthecontract between the plaintiff and Teodorica Endencia; andthe large damages laid in the complaint were, according tothe proof submitted by the plaintiff, incurred as a result ofacombinationofcircumstancesofthefollowingnature:In1911,itappears,theplaintiff,astheownerofthelandwhich he had bought from Teodorica Endencia entered intoacontract(ExhibitC)withS.B.Wakefield,ofSanFrancisco, for the sale and disposal of said lands to a sugargrowing and milling enterprise, the successful launching ofwhich depended on the ability of594594 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.DaywalttogetpossessionofthelandandtheTorrenscertificateoftitle.Inordertoaccomplishthisend,theplaintiffreturnedtothePhilippineIslands,communicatedhisarrangementtothedefendant,andmaderepeatedeffortstosecuretheregisteredtitlefordeliveryincompliance with said agreement with Wakefield. TeodoricaEndenciaseemstohaveyieldedherconsenttotheconsummationofhercontract,buttheTorrenstitlewastheninthepossessionofPadreJuanLabargainManila,who refused to deliver the document. Teodorica also was intheendprevailedupontostandoutagainsttheperformanceofhercontractwiththeplaintiffwiththeresultthattheplaintiffwaskeptoutofpossessionuntiltheWakefieldprojectfortheestablishmentofalargesugargrowing and milling enterprise fell through. In the light ofwhathashappenedinrecentyearsinthesugarindustry,we feel justified in saying that the project above referred to,ifcarriedintoeffect,mustinevitablyhaveprovedagreatsuccess.8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 9 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestThedeterminationoftheissuepresentedinthissecondcauseofactionrequiresaconsiderationoftwopoints.Thefirst is whether a person who is not a party to a contract forthesaleoflandmakeshimselfliablefordamages,tothevendee,beyondthevalueoftheuseandoccupation,bycolludingwiththevendorandmaintaininghimintheefforttoresistanactionforspecificperformance.Thesecond is whether the damages which the plaintiff seeks torecoverunderthisheadaretooremoteandspeculativetobe the subject of recovery.Aspreliminarytoaconsiderationofthefirstofthesequestions, we deem it well to dispose of the contention thatthe members of the defendant corporation, in advising andpromptingTeodoricaEndencianottocomplywiththecontractofsale,wereactuatedbyimproperandmaliciousmotives. The trial court found that this contention was notsustained,observingthatwhileitwastruethatthecircumstances pointed to an entire sympathy on the part595VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 595Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.ofthedefendantcorporationwiththeeffortsofTeodoricaEndencia to defeat the plaintiff's claim to the land, the factthatitsofficialsmayhaveadvisedhernottocarrythecontractintoeffectwouldnotconstituteactionableinterference with such contract. It may be added that whenoneconsidersthehardshipthattheultimateperformanceofthatcontractentailedonthevendor,andthedoubtinwhichtheissuewasinvolvedtotheextentthatthedecision of the Court of the First Instance was unfavorableto the plaintiff and the Supreme Court itself was dividedtheattitudeofthedefendantcorporation,asexhibitedintheconductofitsprocurador,JuanLabarga,andothermembersoftheorderoftheRecollectFathers,isnotdifficulttounderstand.Toourmindafairconclusiononthis feature of the case is that father Juan Labarga and hisassociates believed in good faith that the contract could notbeenforcedandthatTeodoricawouldbewrongedifitshouldbecarriedintoeffect.Anyadviceorassistance8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 10 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestwhich they may have given was, therefore, prompted by nomeanorimpropermotive.Itisnot,inouropinion,tobedeniedthatTeodoricawouldhavesurrenderedthedocuments of title and given possession of the land but forthe influence and promptings of members of the defendantcorporation. But we do not credit the idea that they were inanydegreeinfluencedtothegivingofsuchadvicebythedesiretosecuretothemselvesthepaltryprivilegeofgrazingtheircattleuponthelandinquestiontotheprejudice of the just rights of the plaintiff.Theattorneyfortheplaintiffmaintainsthat,byinterferingintheperformanceofthecontractinquestionandobstructingtheplaintiffinhiseffortstosecurethecertificateoftitletotheland,thedefendantcorporationmade itself a co-participant with Teodorica Endencia in thebreachofsaidcontract;andinasmuchasfatherJuanLabarga, at the time of said unlawful intervention betweenthe contracting parties, was fully aware of the existence ofthe contract (Exhibit C) which the plaintiff had made with596596 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.S.B.Wakefield,ofSanFrancisco,itisinsistedthatthedefendant corporation is liable for the loss consequent uponthe failure of the project outlined in said contract.In this connection reliance is placed by the plaintiff uponcertain American and English decisions in which it is heldthatapersonwhoisastrangertoacontractmay,byanunjustifiableinterferenceintheperformancethereof,renderhimselfliableforthedamagesconsequentuponnon-performance. It is said that the doctrine of these caseswasrecognizedbythiscourtinGilchristvs.Cuddy(29Phil.Rep.,542);andwehavebeenearnestlypressedtoextendtherulethereenunciatedtothesituationherepresented.SomewhatmorethanhalfacenturyagotheEnglishCourtoftheQueen'sBenchsawitswaycleartopermitanactionfordamagestobemaintainedagainstastrangertoacontractwrongfullyinterferinginitsperformance. The leading case on this subject is Lumley vs.8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 11 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestGye([1853],2El.&Bl.,216).Itthereappearedthattheplaintiff,asmanagerofatheatre,hadenteredintoacontractwithMissJohannaWagner,anoperasinger,wherebysheboundherselfforaperiodtosingintheplaintiff'stheatreandnowhereelse.Thedefendant,knowingoftheexistenceofthiscontract,and,asthedeclarationalleged,"maliciouslyintendingtoinjuretheplaintiff,"enticedandprocuredMissWagnertoleavetheplaintiff'semployment.Itwasheldthattheplaintiffwasentitledtorecoverdamages.Therightwhichwashererecognizedhaditsorigininarule,longfamiliartothecourts of the common law, to the effect that any person whoentices a servant from his employment is liable in damagesto the master. The master's interest in the service renderedbyhisemployeeishereconsideredasadistinctsubjectofjuridicalright.Itbeingthusacceptedthatitisalegalwrongtobreakuparelationofpersonalservice,thequestionnowarosewhetheritisillegalforonepersontointerferewithanycontractrelationsubsistingbetweenothers.PriortothedecisionofLumleyvs.Gye[supra]ithad been supposed that the liability here597VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 597Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.underconsiderationwaslimitedtothecasesoftheenticementofmenialservants,apprentices,andotherstowhomtheEnglishStatutesofLaborerswereapplicable.Butinthecasecitedthemajorityofthejudgesconcurredintheopinionthattheprincipleextendedtoallcasesofhiring.ThisdoctrinewasfollowedbytheCourtofAppealinBowenvs.Hall([1881],6Q.B.,Div.,333);andinTempertonvs.Russell([1893],1Q.B.,715),itwasheldthattherightofactionformaliciouslyprocuringabreachofcontractisnotconfinedtocontractsforpersonalservices,butextendstocontractsingeneral.Inthatcasethecontractwhichthedefendanthadprocuredtobebreached was a contract for the supply of building