8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 1
of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guest540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs. BautistaG.R. No. 41423.
February 23,
1989.*LUISJOSEPH,petitioner,vs.HON.CRISPINV.BAUTISTA,PATROCINIOPEREZ,ANTONIOSIOSON,JACINTOPAGARIGAN,ALBERTOCARDENOandLAZARO
VILLANUEVA, respondents.Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Cause of
Action; When there isonly one delict or wrong, there is only one
cause of action regardlessof the number of rights that may have
been violated belonging to
oneperson.Theargumentthattherearetwocausesofactionembodiedinpetitionerscomplaint,hencethejudgmentonthecompromiseagreementunderthecauseofactionbasedonquasi-delict
is not a bar________________* SECOND DIVISION.541VOL. 170, FEBRUARY
23, 1989 541Joseph vs. Bautistato the cause of action for breach of
contract of carriage, is
untenable.Acauseofactionisunderstoodtobethedelictorwrongfulactoromissioncommittedbythedefendantinviolationoftheprimaryrights
of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can
be8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 2
of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestviolativeofvariousrightsatthesametime,aswhentheactconstitutesjuridicallyaviolationofseveralseparateanddistinctlegal
obligations. However, where there is only one delict or
wrong,thereisbutasinglecauseofactionregardlessofthenumberofrightsthatmayhavebeenviolatedbelongingtooneperson.Thesingleness
of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict
orwrongviolatingtherightsofoneperson.Nevertheless,ifonlyoneinjury
resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of
actionarises.Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoquestionthatthepetitionersustained
a single injury on his person. That vested in him a
singlecauseofaction,albeitwiththecorrelativerightsofactionagainstthe
different respondents through the appropriate remedies allowedby
law.CivilLaw;ObligationsandContracts;SolidaryObligation;Payment
made by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequentrelease
from liability results in the release from liability of the
othersolidarydebtors.Therespondentshavingbeenfoundtobesolidarily
liable to petitioner, the full payment made by some of
thesolidarydebtorsandtheirsubsequentreleasefromanyandallliability
to petitioner inevitably resulted in the extinguishment andrelease
from liability of the other solidary debtors, including
hereinrespondent Patrocinio Perez.APPEAL by certiorari to review
the orders of the Court ofFirst Instance of Bulacan, Br. III.
Bautista, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Jose
M. Castillo for
petitioner.ArturoZ.Siosonforprivaterespondent,PatrocinioPerez.CiprianoB.FarralesforprivaterespondentsexceptP.
Perez.REGALADO,
J.:Petitionerpraysinthisappealbycertiorarifortheannulmentandsettingasideoftheorder,datedJuly8,1975,dismissingpetitionerscomplaint,aswellastheorder,datedAugust22,1975,denyinghismotionforreconsideration
of said5428/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
170Page 3 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guest542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs.
Bautistadismissal,bothissuedbyrespondentJudgeCrispinV.BautistaoftheformerCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,Branch
III.Petitioner herein is the plaintiff
inCivilCaseNo.50-V-73entitledLuisJosephvs.PatrocinioPerez,DomingoVillaydeJesus,RosarioVargas,AntonioSioson,LazaroVillanuevaandJacintoPagarigan,filedbeforetheCourtof
First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, and presided
overbyrespondentJudgeCrispinV.Bautista;whileprivaterespondentsPatrocinioPerez,AntonioSioson,JacintoPagariganandLazaroVillanuevaarefourofthedefendantsinsaidcase.DefendantDomingoVillaydeJesusdidnotanswereithertheoriginalortheamendedcomplaint,whiledefendantRosarioVargascouldnotbeservedwithsummons;andrespondentAlbertoCardenoisincludedhereinashewasimpleadedbydefendantPatrocinioPerez,oneofrespondentsherein,inhercross-claim.Thegenerativefactsofthiscase,asculledfromthewritten
submission of the parties, are as
follows:RespondentPatrocinioPerezistheownerofacargotruck with Plate
No. 25-2 YT Phil. 73 for conveying
cargoesandpassengersforaconsiderationfromDagupanCitytoManila.OnJanuary12,1973,saidcargotruckdrivenbydefendantDomingoVillawasonitswaytoValenzuela,BulacanfromPangasinan.Petitioner,withacargooflivestock,boardedthecargotruckatDagupanCityafterpayingthesumofP9.00asone-wayfaretoValenzuela,Bulacan.WhilesaidcargotruckwasnegotiatingtheNationalHighwayproceedingtowardsManila,defendantDomingoVillatriedtoovertakeatricyclelikewiseproceeding
in the same direction. At about the same time, apick-up truck with
Plate No. 45-95 B, supposedly owned
byrespondentsAntonioSiosonandJacintoPagarigan,thendrivenbyrespondentLazaroVillanueva,triedtoovertakethe
cargo truck which was then in the process of overtakingthe
tricycle, thereby forcing the cargo truck to veer
towardstheshoulderoftheroadandtoramamangotree.Asaresult,petitionersustainedabonefractureinoneofhis8/8/15,
6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 4 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestlegs.1_______________1
Rollo, 5-7, 24-26.543VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 543Joseph vs.
BautistaThe following proceedings thereafter took
place:2PetitionerfiledacomplaintfordamagesagainstrespondentPatrocinioPerez,asownerofthecargotruck,basedonabreachofcontractofcarriageandagainstrespondentsAntonioSiosonandLazaroVillanueva,asowneranddriver,respectively,ofthepick-uptruck,basedon
quasi-delict.RespondentSiosonfiledhisanswerallegingthatheisnotandneverwasanownerofthepick-uptruckandneither
would he acquire ownership thereof in the
future.OnSeptember24,1973,petitioner,withpriorleaveofcourt, filed
his amended complaint impleading
respondentsJacintoPagariganandacertainRosarioVargasasadditionalalternativedefendants.Petitionerapparentlycouldnotascertainwhotherealownerofsaidcargotruckwas,whetherrespondentsPatrocinioPerezorRosarioVargas,
and who was the real owner of said pick-up truck,whether
respondents Antonio Sioson or Jacinto Pagarigan.Respondent Perez
filed her amended answer with
cross-claimagainstherco-defendantsforindemnityandsubrogationintheeventsheisorderedtopaypetitionersclaim,andthereinimpleadedcross-defendantAlbertoCardeno
as additional alternative defendant.On September 27, 1974,
respondents Lazaro
Villanueva,AlbertoCardeno,AntonioSiosonandJacintoPagarigan,thrutheirinsurer,InsuranceCorporationofthePhilippines,
paid petitioners claim for injuries sustained
intheamountofP1,300.00.Byreasonthereof,petitionerexecutedareleaseofclaimreleasingfromliabilitythefollowingparties,viz:InsuranceCorporationofthe8/8/15,
6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 5 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=GuestPhilippines,AlbertoCardeno,LazaroVillanueva,AntonioSioson
and Jacinto
Pagarigan.OnDecember2,1974,respondentsLazaroVillanueva,AlbertoCardenoandtheirinsurer,theInsuranceCorporationofthePhilippines,paidrespondentPatrocinioPerez
claim for damages to her cargo truck in the amountof
P7,420.61.Consequently,respondentsSioson,Pagarigan,CardenoandVillanuevafiledaMotiontoExonerateandExcludeDefs./Crossdefs.AlbertoCardeno,LazaroVillanueva,Antonio
Si-_______________2 Ibid., 6-9, 26-27; Petitions Brief, 2.544544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs.
BautistaosonandJacintoPagariganontheInstantCase,allegingthatrespondentsCardenoandVillanuevaalreadypaidP7,420.61bywayofdamagestorespondentPerez,andallegingfurtherthatrespondentsCardeno,Villanueva,SiosonandPagariganpaidP1,300.00topetitionerbywayof
amicable
settlement.Thereafter,respondentPerezfiledherOppositiontoCross-defs.
motion dated Dec. 2, 1974 and Counter
Motiontodismiss.Theso-calledcountermotiontodismisswaspremisedonthefactthatthereleaseofclaimexecutedbypetitionerinfavoroftheotherrespondentsinuredtothebenefitofrespondentPerez,consideringthatalltherespondents
are solidarity liable to herein petitioner.On July 8, 1975,
respondent judge issued the
questionedorderdismissingthecase,andamotionforthereconsiderationthereofwasdenied.Hence,thisappeal,petitionercontendingthatrespondentjudgeerredindeclaring
that the release of claim executed by petitioner
infavorofrespondentsSioson,VillanuevaandPagariganinuredtothebenefitofrespondentPerez;ergo,itlikewiseerred
in dismissing the case.8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 6 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=GuestWe
find the present recourse devoid of
merit.Theargumentthattherearetwocausesofactionembodied in
petitioners complaint, hence the judgment onthe compromise
agreement under the cause of action basedon quasi-delict is not a
bar to the cause of action for breachof contract of carriage, is
untenable.Acauseofactionisunderstoodtobethedelictorwrongfulactoromissioncommittedbythedefendantinviolationoftheprimaryrightsoftheplaintiff.3Itistruethatasingleactoromissioncanbeviolativeofvariousrightsatthesametime,aswhentheactconstitutesjuridically
a violation of several separate and distinct
legalobligations.However,wherethereisonlyonedelictorwrong,thereisbutasinglecauseofactionregardlessofthenumberofrightsthatmayhavebeenviolatedbelonging
to one person.4The singleness of a cause of action lies in the
singlenessofthedelictorwrongviolatingtherightsofoneperson.Never-_______________3
Racoma vs. Fortich, et al., 39 SCRA 520 (1971).4 I Moran, 1979 Ed.,
129-130.545VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 545Joseph vs.
Bautistatheless,ifonlyoneinjuryresultedfromseveralwrongfulacts,onlyonecauseofactionarises.5Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoquestionthatthepetitionersustainedasingleinjuryonhisperson.Thatvestedinhimasinglecauseofaction,albeitwiththecorrelativerightsofactionagainstthe
different respondents through the appropriate remediesallowed by
law.Thetrialcourtwas,therefore,correctinholdingthattherewasonlyonecauseofactioninvolvedalthoughthebasesofrecoveryinvokedbypetitioneragainstthedefendants
therein were not necessarily identical since
therespondentswerenotidenticallycircumstanced.However,8/8/15, 6:31
AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 7 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestarecoverybythepetitionerunderoneremedynecessarilybarsrecoveryundertheother.This,inessence,istherationalefortheproscriptioninourlawagainstdoublerecoveryforthesameactoromissionwhich,obviously,stemsfromthefundamentalruleagainstunjustenrichment.Thereisnoquestionthattherespondentshereinaresolidarily
liable to petitioner. On the evidence presented inthe court below,
the trial court found them to be so liable.
Itisundisputedthatpetitioner,inhisamendedcomplaint,prayedthatthetrialcourtholdrespondentsjointlyandseverallyliable.Furthermore,theallegationsintheamendedcomplaintclearlyimpleadedrespondentsassolidarydebtors.Wecannotacceptthevacuouscontentionofpetitionerthatsaidallegationsareintendedtoapplyonlyintheeventthatexecutionbeissuedinhisfavor.Thereisnothinginlaworjurisprudencewhichwouldcountenance
such a
procedure.Therespondentshavingbeenfoundtobesolidarilyliabletopetitioner,thefullpaymentmadebysomeofthesolidary
debtors and their subsequent release from any
andallliabilitytopetitionerinevitablyresultedintheextinguishmentandreleasefromliabilityoftheothersolidarydebtors,includinghereinrespondentPatrocinioPerez.Theclaimthattherewasanagreemententeredintobetweenthepartiesduringthepre-trialconferencethat,aftersuchpaymentmadebytheotherrespondents,thecaseshallproceedasagainstrespondentPerezisbothincredible
and unsub-_______________5 Op. cit., id., 132, 136.546546 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDReynoso vs. Court of
Appealsstantiated.Thereisnothingintherecordstoshow,eitherbywayofapre-trialorder,minutesoratranscriptofthe8/8/15,
6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 8 of 8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestnotes
of the alleged pre-trial hearing, that there was indeedsuch as
agreement.WHEREFORE,thechallengedordersoftherespondentjudge are
hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras,
Padilla,andSarmiento, JJ., concur.Orders
affirmed.Note.Acauseofactionisanactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightorrightsoftheother;and
its essential elements are a legal right of the
plaintiff,correlative obligation of the defendants and act or
omissionof the defendant in violation of said legal right. (Santos
vs.Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 238.)o0o Copyright 2015
Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:34 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 1 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez, Sr. vs.
Melencio-HerreraNo. L-32055. February 26,
1988.*REYNALDOBERMUDEZ,SR.,and,ADONITAYABUTBERMUDEZ,petitioners-appellants,vs,HON.JUDGEA.MELENCIO-HERRERA,DOMINGOPONTINOyTACORDAandCORDOVANGSUNKWAN,respondents-appellees.Quasi-Delict;
Actions; Damages;
Injuredpartyorhisheirshasthechoicebetweenanactiontoenforcecivilliabilityarisingfromcrime
under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action
forquasidelict under Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil
Code.lncasesofnegligence, the injured party or his heirs has the
choice between anaction to enforce the civil liability arising from
crime under Article100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for
quasi-delict underArticle 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. If a party
chooses the latter, hemay hold the employer solidarily liable for
the negligence act of
hisemployee,subjecttotheemployer'sdefenseofexerciseofthediligence
of a good father of the
family.Same;Same;Same;Same;Factthatappellantsreservedtheirright in
the criminal case to file an independent civil action did
notprecludethemfromchoosingtofileacivilactionforquasi-delict.In the
case at bar, the action filed by appellant was an action
fordamagesbasedonquasi-delict.Thefactthatappellantsreservedtheirrightinthecriminalcasestofileanindependentcivilactiondid
not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for
quasi-delict.Same;Same;Same;CriminalProcedure;Evenwithoutreservation
under Section 2 of Rule ///, Rules of Court, injured
partyinacriminalcasewhichresultedintheacquittaloftheaccusedisallowedtorecoverdamagesbasedonquasi-delict.Theappellant8/8/15,
6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 2 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=GuestpreciselymadeareservationtofileanindependentcivilactioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection2ofRuleIII,RulesofCourt.