material.Maliceinsomeformisgenerallysupposedtobeanessentialingredientincasesofinterferencewithcontract8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 12 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestrelations.Butupontheauthoritiesitisenoughifthewrongdoer,havingknowledgeoftheexistenceofthecontractrelation,inbadfaithsetsabouttobreakit.up.Whether his motive is to benefit himself or gratify his spitebyworkingmischieftotheemployerisimmaterial.Malicein the sense of ill-will or spite is not essential.Uponthequestionastowhatconstituteslegaljustification,agoodillustrationwasputintheleadingcase. If a party enters into contract to go for another upon ajourneytoaremoteandunhealthfulclimate,andathirdperson, with a bona fide purpose of benefiting the one whoisundercontracttogo,dissuadeshimfromthestep,noactionwilllie..Butiftheadviceisnotdisinterestedandthepersuasionisusedfor"theindirectpurposeofbenefitingthedefendantattheexpenseoftheplaintiff,"theintermedlerisliableifhisadviceistakenandthecontract broken.Thedoctrineembodiedinthecasesjustcitedhassometimesbeenfounduseful,inthecomplicatedrelationsof modern industry, as a means of restraining the activitiesoflaborunionsandindustrialsocietieswhenimproperlyengagedinthepromotionofstrikes.Anillustrationoftheapplication of the doctrine in question in a case of this kind598598 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.is found inSouthWalesMinersFederationvs.GlamorganCoal Co. ([1905], A. C., 239). It there appeared that certainminersemployedintheplaintiff'scollieries,actingundertheorderoftheexecutivecouncilofthedefendantfederation,violatedtheircontractwiththeplaintiffbyabstainingfromworkoncertaindays.Thefederationandcouncilactedwithoutanyactualmaliceorill-willtowardstheplaintiff,andtheonlyobjectoftheorderinquestionwas that the price of coal might thereby be kept up, a factorwhichaffectedtheminer'swagescale.Itwasheldthatnosufficientjustificationwasshownandthatthefederationwas liable.In the United States, the rule established in England by8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 13 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestLumley vs. Gye [supra] and subsequent cases is commonlyaccepted, though in a few of the States the broad idea thatastrangertoacontractcanbeheldliableUponitisrejected, and in these jurisdictions the doctrine, if acceptedatall,islimitedtothesituationwherethecontractisstrictlyforpersonalservice.(Boysonvs.Thorn,98Cal.,578;Chambers&Marshallvs.Baldwin91Ky.,121;Bourlier vs. Macauley, 91 Ky., 135; Glencoe Land & GravelCo. vs. Hudson Bros. Com. Co., 138 Mo.; 439.)Itshouldbeobservedinthisconnectionthat,accordingtotheEnglishandAmericanauthorities,noquestioncanbemadeastotheliabilityofonewhointerfereswithacontractexistingbetweenothersbymeanswhich,underknownlegalcanons,canbedenominatedanunlawfulmeans.Thus,ifperformanceispreventedbyforce,intimidation, coercion, or threats, or by false or defamatorystatements,orbynuisanceorriot,thepersonusingsuchunlawful means is, under all the authorities, liable for thedamagewhichensues.AndinjurisdictionswherethedoctrineofLumleyvs.Gye[supra]isrejected,noliabilitycanarisefromameddlesomeandmaliciousinterferencewithacontractrelationunlesssomesuchunlawfulmeansasthosejustindicatedareused.(Seecaseslastabovecited.)This brings us to the decision made by this court in599VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 599Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.Gilchrist vs. Cuddy(29Phil.Rep.,542).Itthereappearedthat one Cuddy, the owner of a cinematographic film, let itunderarentalcontracttotheplaintiffGilchristforaspecifiedperiodoftime.Inviolationofthetermsofthisagreement,Cuddyproceededtoturnoverthefilmalsounderarentalcontract,tothedefendantsEspejoandZaldarriaga.GilchristthereuponrestoredtotheCourtofFirst.Instanceandprocuredaninjunctionrestrainingthedefendantsfromexhibitingthefilminquestionintheirtheater during the period specified in the contract of CuddywithGilchrist.Uponappealtothiscourtitwasineffect8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 14 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestheldthattheinjunctionwasnotimproperlygranted,although the defendants did not, at the time their contractwasmade,knowtheidentityoftheplaintiffasthepersonholding the prior contract but did know of the existence of acontractinfavorofsomeone.Itwasalsosaidarguendo,thatthedefendantswouldhavebeenliableindamagesunder article 1902 of the Civil Code, if the action had beenbroughtbytheplaintifftorecoverdamages.Theforceoftheopinionis,wethink,somewhatweakenedbythecriticism contained in the concurring opinion, wherein it issaid that the question of breach of contract by inducementwasnotreallyinvolvedinthecase.Takingthedecisionupon the point which was really decided, it is authority forthepropositionthatonewhobuyssomethingwhichheknows has been sold to some other person can be restrainedfrom using that thing to the prejudice of the person havingthe prior and better right.Translatedintotermsapplicabletothecaseatbar,thedecisioninGilchristvs.Cuddy(29Phil.Rep.,542),indicatesthatthedefendantcorporation,havingnoticeofthesaleofthelandinquestiontoDaywalt,mighthavebeenenjoinedbythelatterfromusingthepropertyforgrazingitscattlethereon.Thatthedefendantcorporationis also liable in this action for the damage resulting to theplaintifffromthewrongfuluseandoccupationofthepropertyhasalsobeenalreadydetermined.Butitwillbeobserved600600 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.thatinordertosustainthisliabilityitisnotnecessarytoresorttoanysubtleexegesisrelativetotheliabilityofastrangertoacontractforunlawfulinterferenceintheperformancethereof.Itisenoughthatdefendantusedthepropertywithnoticethattheplaintiffhadapriorandbetter right.Article1902oftheCivilCodedeclaresthatanypersonwhobyanactoromission,characterizedbyfaultornegligence, causes damage to another shall be liable for the8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 15 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestdamage so done. Ignoring so much of this article as relatestoliabilityfornegligence,wetaketheruletobethataperson is liable for damage done to another by any culpableact;andby"culpableact"wemeananyactwhichisblameworthy when judged by accepted legal standards. Theidea thus expressed is undoubtedly broad enough to includeanyrationalconceptionofliabilityforthetortiousactslikelytobedevelopedinanysociety.Thusconsidered,itcannot be said that the doctrine of Lumley vs. Gye[supra]and related cases is repugnant to the principles of the civillaw.Nevertheless,itmustbeadmittedthatthecodesandjurisprudenceofthecivillawfurnishasomewhatuncongenialfieldinwhichtopropagatetheideathatastrangertoacontractmaybesuedforthebreachthereof.Article1257oftheCivilCodedeclaresthatcontractsarebindingonlybetweenthepartiesandtheirprivies.Inconformitywiththisithasbeenheldthatastrangertoacontract has no right of action for the nonfulfillment of thecontractexceptinthecaseespeciallycontemplatedinthesecond paragraph of the same article. (Uy Tam and Uy Yetvs. Leonard, 30Phil.Rep.,471.)AsobservedbythiscourtinManilaRailroadCo.vs.CompaaTrasatlntica,R.G.No. 11318 (38 Phil. Rep., 875), a contract, when effectuallyenteredintobetweencertainparties,determinesnotonlythecharacterandextentoftheliabilityofthecontractingpartiesbutalsothepersonorentitybywhomtheobligation is exigible. The same idea should. apparently beap-601VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 601Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.plicablewithrespecttothepersonagainstwhomtheobligation