In fact, even without such a reservation, we have allowed
theinjured party in the criminal case which resulted in the
acquittal ofthe accused to recover damages based on
quasi-delict.APPEAL from the order of the Court of First Instance
ofManila, Br. XVII.The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court._______________* SECOND DIVISION.169VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26,
1988 169Bermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-HerreraYAP,
J.:ThisisadirectappealonpurequestionsoflawfromtheOrderofMarch10,1970oftheHonorableJudge(nowSupreme
Court Justice) Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera of
thedefunctCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchXVII,dismissing
plaintiffsappellants' complaint in Civil Case No.77188 entitled
"Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr. and Adonita
YabutBermudez,plaintiffs,versusDomingoPontinoyTacordaandCordovaNgSunKwan.defendants,"andfromtheOrderofMay7,1970denyingplaintiffsappellants'Motionfor
Reconsideration.The background facts of the case are as follows:A
cargo truck, driven by Domingo Pontino and owned byCordova Ng Sun
Kwan, bumped a jeep on which Rogelio, asixyear old son of
plaintiffs-appellants, was riding. The
boysustainedinjurieswhichcausedhisdeath.Asaresult,CriminalCaseNo.92944forHomicideThroughRecklessImprudencewasfiledagainstDomingoPontinobytheManilaCityFiscal'sOffice.Plaintiffs-appellantsfiledonJuly27,1969inthesaidcriminalcase
"AReservationtoFile Separate Civil Action."8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 3 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=GuestI.II.III.OnJuly28,1969,theplaintiffs-appellantsfiledacivilcase
for damages with the Court of First Instance of
ManiladocketedasCivilCaseNo.77188,entitled"ReynaldoBermudez,Sr.?etal.,Plaintiffs,vs.DomingoPontinoyTacorda
and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, Defendants." Findingthat the plaintiffs
instituted the action "on the assumptionthat defendant Pontino's
negligence in the accident of
May10,1969constitutedaquasi-delict,"thetrialcourtstatedthat
plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a"crime" by
reserving in the criminal case their right to file aseparate civil
action. That being so, the trial court
decidedtoorderthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstdefendantCordovaNgSunKwanandtosuspendthehearingofthecase
against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal
caseforHomicideThroughRecklessImprudenceisfinallyterminated.Fromsaidorder,plaintiffsfiledthepresentappeal,
stating as their main reasons the
following:ThemainissuebroughtbeforethisHonorableCourtiswhetherthepresentactionisbasedonquasi-delictunderthe
Civil Code and therefore could proceed independently ofthe criminal
case for homicide170170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez,
Sr. vs. Melencio-Herrerathru reckless imprudence.The second
question of law is whether the lower court
couldproperlysuspendthehearingofthecivilactionagainstDomingoPontinoanddismissedthecivilcaseagainsthisemployer
Cordova Ng Sun Kwan by reason of the fact that
acriminalcaseforhomicidethrurecklessimprudenceispending in the
lower court against Domingo
Pontino.ThelastquestionoflawiswhetherthesuspensionofthecivilactionagainstDomingoPontinoandthedismissalofthecivilcaseagainsthisemployerCordovaNgSunKwanbyreasonofthependingcriminalcaseagainstDomingoPontino
for homicide thru reckless imprudence in the
lowercourtcouldbevalidlydoneconsideringthatthecivilcase8/8/15, 6:34
AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 4 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guestagainstsaiddefendants-appelleesalsosoughttorecoveractual
damages to the jeep of plaintiffs-appellants,"We find the appeal
meritorious.Theheartoftheissueinvolvedinthepresentcaseiswhether the
civil action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants isfounded on crime
or on quasi-delict. The trial court
treatedthecaseasanactionbasedonacrimeinviewofthereservation made by
the offended party in the criminal
case(CriminalCaseNo.92944),alsopendingbeforethecourt,to file a
separate civil action. Said the trial
court:"ItwouldappearthatplaintiffsinstitutedthisactionontheassumptionthatdefendantPontino'snegligenceintheaccidentofMay
10,1969 constituted a quasi-delict. The Court cannot accept
thevalidityofthatassumption.InCriminalCaseNo.92944ofthisCourt,
plaintiffs had already appeared as complainants. While thatcase was
pending, the offended parties reserved the right to
instituteaseparatecivilaction.If,inacriminalcase,therighttofileaseparate
civil action for damages is reserved, such civil action is
tobebasedoncrimeandnotontort.ThatwastherulinginJoaquinvs. Aniceto,
L-18719, Oct. 31, 1964."We do not agree. The doctrine in the case
cited by the
trialcourtisinapplicabletotheinstantcase.InJoaquinvs.Aniceto, the
Court held:"The issue in this case is: May an employee's primary
civil
liabilityforcrimeandhisemployer'ssubsidiaryliabilitythereforbeprovedinaseparatecivilactionevenwhilethecriminalcaseagainsttheemployee
is still pending?171VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 171Bermudez, Sr.
vs.
Melencio-HerreraTobeginwith,obligationsarisefromlaw,contract,quasi-contract,crimeandquasi-delict.Accordingtoappellant,heractionisonetoenforcethecivilliabilityarisingfromcrime.Withrespecttoobligations
arising from crimes, Article 1161 of the New Civil
Codeprovides:8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
158Page 5 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest'Civil
obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by
thepenal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of
the
pertinentprovisionsofChapter2,Preliminary,Title,onHumanRelations,andofTitle
XVIII of this book, regulating damages.'x x x
xItisnowsettledthatforanemployertobesubsidiarilyliable,thefollowingrequisitesmustbepresent:(1)thatanemployeehascommittedacrimeinthedischargeofhisduties;(2)thatsaidemployee
is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability; (3)
thattheemployerisengagedinsomekindofindustry.(1Padilla,Criminal
Law, Revised Penal Code 794
[1964])Withouttheconvictionoftheemployee,theemployercannotbesubsidiarily
liable."Incasesofnegligence,theinjuredpartyorhisheirshasthechoicebetweenanactiontoenforcethecivilliabilityarisingfromcrimeunderArticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode
and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194of the Civil
Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may
holdtheemployersolidarilyliableforthenegligentactofhisemployee,subjecttotheemployer'sdefenseofexerciseofthe
diligence of a good father of the
family.Inthecaseatbar,theactionfiledbyappellantwasanactionfordamagesbasedonquasi-delict.1Thefactthatappellantsreservedtheirrightinthecriminalcasetofileanindependentcivilactiondidnotprecludethemfromchoosing
to file a civil action for quasi-delict.The appellants invoke the
provisions of Sections 1 and 2of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court,
which
provide:"Section1.Institutionofcriminalandcivilaction.Whenacriminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionforrecoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromtheoffensechargedisimpliedlyinstitutedwith
the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waivesthe
civil_______________1 Appellant's Brief, pp. 20-21.1728/8/15, 6:34
AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 6 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez, Sr. vs.
Melencio-Herreraaction or reserves his right to institute it
separately."Section 2.Independent civil action.In the cases
provided
forinArticles31,32,33,34and2177oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,anindependentcivilactionentirelyseparateanddistinctfromthecriminalaction,maybebroughtbytheinjuredparty
during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right
isreserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action
shallproceedindependentlyofthecriminalprosecution,andshallrequire
only a preponderance of
evidence."Article2177oftheCivilCode,citedinSection2,ofRule111,
provides
that"Article2177.ResponsibilityforfaultornegligenceundertheprecedingarticleisentirelyseparateanddistinctfromthecivilliabilityarisingfromnegligenceunderthePenalCode.Buttheplaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omissionof the
defendant."TheappellantpreciselymadeareservationtofileanindependentcivilactioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection2ofRule111,RulesofCourt.Infact,evenwithoutsuchareservation,wehaveallowedtheinjuredparty
in the criminal case which resulted in the acquittal
oftheaccusedtorecoverdamagesbasedonquasi-delict.InPeople vs. Ligon,
G.R. No. 74041, we
held:"However,itdoesnotfollowthatapersonwhoisnotcriminallyliableisalsofreefromcivilliability.Whiletheguiltoftheaccusedinacriminalprosecutionmustbeestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt,
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
actionfordamages(Article29,CivilCode).Thejudgmentofacquittalextinguishes
the civil liability of the accused only when it includes
adeclarationthatthefactsfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedid not
exist (Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA
559).WHEREFORE,wegrantthepetitionandannulandsetasidetheappealedordersofthetrialcourt,datedMarch10,
1970 and May 7, 1970, and remand the case for furtherproceedings.
No costs.SO ORDERED.8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOLUME 158Page 7 of 7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest
Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. Melencio-Herrera, J.,
took no part173VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 173Republic vs.
BelmontePetition granted, Orders set
aside.Note.Righttofileaseparatecivilactionisnotforeclosedbyfactthataccusedonarraignmententeredapleaofguiltyandsentencedtopayafinewhereprivateprosecutorwasnotaffordedchancetopresentevidenceormake
a reservation. (Reyes vs. Lempio-Dy, 141 SCRA 208.)o0o Copyright
2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 1 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestVOL.
23, JUNE 27, 1968 1117Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine IslandsNo.
L-24837. June 27,
1968.JULIANC.SINGSONandRAMONADELCASTILLO,plaintiffs, vs.
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDSandSANTIAGOFREIXAS,inhiscapacityasPresidentofthesaid
Bank,
defendants.Civillaw;Tort;Damages;Existenceofacontractbetweentheparties
is not a bar to the commission of a, tort by the one against
theother.It has been repeatedly held: that the existence of a
contractbetween the parties does not bar the commission of a tort
by the oneagainst the other and the consequent recovery 01 damages
therefor(Cangcov.ManilaRailroad,38Phil.768;Yamadav.ManilaRailroad,33Phil.8;Vasquezv.Borja,74Phil.560).Indeed,thisviewhasbeen,ineffect,reiteratedinacomparativelyrecentcase.Thus,inAirFrancevs.Carrascoso,L-21438,Sept.28,1966,involvinganairplanepassengerwho,despitehisfirst-classticket,hadbeenillegallyoustedfromhisfirst-classaccomodationandcompelledtotakeaseatinthetouristcompartment,washeldentitled
to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground
oftortonthelatterspart,for,althoughtherelationbetweenapassengerandacarrieriscontractualbothinoriginandnaturethe
act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.APPEAL from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance ofManila. Montesa, J.The
facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Gil B. Galang for
plaintiffs. Aviado & Aranda for defendants.CONCEPCION,
C.J.:8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page
2 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestAppealbyplaintiffs,JulianSingsonandhiswife,RamonadelCastillo,fromadecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Manila dismissing their complaint against de-11181118 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATEDSingson vs. Bank of the Philippine
Islandsfendantsherein,theBankofthePhilippineIslandsandSantiago
Freixas.ItappearsthatSingson,wasoneofthedefendantsinCivil Case No.
23906 of the Court of First Instance,
Manila,inwhichjudgmenthadbeenrenderedsentencinghimandhisco-defendantstherein,namely,CelsoLobregatandVilla-Abrille&Co.,topaythesumofP105,539.56totheplaintifftherein,PhilippineMillingCo.SingsonandLobregat
had seasonably appealed from said judgment,
butnotVilla-Abrille&Co.,asagainstwhichsaidjudgment,accordingly,becamefinalandexecutory.Induecourse,awritofgarnishmentwassubsequentlyservedupontheBank
of the Philippine Islandsin which the Singsons hada current
accountinsofar as Villa-Abrilles credits againstthe Bank were
concerned. What happened thereafter is setforth in the decision
appealed from, from which we
quote:UponreceiptofthesaidWritofGarnishment,aclerkofthebankin
charge of all matters of execution and garnishment, upon
readingthenameoftheplaintiffhereininthetitleoftheWritofGarnishmentasapartydefendant,withoutfurtherreadingthebodyofthesaidgarnishmentandinforminghimselfthatsaidgarnishmentwasmerelyintendedforthedepositsofdefendantVilla-Abrille
& Co., Valentin Teus, Fernando F. de Villa-Abrille andJoaquin
Bona, prepared a letter for the signature of the President
oftheBankinformingtheplaintiffJulianC.Singsonofthegarnishmentofhisdepositsbytheplaintiffinthatcase.AnotherletterwasalsopreparedandsignedbythesaidPresidentoftheBank
for the Special Sheriff dated April 17,
1963.Subsequently,twochecksissuedbytheplaintiffJulianC.Singson, one
for the amount of P383 in favor of B.M. Glass
ServicedatedApril16,1963andbearingNo.C-424852,andcheckNo.C-394996fortheamountofP100infavoroftheLegaCorporation,8/8/15,
6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 3 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestanddrawnagainstthesaidBank,weredepositedbythesaiddraweeswiththesaidbank.BelievingthattheplaintiffSingson,the
drawer of the check, had no more control over the balance of
hisdepositsinthesaidbank,thechecksweredishonoredandwererefusedpaymentbythesaidbank.AfterthefirstcheckwasreturnedbythebanktotheB.M.GlassService,thelatterwroteplaintiffJulianC.Singsonaletter,datedApril19,1963,advisinghimthathischeckforP383.00bearingNo.C-424852wasnothonoredbythebankforthereasonthathisaccountthereinhadalready
been garnished. The said B.M. Glass Service further statedin
the1119VOL. 23, JUNE 27, 1968 1119Singson vs. Bank of the
Philippine
Islandssaidletterthattheywereconstrainedtoclosehiscreditaccountwiththem.Inviewthereof,plaintiffJulianC.SingsonwrotethedefendantbankaletteronApril19,1963,claimingthathisnamewasnotincludedintheWritofExecutionandNoticeofGarnishment,whichwasserveduponthebank.ThedefendantPresident
Santiago Freixas of the said bank took steps to verify
thisinformation and after having confirmed the same, apologized to
theplaintiffJulianC.SingsonandwrotehimaletterdatedApril22,1963,
requesting him to disregard their letter of April 17, 1963,
andthattheactionofgarnishmentfromhisaccounthadalreadybeenremoved. A
similar letter was written by the said official of the bankon April
22, 1963 to the Special Sheriff informing him that his
letterdatedApril17,1963tothesaidSpecialSheriffwasconsideredcancelledandthattheyhadalreadyremovedtheNoticeofGarnishment
from plaintiff Singsons account. Thus, the
defendantslostnotimetorectifythemistakethathadbeeninadvertentlycommitted,
resulting in the temporary freezing of the account of theplaintiff
with the said bank for a short time.