of the contract may be enforced; for it is evidentthattheremustbeacertainmutualityintheobligation,and if the stranger to a contract is not permitted to sue toenforce it, he cannot consistently be held liable upon it.If the two antagonistic ideas which we have just broughtinto juxtaposition are capable of reconciliation, the process8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 16 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestmustbeaccomplishedbydistinguishingclearlybetweentherightofactionarisingfromtheimproperinterferencewiththecontractbyastrangerthereto,consideredasanindependent act generative of civil liability, and the right ofaction ex contractu against a party to the contract resultingfromthebreachthereof.However,wedonotproposeheretopursuethematterfurther,inasmuchas,forreasonspresentlytobestated,weareoftheopinionthatneitherthe doctrine ofLumley vs. Gye[supra]northeapplicationmadeofitbythiscourtinGilchristvs.Cuddy(29Phil.Rep.,542),affordsanybasisfortherecoveryofthedamages which the plaintiff is supposed to have suffered byreasonofhisinabilitytocomplywiththetermsoftheWakefield contract.Whatevermaybethecharacteroftheliabilitywhichastrangertoacontractmayincurbyadvisingorassistingoneofthepartiestoevadeperformance,thereisonepropositionuponwhichallmustagree.Thisis,thatthestranger cannot become more extensively liable in damagesforthenonperformanceofthecontractthanthepartyinwhosebehalfheintermeddles.Toholdthestrangerliablefordamagesinexcessofthosethatcouldberecoveredagainsttheimmediatepartytothecontractwouldleadtoresults at once grotesque and unjust. In the case at bar, asTeodoricaEndenciawasthepartydirectlyboundbythecontract,itisobviousthattheliabilityofthedefendantcorporation,evenadmittingthatithasmadeitselfcoparticipant in the breach of the contract, can in no eventexceedhers.Thisleadsustoconsideratthispointtheextent of the liability of Teodorica Endencia to the plaintiffby reason of her failure602602 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.to surrender the certificate of title and to place the plaintiffin possession.ItshouldinthefirstplacebenotedthattheliabilityofTeodorica Endencia for damages resulting from the breachofhercontractwithDaywaltwasapropersubjectfor8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 17 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestadjudicationintheactionforspecificperformancewhichDaywaltinstitutedagainstherin1909andwhichwaslitigated by him to a successful conclusion in this court, butwithout obtaining any special adjudication with referrencetodamages.Indemnificationfordamagesresultingfromthebreachofacontractisarightinseparablyannexedtoeveryactionforthefulfilmentoftheobligation(art.1124,CivilCode);anditisclearthatifdamagesarenotsoughtorrecoveredintheactiontoenforceperformancetheycannotberecoveredinanindependentaction.AstoTeodorica Endencia, therefore, it should be considered thatthe right of action to recover damages for the breach of thecontractinquestionwasexhaustedinthepriorsuit.However,herattorneyshavenotseenfittointerposethedefense of res judicatainherbehalf;andasthedefendantcorporationwasnotapartytothataction,andsuchdefensecouldnotinanyeventbeofanyavailtoit,weproceed to consider the question of the liability of TeodoricaEndencia for damages without reference to this point.The most that can be said with reference to the conductofTeodoricaEndenciaisthatsherefusedtocarryoutacontract for the sale of certain land and resisted to the lastan action for specific performance in court. The result wasthat the plaintiff was prevented during a period of severalyears from exerting that control over the property which hewas entitled to exert and was meanwhile unable to disposeofthepropertyadvantageously.Now,whatisthemeasureofdamagesforthewrongfuldetentionofrealpropertybythevenderafterthetimehascomeforhimtoplacethepurchaser in possession?Thedamagesordinarilyandnormallyrecoverableagainstavendorforfailuretodeliverlandwhichhehascontracted603VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 603Daywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.to deliver is the value of the use and occupation of the landfor the time during which it is wrongfully withheld. And ofcoursewherethepurchaserhasnotpaidthepurchase8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 18 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestmoney, a deduction may be made in respect to the interestonthemoneywhichconstitutesthepurchaseprice.Substantiallythesameruleholdswithrespecttotheliabilityofalandlordwhofailstoputhistenantinpossession pursuant to a contract of lease. The measure ofdamagesisthevalueoftheleaseholdinterest,oruseandoccupation,lessthestipulatedrent,wherethishasnotbeenpaid.Therulethatthemeasureofdamagesforthewrongfuldetentionoflandisnormallytobefoundinthevalue of use and occupation is, we believe, one of the thingsthat may be considered certain in the law (39 Cyc., 1630; 24Cyc.,1052;SedgewickonDamages,Ninthed.,sec.185.)almost as wellsettled, indeed, as the rule that the measureofdamagesforthewrongfuldetentionofmoneyistobefound in the interest.Werecognizethepossibilitythatmoreextensivedamagesmayberecoveredwhere,atthetimeofthecreation of the contractual obligation, the vendor, or lessor,is aware of the use to which the purchaser or lessee desiresto put the property which is the subject of the contract, andthecontractismadewiththeeyesofthevendororlessoropentothepossibilityofthedamagewhichmayresulttothe other party from his own failure to give possession. Thecasebeforeusisnotofthischaracter,inasmuchasatthetime when the rights of the parties under the contract weredetermined,nothingwasknowntoanyofthemabouttheSanFranciscocapitalistwhowouldbewillingtobacktheproject portrayed in Exhibit C.Theextentoftheliabilityforthebreachofacontractmustbedeterminedinthelightofthesituationinexistenceatthetimethecontractismade;andthedamages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited tosuchasmightbereasonablyforeseeninthelightofthefactsthenknowntothecontractingparties.Wherethepurchaser desires604604 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.toprotecthimself,inthecontingencyofthefailureofthe8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 19 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guestvendorpromptlytogivepossession,fromthepossibilityofincurringotherdamagesthansuchasareincidenttothenormal value of the use and occupation, he should cause tobeinsertedinthecontractaclauseprovidingforstipulatedamounttobepaiduponfailureofthevendortogivepossession;andnocasehasbeencalledtoourattentionwhere,intheabsenceofsuchastipulation,damages have been held to be recoverable by the purchaserin excess of the normal value of use and occupation. On thecontrary,themostfundamentalconceptionsofthelawrelative to the assessment of damages are inconsistent withsuch idea.TheprinciplesgoverningthisbranchofthelawwereprofoundlyconsideredinthecaseofHadleyvs.Baxendale(9Exch.,341),decidedintheEnglishCourtofExchequerin1854;andafewwordsrelativetotheprinciplesgoverningtherecoveryofdamages,asexpoundedinthatdecision,willherebefoundinstructive.Thedecisioninthatcaseisconsideredaleadingauthorityinthejurisprudenceofthecommonlaw.TheplaintiffsinthatcasewereproprietorsofamillinGloucester,whichwaspropelledbysteam,andwhichwasengagedingrindingand supplying meal and flour to customers. The shaft of theengine got broken, and it became necessary that the brokenshaft be sent to an engineer or foundry man at Greenwich,toserveasamodelforcastingormanufacturinganotherthatwouldfitintothemachinery.ThebrokenshaftcouldbedeliveredatGreenwichontheseconddayafteritsreceiptbythecarrierItwasdeliveredtothedefendants,whowerecommoncarriersengagedinthatbusinessbetweenthesepoints,andwhohadtoldplaintiffsitwouldbedeliveredatGreenwichontheseconddayafteritsdeliverytothem,ifdeliveredatagivenhour.Thecarrierswereinformedthatthemillwasstopped,butwerenotinformed of the special purpose for which the broken shaftwasdesiredtobeforwarded.Theywerenottoldthemillwouldremainidleuntilthenewshaftwouldbereturned,or that the new shaft could not605VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 4, 1919. 6058/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 20 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=GuestDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.bemanufacturedatGreenwichuntilthebrokenonearrivedtoserveasamodel.Therewasdelaybeyondthetwo days in delivering the broken shaft at Greenwich, andacorrespondingdelayinstartingthemill.Noexplanationofthedelaywasofferedbythecarriers.Thesuitwasbroughttorecoverdamagesforthelostprofitsofthemill,causedbythedelayindeliveringthebrokenshaft.Itwasheld that the plaintiff could not recover.Thediscusioncontainedintheopinionofthecourtinthatcaseleadstotheconclusionthatthedamagesrecoverable in case of the breach of a contract are two sorts,namely, (1) the ordinary, natural, and in a sense necessarydamage; and (2) special damages.Ordinarydamagesisfoundinallbreachesofcontractwhere there are no special circumstances to distinguish thecase specially from other contracts. The consideration paidforanunperformedpromiseisaninstanceofthissortofdamage.Inallsuchcasesthedamagesrecoverablearesuch-asnaturallyandgenerallywouldresultfromsuchabreach,"accordingtotheusualcourseofthings."Incasesinvolvingonlyordinarydamagenodiscussioniseverindulgedastowhetherthatdamagewascontemplatedornot. This is conclusively presumed from the immediatenessand inevitableness of the damage, and the recovery of suchdamagefollowsasanecessarylegalconsequenceofthebreach. Ordinary damage is assumed as a matter of law tobe within the contemplation of the parties.Specialdamage,ontheotherhand,issuchasfollowslessdirectlyfromthebreachthanordinarydamage.Itisonlyfoundincasewheresomeexternalcondition,apartfromtheactualtermstothecontractexistsorintervenes,as it were, to give a turn to affairs and to increase damageinawaythatthepromisor,withoutactualnoticeofthatexternalcondition,couldnotreasonablybeexpectedtoforesee.Concerningthissortofdamage,Hadleyvs.Baxendale(1854)[supra]laysdownthedefiniteandjustrule that before such damage can be recovered the plaintiffmust6068/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 21 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guest606 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATEDDaywalt vs. Corporacin de PP. Agustinos Recoletos.show that the particular condition which made the damagea possible and likely consequence of the breach was knownto the defendant at the time the contract was made.Thestatementthatspecialdamagesmayberecoveredwherethelikelihoodofsuchdamagesflowingfromthebreach of the contract is contemplated and foreseen by thepartiesneedstobesupplementedbyapropositionwhich,thoughnotenunciatedinHadleyvs.Baxendale,isyetclearlytobedrawnfromsubsequentcases.Thisisthatwherethedamagewhichaplaintiffseekstorecoverasspecialdamageissofarspeculativeastobeincontemplationoflawremote,notificationofthespecialconditions which make that damage possible cannot renderthedefendantliabletherefor.Tobringdamageswhichwouldordinarilybetreatedasremotewithinthecategoryofrecoverablespecialdamages,itisnecessarythattheconditionshouldbemadethesubjectofcontractinsuchsenseastobecomeanexpressorimpliedtermoftheengagement. Horne vs. Midland R. Co. (L. R., 8 C. P., 131)isacasewherethedamagewhichwassoughttoberecoveredasspecialdamagewasreallyremote,andsomeof the judges rightly placed the disallowance of the damageonthegroundthattomakesuchdamagerecoverable,itmustsofarhavebeenwithinthecontemplationoftheparties as to form at least an implied term of the contract.Butothersproceededontheideathatthenoticegiventothedefendantwasnotsufficientlyfullanddefinite.Theresultwasthesameineitherview.Thefactsinthatcasewereasfollows:Theplaintiffs,shoemanufacturersatK,wereundercontracttosupplybyacertaindayshoestoafirm in London for the French government. They deliveredtheshoestoacarrierinsufficienttimeforthegoodstoreachLondonatthetimestipulatedinthecontractandinformed the railroad agent that the shoes would be thrownback upon their hands if they did not reach the destinationintime.Thedefendantsnegligentlyfailedtoforwardthegoodindueseason.Thesalewasthereforelost,andthemarket having fallen, the plaintiffs had to sell at a loss.8/8/15, 6:25 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039Page 22 of 22 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a43fe8855b953e4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALV629/?username=Guest607VOL. 39, FEBRUARY 6, 1919. 607Ahern vs. Julian.Intheprecedingdiscussionwehaveconsideredtheplaintiff'srightchieflyasagainstTeodoricaEndencia;andwhathasbeensaidsufficesinouropiniontodemonstratethatthedamageslaidunderthesecondcauseofactioninthecomplaintcouldnotberecoveredfromher,first,becausethedamagesinquestionarespecialdamageswhichwerenotwithincontemplationofthepartieswhenthe contract was made, and secondly, because said damagesare too remote to be the subject of recovery. This conclusionisalsonecessarilyfataltotherightoftheplaintifftorecoversuchdamagesfromthedefendantcorporation,for,as already suggested, by advising Teodorica not to performthecontract,saidcorporationcouldinnoeventrenderitselfmoreextensivelyliablethantheprincipalinthecontract.Ourconclusionisthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtshould be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs againstthe appellant.Arellano,C.J.,Torres,Carson,Araullo,Malcolm,Avancea, and Moir, JJ., concur.Judgment affirmed.____________ Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 1 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestVOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 155Air France vs. CarrascosoNo. L-21438. September 28, 1966.AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs.. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO andthe HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.Commoncarriers;Contracts;Firstclasstickets.Awrittendocumentspeaksauniformlanguage;thespokenwordcouldbenotoriouslyunreliable.Ifonlytoachievestabilityintherelationsbetweenpassengerandaircarrier,adherencetothetermsofaticket is desirable.Same; Damages; Moral damages; Trial; Badfaithinbreachofcontractofcarriage.Whereatthestartofthetrial,respondent'scounselplacedpetitioneronguardthatheintendedtoprovethat,whilesittingintheplaneinBangkok,therespondentwasousted.bypetitioner'smanager,whogavehisseattoawhiteman,andevidenceofbadfaithinthefulfillmentofthecontractwaspresentedwithoutobjectiononthepartofthepetitioner,itisthereforeunnecessarytoinquireastowhetherornotthereissufficientavermentinthecomplainttojustifyanawardformoraldamages.Deficiencyinthecomplaint,ifany,wascuredbytheevidence.Same;Exemplarydamages.TheNewCivilCodegivesthecourtamplepowertograntexemplarydamagesincontractsandquasi-contracts.Theonlyconditionisthatdefendantshouldhaveactedinawanton,fraudulent,reckless,oppressive,ormalevolentmanner.ThemannerofejectmentofrespondentCarrascosofromhis first class seat fits into this legal precept.Same;Attorney'sfees.Therighttoattorney'sfeesisfullyestablished.Thegrantofexemplarydamagesjustifiesasimilarjudgmentforattorney'sfees.Theleastthatcanbesaidisthatthecourts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys fees8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 2 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestbegiven.Wedonotintendtobreaktraditionthatdiscretionwellexercisedas it was hereshould not be disturbed.156156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. CarrascosoPETITIONforreviewbycertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili for petitioner.Bengzon,Villegas&ZarragaforrespondentR.Carrascoso.SANCHEZ, J.:The Court of First Instance of Manila1 sentenced petitionerto' pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way ofmoraldamages;P10,000.00asexemplarydamages;P393.20representingthedifferenceinfarebetweenfirstclassandtouristclassfortheportionofthetripBangkok-Rome,thesevariousamountswithinterestatthelegalrate, from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid;plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit.Onappeal,2theCourtofAppealsslightlyreducedtheamountofrefundonCarrascoso'splaneticketfromP393.20toP383.10,andvotedtoaffirmtheappealeddecision"inallotherrespects'',withcostsagainstpetitioner.The case is now before us for review on certiorari.ThefactsdeclaredbytheCourtofAppealsas"fullysupported by the evidence of record", are:"Plaintiff,acivilengineer,wasamemberofagroupof48Filipinopilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958:OnMarch28,1958,thedefendant,AirFrance,throughitsauthorizedagent,PhilippineAirLines,Inc.,issuedtoplaintiffa'firstclass'roundtripairplaneticketfromManilatoRome.FromManilatoBangkok,plaintifftravelledin'firstclass',butatBangkok,theManagerofthedefendantairlineforcedplaintifftovacatethe'firstclass'seatthathewasoccupyingbecause,inthe8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 3 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestwordsofthewitnessErnestoG.Cuento,therewasa'whiteman',who,theManageralleged,hada'betterright'totheseat.Whenaskedtovacatehis'firstclass'seat,theplaintiff,aswastobeexpected, refused, and_______________1CivilCaseNo.38810,"RafaelCarrascoso,plaintiff,vs.AirFrance,defendant," R.A., pp. 79-80.2C.A.-G.R.No.26522-R,"RafaelCarrascoso,plaintiff-appellee,vs.AirFrance, defendant-appellant."157VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 157Air France vs. Carrascosotolddefendant'sManagerthathisseatwouldbetakenoverhisdeadbody;acommotionensued,and,accordingtosaidErnestoG,Cuento, 'many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the touristclass;whentheyfoundoutthatMr.Carrascosowashavingahotdiscussionwiththewhiteman[manager],theycameallacrosstoMr.CarrascosoandpacifiedMr.Carrascosotogivehisseattothewhiteman'(Transcript,p.12,HearingofMay26,1959);andplaintiff reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat. in the plane."31.Thetrustofthereliefpetitionernowseeksisthatwereview"allthefindings"4ofrespondentCourtofAppeals.Petitionerchargesthatrespondentcourtfailedtomakecompletefindingsoffactonalltheissuesproperlylaidbeforeit.Weareaskedtoconsider-factsfavorabletopetitioner,andthen,tooverturntheappellatecourt'sdecision.Comingintofocusistheconstitutionalmandatethat"Nodecisionshallberenderedbyanycourtofrecordwithoutexpressingthereinclearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthelawonwhichitisbased".5Thisisechoedinthestatutory demand that a judgment determining the meritsofthecaseshallstate"clearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthe law on which it is based" ;6 and that "Every decision ofthe Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of facton all issues properly raised before it".7Adecisionwithabsolutelynothingtosupportitisa8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 4 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestnullity. It is open to direct attack.8 The law, however, solelyinsiststhatadecisionstatethe"essentialultimatefacts"uponwhichthecourt'sconclusionisdrawn,9Acourtofjusticeisnothideboundtowriteinitsdecisioneverybitand piece of evidence10 presented by one party________________3 Appendix A, petitioner's brief, pp. 146-147. See also R.A., pp. 66-67.4 Petitioner's brief, p. 142.5 Section 12, Article VIII, Constitution.6Section1,Rule36,RulesofCourt.SeealsoSection2,Rule120,inreference to judgments in criminal cases.7 Sec. 4, Rule 51; Sec. 33(2), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.8Edwardsvs.McCoy,22Phil.598,601;Yangcovs.CourtofFirstInstance of Manila, et al., 29 Phil. 183, 191.9 Braga vs. Millora, 3) Phil. 458, 465.10 Id.158158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoandtheotherupontheissuesraised.Neitherisittobeburdened with the obligation "to specify in the sentence thefacts" whichaparty"consideredasproved".11 This is but apart of the mental process from which the Court draws theessentialultimatefacts.Adecisionisnottobesocloggedwithdetailssuchthatprolixity,ifnotconfusion,mayresult.SolongasthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealscontains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it isno error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific -findingoffactswithrespecttotheevidenceforthedefense". Because, as this Court well observed, "There is nolaw that so requires".12 Indeed, "the mere failure to specify(inthedecision)thecontentionsoftheappellantandthereasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to holdthe same contrary to the requirements of the provisions oflawandtheConstitution".Itisinthissetting.thatinManigque, it was held that the mere fact that the findings8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 5 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest"werebasedentirelyontheevidencefortheprosecutionwithouttakingintoconsiderationorevenmentioningtheappellant'ssideinthecontroversyasshownbyhisowntestimony",wouldnotvitiatethejudgment.13Ifthecourtdid not recite in the decision the testimony of each witnessfor,oreachitemofevidencepresentedby,thedefeatedparty, it does not mean that the court has overlooked suchtestimony or such item of evidence.14 At any rate, the legalpresumptionsarethatofficialdutyhasbeenregularlyperformed,andthatallthematterswithinanissueinacase were laid before the court and passed upon by it.15Findings of fact, which the Court of Appeals is requiredtomake,maybe*definedas"thewrittenstatementoftheultimate facts as found by the court 'x 'x 'x and essential tosupport the decision and judgment rendered_______________11 Aringo vs. Arena, 14 Phil. 263, 266; emphasis supplied.12 Reyes vs. People, 71 Phil. 598, 600.13 People vs. Manigque, 35 O.G., No. 94, pp. 1682, 1683, citing Section133oftheCodeofCivilProcedureandSection12,Art.VIII,Constitution, supra.14 Badger, et al. vs. Boyd, 65 S.W. (2d), pp. 601, 610.15 Section 5, (m) and (o), Rule 131, Rules of Court*Editor's Note: Should read may be.159VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 159Air France vs. Carrascosothereon".16Theyconsistofthecourt's"conclusions"withrespecttothedeterminativefactsinissue".17Aquestionoflaw, upon the other hand. has been declared as "one whichdoesnotcallforanexaminationoftheprobativevalueofthe evidence presented by the