xxxxOnMay8,1963,theSingsonscommencedthepresentactionagainsttheBankanditspresident,SantiagoFreixas,fordamages1inconsequenceofsaidillegalfreezing
of plaintiffs
account.Afterappropriateproceedings,theCourtofFirst8/8/15, 6:35 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 4 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestInstanceofManilarenderedjudgmentdismissingthecomplaintuponthegroundthatplaintiffscannotrecoverfromthedefendantsuponthebasisofaquasi-delict,becausetherelationbetweenthepartiesiscontractualinnature;
because this case does not fall under Article 2219
ofourCivilCode,uponwhichplaintiffsrely;andbecauseplaintiffshavenotestablishedtheamountofdamagesallegedly
sustained by
them.Thelowercourtheldthatplaintiffsclaimfordamagescannotbebaseduponatortorquasi-delict,theirrelationwiththedefendantsbeingcontractualinnature.Wehaverepeatedlyheld,however,thattheexistenceofacontractbetweenthepartiesdoesnotbarthecommissionofatortby
the one against the order and the consequent
recovery____________________1P100,000asmoraldamages,P20,000asexemplarydamages,P20,000asnominaldamages,andP10,000forattorneysfeesandexpenses
of litigation, plus the costs.11201120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDSingson vs. Bank of the Philippine
Islandsofdamagestherefor.2Indeed,thisviewhasbeen,ineffect,reiteratedinacomparativelyrecentcase.Thus,inAirFrancevs.Carrascoso,3involvinganairplanepassengerwho,
despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally oustedfrom his
first-class accommodation and compelled to take
aseatinthetouristcompartment,washeldentitledtorecoverdamagesfromtheair-carrier,uponthegroundoftort
on the latters part, for, although the relation betweena passenger
and a carrier is contractual both in origin andnature x x x the act
that breaks the contract may also be
atort.Inview,however,ofthefactsobtaininginthecaseatbar,andconsidering,particularly,thecircumstancethatthewrongdonetotheplaintiffswasremediedassoonasthePresidentofthebankrealizedthemistakeheandhissubordinate
employee had committed, the Court finds that8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 5 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=Guestanawardofnominaldamagestheamountofwhichneednotbeproven4inthesumofP1,000,inadditiontoattorneysfeesinthesumofP500,wouldsufficetovindicate
plaintiff s
rights.5WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyreversed,andanotheroneshallbeenteredsentencingthedefendantBankofthePhilippineIslandstopaytotheplaintiffssaidsumsofP1,000,asnominaldamages,andP500,asattorneysfees,apartfromthecosts.Itissoordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,Castro and
Angeles, JJ., concur. Fernando, J., took no part.Judgment
reversed.Notes.TheprincipleintheSingsoncase,supra,thatthe existence
of a contract between the parties does not
barthecommissionofatortbytheoneagainsttheotherandthe consequent
recovery of damages therefor modifies in______________2 Cangco v.
Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768; Yamada v. Manila Railroad,33 Phil.
8; Vasquez v. Borja, 74 Phil. 560.3 L-21438, Sept. 28, 1966.4
Ventanilla v. Centeno, L-14333, January 28, 1961.5 Articles 2208
and 2221 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.1121VOL. 23, JUNE 27,
1968 1121Domingo vs. De la Cruzeffect the rule that liability for
quasi-delict arises if no
pre-existingcontractualrelationbetweenthepartiesexists(Floresv.Miranda,L-12163,March4,1959;Art.2176,N.C.C.).Noteworthytostatehereistherulingthatthedefinitionofquasi-delictinArticle2176ofthenewCivilCodeexpresslyexcludesthecaseswherethereisapre-existingcontractualrelationshipbetweentheparties8/8/15,
6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 6 of 6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=Guest(Verzosav.Baytan,etal,L-14092,April29,1960).Cf.Annotation
entitled Recovery of Damages Based on Quasi-delict, 22 SCRA
567!577.______________ Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All
rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOLUME 018Page 1 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page
2 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 3 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 4 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 5 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 6 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 7 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 8 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 9 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 10 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 11 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 12 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 13 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 14 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page
15 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 16 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 17 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/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,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 18 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestAir
France vs.
Carrascosowithpublicduty.ThestressofCarrascoso'sactionaswehave
said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is aviolation of
public duty by the petitioner air carriera caseof quasi-delict.
Damages are
proper.7.PetitionerdrawsourattentiontorespondentCarrascoso's
testimony, thus"Q. You mentioned about an attendant. Who is
thatattendant and purser?A. When we left alreadythat was already in
the tripIcould not help it. So one of the flight
attendantsapproached me and requested 'f rom me my ticket andI
said, What for? and she said, "We will note that youtransferred to
the tourist class'. I said, 'Nothing ofthat kind. That is
tantamount to acc epting mytransfer.' And I also said, 'You are not
going to noteanything there because I am protesting to
thistransfer'.Q. Was she able to note it?A. No, because I) did not
give my ticket.Q. About that purser ?A. Well, the seats there are
so close that you feeluncomfortable and you don't have enough leg
room, Istood up and I went to the pantry that was next to meand the
purser was there. He told me, 'I have recordedthe incident in my
notebook.' He read it andtranslated it to mebecause it was recorded
inFrench'First class passenger was forced to go to thetourist class
against his will, and that the captainrefused to intervene.'Mr.
VALTE'I move to strike out the last part of the testimony ofthe
witness because the best evidence would be thenotes. Your
Honor.COURT'I will allow that as part of his
testimony."49Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of
Appeals8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
018Page 19 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestthatthepursermadeanentryinhisnotebookreading"Firstclasspassengerwasforcedtogotothetouristclassagainst
his will, and that the captain ref used to interveneis predicated
upon evidence [Carrascoso's testimony above]which is incompetent.
We do not think_______________49 Petitioner's brief, pp.
104-105.170170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs.