parties."182.Bystatute,"onlyquestionsoflawmayberaised"inanappealbycertiorarifromajudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.19 That judgment is conclusive as to the facts. It isnotappropriatelythebusinessofthisCourttoalterthefacts or to review the questions of fact.208/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 6 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestWiththeseguideposts,wenowfacetheproblemofwhether the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supportits judgment.3.WasCarrascosoentitledtothefirstclassseatheclaims?It is conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 hepaid to and received from petitioner a first class ticket. Butpetitionerassertsthatsaidticketdidnotrepresentthetrue and complete intent and agreement of the parties; thatsaidrespondentknewthathedidnothaveconfirmedreservationsforfirstclassonanyspecificflight,althoughhehadtouristclassprotection;that,accordingly,theissuanceofafirstclassticketwasnoguaranteethathewouldhaveafirstclassride,butthatsuchwoulddependupon the availability of first class seats.ThesearematterswhichpetitionerhasthoroughlypresentedanddiscussedinitsbriefbeforetheCourtofAppealsunderitsthirdassignmentoferror,whichreads:"Thetrialcourterredinfindingthatplaintiffhadconfirmedreservationsfor,andarightto,firstclassseatson the 'definite' segments of his journey, particularly_______________16 In re Good's Estate, 266 P. (2d), pp. 719, 729.17 Badger, et al. vs. Boyd, supra.18 Goduco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17647, February 28, 1964,19 Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court, formerly Section 2, Rule 46 of theRules of Court.20Medel,etal.vs.Calasanz,etal.,L-14835,August31,1960;Astraquillo, et al. vs. Javier, et al., L-20034, January 30, 1965.160160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosothat from Saigon to Beirut".21And,theCourtofAppealsdisposedofthiscontentionthus:"Defendant seems to capitalize on the argument that the issuance of8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 7 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestafirst-classticketwasnoguaranteethatthepassengertowhomthe same had been issued, would be accommodated in the first-classcompartment,forasinthecaseofplaintiffhehadyettomakearrangementsuponarrivalateverystationforthenecessaryfirst-classreservation.Wearenotimpressedbysuchareasoning.Wecannotunderstandhowareputablefirmlikedefendantairplanecompanycouldhavetheindiscretiontogiveoutticketsitnevermeanttohonoratall.Itreceivedthecorrespondingamountinpayment of first-class tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to beatthemercyofitsemployees.Itismoreinkeepingwiththeordinary course of business that the company should know whetheror not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not."22NotthattheCourtofAppealsisalone.Thetrialcourtsimilarly disposed of petitioner's contention, thus:"Onthefactthatplaintiffpaidfor,andwasissueda'First class' ticket, there can be no question. Apart from histestimony,seeplaintiff'sExhibits'A,'A-1','B','B-1','B-2','C' and 'C-1', and defendant's own witness. Rafael Altonaga,confirmed plaintiff's testimony and testified as follows:Q. In these tickets there are marks 'O.K.' From what youknow, what does this O.K. mean?A. That the space is confirmed.Q. Confirmed for first class?A, Yes, 'first class'. (Transcript, p. 169)xxxx"Defendant tried to prove by the testimony of its witnessesLuisZaldariagaandRafaelAltonagathatalthoughplaintiffpaidfor,andwasissueda'firstclass'airplaneticket, the ticket was subject to confirmation in Hongkong.Thecourtcannotgivecredittothetestimonyofsaidwitnesses.Oralevidencecannotprevailoverwrittenevidence.andplaintiffsExhibits'A','A-1','B','B-1''C'and'C-1' belie the testimony of said witnesses, and clearly showthattheplaintiffwasissued,andpaidfor,afirstclassticket without any reservation whatever.Furthermore,ashereinaboveshown,defendant'sownwit-8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 8 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest_______________21 Petitioner's brief in the Court of Appeals, pp, 82-98.22 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Appendix A, petitioner's brief, pp.148-149,161VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 161Air France vs. CarrascosonessRafaelAltonagatestifiedthatthereservationfora'firstclass'accommodationfortheplaintiffwasconfirmed.Thecourtcannotbelievethataftersuchconfirmationdefendanthadaverbalunderstandingwithplaintiffthatthe 'first class' ticket issued to him by defendant wouild besubject to confirmation in Hongkong."23We have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for aslightdifferenceofafewpesosintheamountrefundedonCarrascoso'sticket,thedecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstance was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in all otherrespects.Weholdtheviewthatsuchajudgmentofaffirmancehasmergedthejudgmentofthelowercourt.24Implicit in that affirmance is a determination by the CourtofAppealsthattheproceedingintheCourtofFirtsInstance was free from prejudicial error and "all questionsraisedbytheassignmentsoferrorandallquestionsthatmighthavebeenraisedaretoberegardedasfinallyadjudicatedagainsttheappellant".Soalso,thejudgmentaffirmed"mustberegardedasfreefromallerror".25Wereachedthispolicyconstructionbecausenothinginthedecision of the Court of Appeals on this point would suggestthat its findings of fact are in any way at war with those ofthetrialcourt.NorwassaidaffirmancebytheCourtofAppealsuponagroundorgroundsdifferentfromthosewhichweremadethebasisoftheconclusionsofthetrialcourt.26If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder isnotentitledtoafirstclassset,nothwithstandingthefactthatseatavailabilityinapecificflightsisthereinconfirmed, then an air passenger is placed in the hollow ofthe hands of an airline. What security then can a passenger8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 9 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guesthave? it will always be an easy matter for an airline aidedbyitsemployees,tostrikeouttheverystipulationsintheticket,andsaythattherewasaverbalagreementtothecontrary. What if the passenger hada a_______________23 R.A., pp. 67, 7324 5 B C.J.S., p. 295 ; 3 Am. Jur. 678.25 3 Am. Jur., pp. 677-678.26 See Garcia Valdez vs. Seteraa Tuason, 40 Phil. 943, 951.162162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascososcheduletofulfill?Wehavelonglearnedthat,asarule,awrittendocumentspeaksauniformlanguage;thatspokenwordcouldbenotoriouslyunreliable.Ifonlytoachievestability in the relations between passenger and air carrier,adherencetotheticketsoissuedisdesirable.Suchisthecasehere.Thelowercourtsrefusedtobelievetheoralevidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket.TheforegoingaretheconsiderationswhichpointtotheconclusionthattherearefactsuponwhichtheCourtofAppeals predicated the finding that respondent Carrascosohad a first class ticket and was entitled to a first class seatat Bangkok, which is a stopover in the Saigon to Beirut legoftheflight.27Weperceiveno"welterofdistortionsbytheCourtofAppealsofpetitioner'sstatementofItsposition",aschargedbypetitioner.28Nordowesubscribetopetitioner'saccusationthatrespondentCarrascoso"surreptitiouslytookafirstclassseattoprovokeanissue".29Andthisbecause,aspetitionerstates,CarrascosowenttoseetheManagerathisofficeinBangkok"toconfirm my seat and because from Saigon I) was told againto see the Manager".30 Why, then, was he allowed to take afirst class seat in the plane at Bangkok, if he had no seat?Or, if another had a better right to the seat?4.Petitionerassailsrespondentcourt'sawardofmoraldamages.Petitioner'strenchantclaimisthatCarrascoso's8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 10 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest"3.4.action is planted upon breach of contract; that to authorizean award for moral damages there must be______________27 Carrascosos ticket, according to petitioner (brief, pp. 7-8), shows: Segment or leg Carrier Flight No. Date of Departure1. Manila to Hongkong PAL 300A March 302. Hongkong to Saigon VN(Air Vietnam) 693 March 313. Saigon to Beirut AF (Air France) 245 March 3128 Petitioner's brief, p. 50; see also id., pp. 37 and 46.29 Id., p. 103.30 Ibid., p. 102.163VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 163Air France vs. Carrascosoan averment of fraud or bad 'f aith ;31 and that the decisionof the Court of Appeals fails to make a finding of bad faith.Thepivotalallegationsinthecomplaintbearingonthisissue are:ThatxxxplaintiffenteredintoacontractofaircarriagewiththePhilippineAirLinesforavaluableconsideration,thelatteractingasgeneralagentsforandinbehalfofthedefendant,underwhichsaidcontract,plaintiffwasentitledto,asdefendantagreedtofurnishplaintiff,FirstClasspassageondefendant'splaneduringtheentiredurationofplaintiff'stourofEuropewithHongkongasstartingpointuptoanduntilplaintiffs return trip to Manila, x x x.That,duringthefirsttwolegsofthetripfromHongkongtoSaigonandfromSaigontoBangkok,defendantfurnishedtotheplaintiffFirstClassaccommodationbutonlyafterprotestations,argumentsand/orinsistenceweremadebytheplaintiff with defendant's employees.8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 11 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest5.6.2.That finally, defendant failed to provide First Classpassage, but instead furnished plaintiff only TouristClassaccommodationsfromBangkoktoTeheranand/orCasablanca,xxxtheplaintiffhasbeencompelledbydefendant'semployeestoleavetheFirst Class accommodation berths at Bangkok afterhe was already seated.Thatconsequently,theplaintiff,desiringnorepetitionoftheinconvenienceandembarrassmentsbroughtbydefendant'sbreachofcontractwasforcedtotakeaPanAmericanWorldAirwaysplaneonhisreturntripfromMadridtoManila.32 xxxxxxxxxThatlikewise,asaresultofdefendant'sfailuretofurnishFirstClassaccommodationsaforesaid.plaintiffsufferedinconveniences,embarrassments,andhumiliations,therebycausingplaintiffmentalanguish,seriousanxiety,woundedfeelings,socialhumiliation,andthelikeinjury,resultinginmoraldamages in the amount of P30,000.00."33xxxxTheforegoing,inouropinion,substantiallyaver:First,That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first_______________31 Article 2220, Civil Code reads: "Willful injury to property may be alegalgroundforawardingmoraldamagesifthecourtshouldfindthat,underthecircumstances,suchdamagesarejustlydue.Thesameruleappliestobreachesofcontractwherethedefendantacted'fraudulentlyor in bad faith."32 R.A., p. 2-4; italics supplied.33 R.A., p. 5; second cause of action.164164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascoso8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 12 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestclasspassagecovering,amongstothers,theBangkokTeheranleg;Second,Thatsaidcontractwasbreachedwhenpetitionerfailedtofurnishfirstclasstransportation at Bangkok; and Third, That there was badfaithwhenpetitioner'semployeecompelledCarrascosotoleavehisfirstclassaccommodationberth"afterhewasalreadyseated"andtotakeaseatinthetouristclass,byreasonofwhichhesufferedinconvenience,embarrassmentsandhumiliations,therebycausinghimmentalanguish,seriousanxiety,woundedfeelingsandsocialhumiliation,resultinginmoraldamages.Itistruethatthereisnospecificmentionofthetermbadfaithinthecomplaint.But,theinferenceofbadfaithisthere,itmaybedrawnfromthefactsandcircumstancessetforththerein.34 The contract was averred to establish the relationbetweentheparties.Butthestressoftheactionisputonwrongf ul expulsion.Quiteapartfromtheforegoingisthat(a)rightatthestart of the trial, respondent's counsel placed petitioner onguardonwhatCarrascosointendedtoprove:ThatwhilesittingintheplaneinBangkok,Carrascosowasousted bypetitioner'smanagerwhogavehisseattoawhiteman; 35and(b)evidenceofbadfaith'inthefulfillmentofthecontract was presented without objection on the part of thepetitioner.Itis,therefore,unnecessarytoinquireastowhetherornotthereissufficientavermentinthecomplainttojustifyanawardformoraldamages.Deficiencyinthecomplaint,ifany,wascuredbytheevidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidenceis not even required.36 On the question of bad_______________34 Copeland vs, Dunehoo, et al., 138 S.E., 267, 270. See also 25 C.J.S.,pp. 758-759; 15 Am. Jur., pp. 766-767.35StatementofAttorneyVillegasforrespondentCarrascosoinopencourt, Respondent's brief, p. 33.36Section5,Rule10,RulesofCourt,inpartreads:''SEC.5.Amendmenttoconformtoorauthorizepresentationofevidence.Whenissues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespects,asiftheyhadbeenraisedinthepleadings.Suchamendmentofthepleadingsasmaybe8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 13 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestnecessarytocausethemtoconformtotheevidenceandtoraisetheseissuesmaybemadeuponmotionofanypartyatanytime,evenafterjudgment; but failure so to amend does not affect165VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 165Air France vs. Carrascosofaith, the Court of Appeals declared:"ThattheplaintiffwasforcedoutofhisseatinthefirstclasscompartmentoftheplanebelongingtothedefendantAirFrancewhile at Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not onlywithouthisconsentbutagainsthiswill,hasbeensufficientlyestablishedbyplaintiffinhistestimonybeforethecourt,corroboratedbythecorrespondingentrymadebythepurseroftheplane in his notebook which notation reads as follows:'First-classpassengerwasforcedtogotothetouristclassagainsthiswill, and that the captain refused to intervene',and by the testimony of an eye-witness, Ernesto G. Cuento, whowas a co-passenger. The captain of the plane who was asked by themanagerofdefendantcompanyatBangkoktointerveneevenrefused to do so. It is noteworthy that no one on behalf of defendantevercontradictedordeniedthisevidencefortheplaintiff.Itcouldhave been easy for defendant to present its manager at Bangkok totestifyatthetrialofthecase,oryettosecurehisdisposition;butdefendant did neither.37The Court of Appeals further stated"Neitheristhereevidenceastowhetherornotapriorreservationwasmadebythewhiteman.Hence,iftheemployeesofthedefendantatBangkoksoldafirst-classtickettohimwhenalltheseatshadalreadybeentaken,surelytheplaintiffshouldnothavebeenpickedoutastheonetosuffertheconsequencesandtobesubjected to the humiliation and indignity of being ejected from hisseatinthepresenceofothers.Insteadofexplainingtothewhitemantheimprovidencecommittedbydefendant'semployees,themanager adopted the more drastic step of ousting the plaintiff whowasthensafelyensconscedinhisrightfulseat.Weare8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 14 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Gueststrengthenedinourbeliefthatthisprobablywaswhathappenedthere, by the testimony of defendant's witness Rafael Altonaga who,whenaskedtoexplainthemeaningoftheletters'O.K.'appearingon the tickets of plaintiff, said 'that the space is confirmed' for firstclass.Likewise,ZenaidaFaustino,anotherwitnessfordefendant,whowasthechiefoftheReservationOfficeofdefendant,testifiedas follows:'Q. How does the person in the ticket-issuing office_______________the result of the trial of these issues. 