Carrascososo.Thesubjectofinquiryisnottheentry,buttheousterincident.Testimonyontheentrydoesnotcomewithintheproscriptionofthebestevidencerule.Suchtestimonyisadmissible.49aBesides,fromareadingofthetranscriptjustquoted,whenthedialoguehappened,theimpactofthestartlingoccurrencewasstillfreshandcontinuedtobefelt.Theexcitementhadnotasyetdieddown,Statementsthen,inthis
environment, are admissible as part of the res
gestae.50For,theygrow"outofthenervousexcitementandmentaland
physical condition of the declarant".51 The utterance
ofthepurserregardinghisentryinthenotebookwasspontaneous, and
related to the circumstances of the ousterincident. Its
trustworthiness has been guaranteed.52 It
thusescapestheoperationofthehearsayrule.Itformspartofthe res
gestae.Atallevents,theentrywasmadeoutsidethePhilippines.And,byanemployeeofpetitioner.ItwouldhavebeenaneasymatterforpetitionertohavecontradictedCarrascoso'stestimony.Ifitwerereallytruethatnosuchentrywasmade,thedepositionofthepursercould
have cleared up the
matter.We,therefore,holdthatthetranscribedtestimonyofCarrascoso is
admissible in evidence.8. Exemplary damages are well awarded. The
Civil
Codegivesthecourtamplepowertograntexemplarydamages.incontractsandquasi-contracts.Theonlyconditionis8/8/15,
6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 20 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestthat
defendant should have "acted in a wanton, fraudulent,reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent
manner".53ThemannerofejectmentofrespondentCarrascosofromhisfirstclassseatfitsintothislegalprecept.Andthis,inadditiontomoral
damages.549. The right to attorney's fees is fully established.
The_______________49a V Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963
ed., p. 76.50 Section 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court.51 IV Martin,
Rules of Court in the Philippines/ 1963 ed., 324.52 Ibid.53 Article
2232, Civil Code.54 Article 2229, Civil Code.171VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER
29, 1966 171Mercy's Inc. vs.
Verdegrantofexemplarydamagesjustifiesasimilarjudgmentforattorneys'fees.Theleastthatcanbesaidisthatthecourtsbelowfeltthatitisbutjustandequitablethatattorneys'feesbegiven.55Wedonotintendtobreakfaithwith
the tradition that discretion well exercisedas it washereshould not
be disturbed.10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed
byboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals,thus:P25,000.00asmoraldamages;P10,000.00,bywayofexemplarydamages,andP3,000.00asattorneys'fees.Thetaskoffixingtheseamountsisprimarilywiththetrialcourt.56TheCourtofAppealsdidnotinterferewiththesame.Thedictatesofgoodsensesuggestthatwegiveourimprimaturthereto.Because,thefactsandcircumstancespoint
to the reasonableness
thereof.57Onbalance,wesaythatthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsdoesnotsufferfromreversibleerror.Weaccordinglyvotetoaffirmthesame.Costsagainstpetitioner.
So ordered,Concepcion,C.J.,Reyes,J.B.L.,Barrera,Dizon,8/8/15, 6:36
AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 21 of 21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestRegala.
Makalintal, Zaldivar and Castro. JJ. concur. Bengzon, J.P., J., did
not take part.Decision affirmed.Note.See Northwest Airlines, Inc.
vs. Cuenca,
L-22424,Aug.31,1965andtheannotationunderLopezvs.PanAmericanWorldAirways,L-22415,March30,1966,16Supreme
Court Reports Annotated 431, 445.______________ Copyright 2015
Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:37 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 1 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation
vs. PeopleG.R. No. 129029. April 3,
2000.*RAFAELREYESTRUCKINGCORPORATION, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and ROSARIO P.
DY(forherselfandonbehalfoftheminorsMariaLuisa,FrancisEdward,FrancisMarkandFrancisRafael,allsurnamed
Dy), respondents.Civil Law; Negligence; Damages;
Innegligencecases,thesameactoromissioncancreatetwokindsofliabilityonthepartoftheoffender,thatis,civilliabilityexdelicto,andcivilliabilityquasidelictobuttheoffendedpartycannotrecoverdamagesunderbothtypes
of liability.In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has
thechoicebetween(1)anactiontoenforcecivilliabilityarisingfromcrimeunderArticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode;and(2)aseparate
action for quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
CodeofthePhilippines.Oncethechoiceismade,theinjuredpartycannotavailhimselfofanyotherremedybecausehemaynotrecoverdamagestwiceforthesamenegligentactoromissionoftheaccused.Thisistheruleagainstdoublerecovery.Inotherwords,thesameactoromissioncancreatetwokindsofliabilityonthepartoftheoffender,thatis,civilliabilityexdelicto,andcivilliability
quasi delicto either of which may be enforced against
theculprit,subjecttothecaveatunderArticle2177oftheCivilCodethattheoffendedpartycannotrecoverdamagesunderbothtypesof
liability._______________* EN BANC.8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 2 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest601VOL.
329, APRIL 3, 2000 601Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs.
PeopleSame;Same;Same;Vicariousliabilityoftheemployeeisfounded in
Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Codeand on
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code; Under Article 2176
theliability of the employer for the negligent conduct of the
subordinateisdirectandprimary,subjecttothedefenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheemployee;Enforcementofthejudgmentagainsttheemployerdoesnotrequiretheemployeetobeinsolvent
since the nature of the liability of the employer with that ofthe
employee, the two being statutorily considered joint tortfeasors,
issolidary.PrivaterespondentssuedpetitionerRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,astheemployeroftheaccused,tobevicariously
liable for the fault or negligence of the latter. Under
thelaw,thisvicariousliabilityoftheemployerisfoundedonatleasttwo
specific provisions of law. The first is expressed in Article
2176inrelationtoArticle2180oftheCivilCode,whichwouldallowanactionpredicatedonquasi-delicttobeinstitutedbytheinjuredpartyagainsttheemployerforanactoromissionoftheemployeeandwouldnecessitateonlyapreponderanceofevidencetoprevail.Here,theliabilityoftheemployerforthenegligentconductofthesubordinateisdirectandprimary,subjecttothedefenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheemployee.Theenforcementofthejudgmentagainsttheemployerinanactionbased
on Article 2176 does not require the employee to be
insolventsincethenatureoftheliabilityoftheemployerwiththatoftheemployee,thetwobeingstatutorilyconsideredjointtortfeasors,issolidary.
The second, predicated on Article 103 of the Revised
PenalCode,providesthatanemployermaybeheldsubsidiarilycivillyliable
for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of
hisduty.Thisliabilityattacheswhentheemployeeisconvictedofacrimedoneintheperformanceofhisworkandisfoundtobeinsolventthatrendershimunabletoproperlyrespondtothecivilliability
adjudged.Same; Same; Same; Reservation of the right to file the
separatecivilactionwaivesotheravailablecivilactionspredicatedonthe8/8/15,
6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 3 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestsameactoromissionoftheaccused-driver.PursuanttotheprovisionofRule111,Section1,paragraph3ofthe1985RulesonCriminal
Procedure, when private respondents, as complainants
inthecriminalaction,reservedtherighttofiletheseparatecivilaction,theywaivedotheravailablecivilactionspredicatedonthesameactoromissionoftheaccused-driver.SuchcivilactionincludestherecoveryofindemnityundertheRevisedPenalCode,and
damages under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code of
thePhilippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused.602602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking
Corporation vs. PeopleSame; Same; Same; Award of damages in the
criminal case
wasimproperbecausethecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilitywaswaivedinthecriminalactionbythefilingofaseparatecivilactionagainsttheemployer.Withregardtothesecondissue,theawardofdamagesinthecriminalcasewasimproperbecausethecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilitywaswaivedinthecriminalactionbythefilingofaseparatecivilactionagainsttheemployer.AsenunciatedinRamosvs.Gonong,civilindemnityisnotpartofthepenaltyforthecrimecommitted.TheonlyissuebroughtbeforethetrialcourtinthecriminalactioniswhetheraccusedRomeoDuncaydeTumolisguiltyofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicideanddamagetoproperty.Theactionforrecoveryofcivilliabilityisnotincludedtherein,butiscoveredbytheseparatecivilactionfiledagainstthepetitionerasemployerofthe
accused
truckdriver.CriminalLaw;Information;Penalty;NooffenseofDoubleHomicide
Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the
MotorVehicleLawundertheRevisedPenalCode;Inrecklessimprudencecases,
the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation
totheindividualwillfulcrimeorcrimescommitted,butissetinrelationtoawholeclass,orseriesofcrimes.Parenthetically,thetrial
court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
thecrimeofDoubleHomicideThroughRecklessImprudencewithviolation of
the Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136). There is
nosuchnomenclatureofanoffenseundertheRevisedPenalCode.8/8/15, 6:37
AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 4 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=GuestThus,thetrialcourtwasmisledtosentencetheaccusedtosuffertwo
(2) indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one (1) day
ofarresto
mayor,asminimum,tothree(3)years,six(6)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Thisiserroneous
because in reckless imprudence cases, the actual
penaltyforcriminalnegligencebearsnorelationtotheindividualwillfulcrime
or crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole class,
orseries of crimes.VITUG, J., Separate
Opinion:CivilLaw;Negligence;Damages;NotwithstandingtheindependentnatureofcivilactionsfallingunderArticles32,33,34and
2176 of the Civil Code, the right to institute the action must
stillhavetobereserved.IntherecentlydecidedcaseofSanIldefonsoLines,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the Supreme Court has ruledthat,
notwithstanding the independent nature of civil actions
falling603VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 603Rafael Reyes Trucking
Corporation vs.
PeopleunderArticles32,33,34and2176oftheCivilCode,therighttoinstitutetheactionmuststillhavetobereserved.InthesternwordsoftheCourt:Thepastpronouncementsthatviewthereservationrequirementasanunauthorizedamendmenttosubstantivelaw,i.e.,theCivilCode,shouldnolongerbecontrolling.Same;Same;Same;Therequirementofreservationisnotincompatiblewiththedistinctandseparatecharacterofindependentcivilactions.InManiagovs.CourtofAppeals,theCourthassaidthattherequirementofreservationisnotincompatiblewiththedistinctandseparatecharacterofindependent
civil actions. Indeed, there is no incongruence
betweenallowingthetrialofcivilactionstoproceedindependentlyofthecriminalprosecutionandmandatingthat,beforesoproceeding,areservation
to do so should first be
made.Same;Same;Same;Reservationshouldbemadeatthe8/8/15, 6:37 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 5 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestinstitutionofthecriminalcase.Thecivilactionisdeemedinstitutedtogetherwiththecriminalcaseexceptwhenthecivilactionisreserved.Thereservationshouldbemadeattheinstitutionofthecriminalcase.Inindependentcivilactions,notbeingdependentopthecriminalcase,suchreservationwouldberequired
not for preserving the cause of action but in order to
allowthecivilactiontoproceedseparatelyfromthecriminalcaseininterestofgoodorderandprocedure.Indeed,independentcivilactionsalreadyfiledandpendingmaystillbesoughttobeconsolidated
in the criminal case before final judgment is
renderedinthelattercase.Whennocriminalproceedingsareinstituted,aseparatecivilactionmaybebroughttodemandthecivilliability,and
a preponderance of evidence is sufficient to warrant a
favorablejudgment therefor. The same rule applies if the
information were tobe dismissed upon motion of the fiscal.MENDOZA,
J., Dissenting Opinion:Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; The
reservation of the right tofile a separate civil action ex delicto
against the driver was a waiverof the offended parties right to
institute a civil action based on quasidelict against
petitioner.Following Rule 111, 1, the reservation ofthe right to
file a separate civil action ex deliotoagainstthedriverwas a waiver
of the offended parties right to institute a civil actionbased on
quasi delict against petitioner. The filing of Civil Case No.Br.
19-424 against petitioner was, therefore, without basis, and
its604604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking
Corporation vs. Peopledismissal by the trial court in its decision
was in order. On the
otherhand,astheoffendedpartieshadwithdrawntheirreservationoftherighttofileaseparatecivilactionagainstthedriversothattheycanpursuetheiractioninthecriminalcase,thetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedpetitionerssubsidiarycivilliabilityforitsdrivers
negligence in the criminal
case.Same;Same;Same;Theawardofdamagesbythetrialcourt8/8/15, 6:37 AM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 6 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestsimplyconstitutesanerrorofjudgment.Evenassumingthattheright
of the offended parties to recover damages ex delicto had
beenwaived,theawardofsuchdamagesbythetrialcourtsimplyconstitutesanerrorofjudgment.Hence,theawardofdamagesexdelictototheoffendedpartiesisnotvoidandisnowfinal.TheCourt
has not only set aside a final disposition by declaring it
void;ithaslikewiseorderedthereopeningofacasealreadydismissedwith
finality on the simplistic reasoning that rules of procedure
mayberelaxedinordertopromotetheirobjectivesandassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,speedy,andinexpensivedeterminationofevery
action or proceedings. There is no reason for doing so in
thiscasesince,asalreadystated,allthepartieshereinhadbeendulyheard
before the trial court rendered its decision.PETITION for review on
certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.The facts are
stated in the opinion of the Court. Perpetuo G. Paner for
petitioner. Law Firm of Reyes, Martinez & Associates for
privaterespondents.PARDO,
J.:Thecaseisanappealviacertiorarifromtheamendeddecision1oftheCourtofAppeals2affirmingthedecisionand
supplemental decision of the trial court,3 as
follows:_________________1 In CA-G.R. CR No. 14448, promulgated on
January 6,
1997.2Ibay-Somera,J.,ponente,Lipana-ReyesandVasquez,JJ.,concurring.3DatedJune6,1992,andOctober26,1992,respectively,inConsolidated
Criminal Case No. Br. 19-311 and Civil Case No. Br.605VOL. 329,
APRIL 3, 2000 605Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs.
PeopleINVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,judgmentisherebyrendereddismissingtheappealsinterposedbybothaccusedandReyes8/8/15,
6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 7 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=GuestTrucking
Corporation and affirming the Decision and SupplementalDecision
dated June 6, 1992 and October 26, 1992 respectively.SO
ORDERED.4The facts are as
follows:OnOctober10,1989,ProvincialProsecutorPatricioT.DurianofIsabelafiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Isabela,Branch19,CauayananamendedinformationchargingRomeoDuncaydeTumolwithrecklessimprudenceresultingindoublehomicideanddamagetoproperty,
reading as follows:That on or about the 20th day of June, 1989, in
the Municipality
ofCauayan,ProvinceofIsabela,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccusedbeingthedriver
and person-in-charge of a Trailer Truck Tractor bearing
PlateNo.N2A-867registeredinthenameofRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,withaloadof2,000casesofemptybottlesofbeergrande,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drove and operated
thesamewhilealongtheNationalHighwayofBarangayTagaran,insaidMunicipality,inanegligent,carelessandimprudentmanner,withoutdueregardtotrafficlaws,rulesandordinancesandwithouttakingthenecessaryprecautionstopreventinjuriestopersonsanddamagetoproperty,causingbysuchnegligence,carelessness
and imprudence the said trailer truck to hit and
bumpaNissanPick-upbearingPlateNo.BBG-957drivenbyFelicianoBalcita
and Francisco Dy, Jr., @ Pacquing, due to irreversible
shock,internalandexternalhemorrhageandmultipleinjuries,openwounds,abrasions,andfurthercausingdamagestotheheirsofFeliciano
Balcita in the amount of P100,000.00 and to the death
ofFranciscoDy,Jr.;@PacquinganddamagestohisNissanPick-Upbearing
Plate No. BBG-957 in the total amount of P2,000,000.00.CONTRARY TO
LAW.Cauayan, Isabela, October 10,
1989._____________19-424,RegionalTrialCourt,Cauayan,Isabela,JudgeArtemioR.Alivia,
presiding.4 Rollo, pp. 35-43.6068/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 8 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation
vs. People(Sgd.) FAUSTO C. CABANTACThird Assistant Provincial
ProsecutorUponarraignmentonOctober23,1989,theaccusedenteredapleaofnotguilty.Onthesameoccasion,theoffendedparties(RosarioP.DyandminorchildrenandAngelinaM.BalcitaandminorsonPaolo)madeareservationtofileaseparatecivilactionagainsttheaccusedarisingfromtheoffencecharged.5OnNovember29,1989,theoffendedpartiesactuallyfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Isabela,Branch19,CauayanacomplaintagainstpetitionerRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,asemployerofdriverRomeoDuncaydeTumol,basedonquasidelict.ThepetitionersettledtheclaimoftheheirsofFelicianoBalcita(thedriveroftheothervehicleinvolvedintheaccident).Theprivaterespondents
opted to pursue the criminal action but did
notwithdrawthecivilcasequasiexdelictotheyfiledagainstpetitioner.OnDecember15,1989,privaterespondentswithdrewthereservationtofileaseparatecivilactionagainsttheaccusedandmanifestedthattheywouldprosecute
the civil aspect ex delicto in the criminal
action.6However,theydidnotwithdrawtheseparatecivilactionbased on
quasi delict against petitioner as employer arisingfrom the same
act or omission of the accused
driver.7Uponagreementoftheparties,thetrialcourtconsolidated both
criminal and civil cases and conducted ajoint trial of the same.The
facts, as found by the trial court, which appear to beundisputed,
are as
follows:ThedefendantRafaelReyesTruckingCorporationisadomesticcorporationengagedinthebusinessoftransportingbeerproductsfortheSanMiguelCorporation(SMCforshort)fromthelattersSanFernando,PampangaplanttoitsvarioussalesoutletsinLuzon.
Among its fleets of vehicles for hire is the white truck
trailerde-_______________8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 9 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest5
See Manifestation, Rollo, p. 55.6 Ibid., pp. 55-56.7 Civil Case No.
Br. 19-424.607VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 607Rafael Reyes Trucking
Corporation vs.
PeoplescribedabovedrivenbyRomeoDuncayTumol,adulylicenseddriver.
Aside from the Corporations memorandum to all its
driversandhelperstophysicallyinspecttheirvehiclesbeforeeachtrip(Exh.15,pars.4&5),theSMCsTrafficInvestigator-InspectorcertifiedtheroadworthinessofthisWhiteTrucktrailerpriortoJune20,1989(Exh.17).Inadditiontoaprofessionaldriverslicense,
it also conducts a rigid examination of all driver applicantsbefore
they are
hired.IntheearlymorningofJune20,1989,theWhiteTruckdrivenbyDuncaleftTuguegarao,CagayanboundtoSanFernando,Pampanga
loaded with 2,000 cases of empty beer Grande
bottles.SeatedatthefrontrightseatbesidehimwasFerdinandDomingo,histruckhelper(pahinanteinPilipino).Ataround4:00oclockthatsamemorningwhilethetruckwasdescendingataslightdowngrade
along the national road at Tagaran, Cauayan, Isabela, itapproached
a damaged portion of the road covering the full width
ofthetrucksrightlanegoingsouthandaboutsixmetersinlength.Thesemadethesurfaceoftheroadunevenbecausethepotholeswereaboutfivetosixinchesdeep.Theleftlaneparalleltothisdamagedportionissmooth.AsnarratedbyFerdinandDomingo,before
approaching the potholes, he and Dunca saw the Nissan
withitsheadlightsoncomingfromtheoppositedirection.Theyusedtoevadethisdamagedroadbytakingtheleftlancebutatthatparticular
moment, because of the incoming vehicle, they had to runover it.
This caused the truck to bounce wildly. Dunca lost control
ofthewheelsandthetruckswervedtotheleftinvadingthelaneoftheNissan.Asaresult,DuncasvehiclerammedtheincomingNissandraggingittotheleftshoulderoftheroadandclimbedaridge
above said shoulder where it finally stopped, (see Exh. A-5,
p.8,record).TheNissanwasseverelydamaged(Exhs.A-7,A-8,A-9andA-14,pp.9-11,record),anditstwopassengers,namely:FelicianoBalcitaandFranciscoDy,Jr.diedinstantly(Exh.A-19)from
external and internal hemorrhage and multiple fractures (pp.8/8/15,
6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 10 of 43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest15
and 16,
record).ForthefuneralexpensesofFranciscoDy,Jr.herwidowspentP651,360.00
(Exh. 1-3). At the time of his death he was 45 years
old.HewasthePresidentandChairmanoftheBoardoftheDynamicWoodProductsandDevelopmentCorporation(DWPC),awoodprocessing
establishment, from which he was receiving an income ofP10,000.00 a
month (Exh. D). In the Articles of Incorporation of theDWPC, the
spouses Francisco Dy, Jr. and Rosario Perez Dy
appeartobestockholdersof10,000shareseachwithparvalueofP100.00per
share out of its outstanding and subscribed capital stock of608608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation
vs.
People60,000sharesvaluedatP6,000,000.00(Exhs.K-1&10-B).Underits
1988 Income Tax Returns (Exh. J) the DWPC had a taxable
netincomeofP78,499.30(Exh.J).FranciscoDy,Jr.wasaLaSalleUniversitygraduateinBusinessAdministration,pastpresidentofthePasayJaycees,NationalTreasurerandPresidentofthePhilippineJayceesin1971and1976,respectively,andWorldVicePresidentofJayceesInternationalin1979.Hewas