'x x x"; Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, etc., et al.,75 Phil. 672, 679; J.M. Tuason ,& Co., Inc., etc. vs. Bolaos, 95 Phil. 106, 110.37 Decision, Court of Appeals, Appendix A of petitioner's brief, pp, 147-148.166166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoknow what reservation the passenger has arranged with you ?A.Theycallusupbyphoneandaskfortheconfirmation.'(t.s.n.,p.247, June 19, 1959)Inthisconnection,wequotewithapprovalwhatthetrialJudge has said on this point:'Why did the, using the .words of witness Ernesto G. Cuento, 'whiteman'havea'betterright'totheseatoccupiedbyMr.Carrascoso?The record is silent. The defendant airline did not prove 'any better',nay, any right on the part of the 'white man' to the 'First class' seatthattheplaintiffwasoccupyingandforwhichhepaidandwasissued a corresponding 'first class' ticket.'lftherewasajustifiedreasonfortheactionofthedefendant'sManagerinBangkok,thedefendantcouldhaveeasilyprovenitbyhaving taken the testimony of the said Manager by deposition, butdefendantdidnotdoso;thepresumptionisthatevidencewillfullysuppressedwouldbeadverseifproduced[Sec.69,par(e),RulesofCourt];and,underthecircumstances,theCourtisconstrainedtofind,asitdoesfind.thattheManagerofthedefendantairlineinBangkok not merely asked but threatened the plaintiff to throw himout of the plane if he did not give up his 'first class seat because the8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 15 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestsaidManagerwantedtoaccommodate,usingthewordsofthewitness Ernesto G. Cuento, the 'white man'."38ItisreallycorrecttosaythattheCourtofAppealsinthequotedportionfirsttranscribeddidnotusetheterm"badfaith". But can it be doubted that the recital of facts thereinpointstobadfaith?ThemanagernotonlypreventedCarrascosofromenjoyinghisrighttoafirstclassseat;worse, he imposed his arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected himfrom his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having togotothetouristclasscompartmentjusttogivewaytoanotherpassengerwhoserighttheretohasnotbeenestablished.Certainly,thisisbadfaith.Unless,ofcourse,badfaithhasassumedameaningdifferentfromwhatisunderstood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state ofmindaffirmativelyoperatingwithfurtivedesignorwithsome motive of self-_______________38DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,AppendixAofpetitioner'sbrief,pp. 147-151.167VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 167Air France vs. Carrascosointerest or ill will or for ulterior purpose, "39And if the foregoing were not yet sufficient, there is theexpress finding of bad faith in the judgment of the Court ofFirst Instance, thus:"Theevidenceshowsthatdefendantviolateditscontractoftransportationwithplaintiffinbadfaith,withtheaggravatingcircumstancesthatdefendant'sManagerinBangkokwenttotheextentofthreateningtheplaintiffinthepresenceofmanypassengers to have him thrown out of the airplane to give the 'firstclass'seatthathewasoccupyingto,againusingthewordsofthewitnessErnestoG.Cuento,a'whiteman'whomhe(defendant'sManager)wishedtoaccommodate,andthedefendanthasnotproventhatthis'whiteman'hadany'betterright'tooccupythe8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 16 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest'first class' seat that the plaintiff was occupying, duly paid for, andforwhichthecorresponding'firstclass'ticketwasissuedbythedefendant to him."405.Theresponsibilityofanemployerforthetortiousactofits employees need not be essayed. It is well settled in law.41Forthewillfulmalevolentactofpetitioner'smanager,petitioner,hisemployer,mustanswer.Article21oftheCivil Code says:"ART.21.Anypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherinamannerthatiscontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicy shall compensate the latter for the damage."Inparallelcircumstances,weappliedtheforegoinglegalprecept;and,weheldthatupontheprovisionsofArticle2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable.426. A contract to transport passengers is quite different inkind and degree from any other contractual relation.43 Andthis,becauseoftherelationwhichanair-carriersustainswiththepublic.Itsbusinessismainlywiththetravellingpublic.Itinvitespeopletoavailofthecomfortsandadvantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore,generates a relation attended with_______________39 Words ,& Phrases, Perm. Ed., Vol. 5, p. 13, citing Warfield NaturalGas Co. vs. Allen, 59 S.W. (2d) 534, 538.40 R.A., p. 74; italics supplied.41 Article 2180, Civil Code.42PhilippineRefiningCo.vs.Garcia,etal.,L-21871andL-21962,September 27, 1966.43 See Section 4, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Civil Code.168168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoapublicduty.Neglectormalfeasanceofthecarrier'semployees,naturally,couldgivegroundforanactionfordamages.8/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 17 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestPassengersdonotcontractmerelyfortransportation.Theyhavearighttobetreatedbythecarriersemployeeswithkindness,respect,courtesyanddueconsideration.Theyareentitledtobeprotectedagainstpersonalmisconduct,injuriouslanguage,indignitiesandabusesfrom such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteousconduct on the part of employees towards a passenger givesthe latter an action for damages against the carrier.44Thus,"Whereasteamshipcompany45hadacceptedapassenger'scheck,itwasabreachofcontractandatort,giving a right of action for its agent in the presence of thirdpersonstofalselynotifyherthatthecheckwasworthlessanddemandpaymentunderthreatofejection,thoughthelanguage used was not insulting and she was not ejected."46Andthis,because,althotherelationofpassengerandcarrieris"contractualbothinoriginandnature"nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be alsoatort".47Andinanothercase,"Whereapassengeronarailroadtrain,whentheconductorcametocollecthisfaretenderedhimthecashfaretoapointwherethetrainwasschedulednottostop,andtoldhimthatassoonasthetrainreachedsuchpointhewouldpaythecashfarefromthat point to destination, there was nothing in the conductofthepassengerwhichjustifiedtheconductorinusinginsultinglanguagetohim,asbycallinghimalunatic."48andtheSupremeCourtofSouthCarolinathereheldthecarrier liable for the mental suffering of said passenger.Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended_______________44 4. R.C.L., pp. 1174-1175.45 An air carrier is a common carrier; and air transportation is similaroranalogoustolandandwatertransportation.Mendozavs.PhilippineAir Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 841-842.46 Austro-American S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 F. 231.47 Id., p. 233.48 Lipman vs. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 93 S.E. 714, 716.169VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 1698/8/15, 6:26 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 18 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a44fefb80927b04000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestAir France vs. Carrascosowithpublicduty.ThestressofCarrascoso'sactionaswehav
Related Documents
