G.R

. No.

122

039.

May

31,

200

0.*

VICE

NTE

CA

LALA

S,

petit

ione

r, vs

. CO

URT

O

FAP

PEAL

S,

ELIZ

A JU

JEU

RCH

E SU

NG

A an

dFR

ANCI

SCO

SAL

VA, r

espo

nden

ts.

Judg

men

ts; R

es J

udic

ata;

The

pri

ncip

le o

f re

s ju

dica

ta d

oes

not a

pply

whe

re a

par

ty in

a p

endi

ng c

ase

was

nev

er a

par

ty in

apr

evio

us o

ne.

The

argu

men

t tha

t Sun

ga is

bou

nd b

y th

e ru

ling

inCi

vil C

ase

No.

349

0 fin

ding

the

driv

er a

nd th

e ow

ner

of th

e tr

uck

liabl

e fo

r qu

asi-d

elic

t ign

ores

the

fact

that

she

was

nev

er a

par

tyto

tha

t ca

se a

nd, t

here

fore

, the

pri

ncip

le o

f res

judi

cata

doe

s no

tap

ply.

Nor

are

the

iss

ues

in C

ivil

Case

No.

349

0 an

d in

the

pres

ent

case

the

sam

e. T

he i

ssue

in

Civi

l Ca

se N

o. 3

490

was

whe

ther

Sal

va a

nd h

is d

rive

r Ve

rena

wer

e lia

ble

for

quas

i-del

ict

for

the

dam

age

caus

ed to

pet

ition

ers

jeep

ney.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd,

the

issu

e in

this

case

is w

heth

er p

etiti

oner

is li

able

on

his c

ontr

act

of c

arri

age.

The

firs

t, qu

asi-d

elic

t, al

so k

now

n as

cul

pa a

quili

ana

or c

ulpa

ext

ra c

ontr

actu

al, h

as a

s its

sou

rce

the

negl

igen

ce o

f the

tort

feas

or. T

he s

econ

d, b

reac

h of

con

trac

t or

culp

a co

ntra

ctua

l, is

prem

ised

upo

n th

e ne

glig

ence

in th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f a c

ontr

actu

alob

ligat

ion.

Com

mon

Car

rier

s; B

reac

h of

Con

trac

t; Q

uasi

-Del

icts

; To

rts;

In

quas

i-del

ict,

the

negl

igen

ce

or

faul

t sh

ould

be

cl

earl

yes

tabl

ishe

d be

caus

e it

is th

e ba

sis

of th

e ac

tion,

whe

reas

in b

reac

hof

con

trac

t, th

e ac

tion

can

be p

rose

cute

d m

erel

y by

pro

ving

the

exis

tenc

e of

the

con

trac

t an

d th

e fa

ct t

hat

the

oblig

or, i

n th

is c

ase

the

com

mon

car

rier

, fai

led

to tr

ansp

ort h

is p

asse

nger

saf

ely

to h

isde

stin

atio

n.

Con

sequ

ently

, in

qua

si-d

elic

t, th

e ne

glig

ence

or

faul

t sh

ould

be

clea

rly

esta

blis

hed

beca

use

it is

the

bas

is o

f th

eac

tion,

whe

reas

in b

reac

h of

cont

ract

, the

act

ion

can

be p

rose

cute

dm

erel

y by

pro

ving

the

exi

sten

ce o

f the

con

trac

t an

d th

e fa

ct t

hat

the

oblig

or, i

n th

is ca

se th

e co

mm

on ca

rrie

r, fa

iled

to tr

ansp

ort h

ispa

ssen

ger

safe

ly to

his

des

tinat

ion.

In c

ase

of d

eath

or

inju

ries

topa

ssen

gers

, Ar

t. 17

56 o

f th

e Ci

vil

Code

pro

vide

s th

at c

omm

onca

rrie

rs a

re p

resu

med

to

have

bee

n at

fau

lt or

to

have

act

edne

glig

ently

unl

ess

they

pro

ve t

hat

they

obs

erve

d ex

trao

rdin

ary

dilig

ence

as

defin

ed i

n Ar

ts.

1733

and

175

5 of

the

Cod

e. T

his

prov

isio

n ne

cess

arily

shi

fts t

o th

e co

mm

on c

arri

er t

he b

urde

n of

proo

f.

____

____

____

___

* SEC

ON

D D

IVIS

ION

.

357

VOL.

332

, MAY

31,

200

035

7

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

Sam

e; S

ame;

Sam

e; S

ame;

Doc

trin

e of

Pro

xim

ate

Cau

se; T

hedo

ctri

ne o

f pro

xim

ate

caus

e is

app

licab

le o

nly

in a

ctio

ns fo

r qu

asi-

delic

ts,

not

in a

ctio

ns i

nvol

ving

bre

ach

of c

ontr

act.

Ther

e is

,th

us, n

o ba

sis

for

the

cont

entio

n th

at th

e ru

ling

in C

ivil

Case

No.

3490

, fin

ding

Sal

va a

nd h

is d

rive

r Ver

ena

liabl

e fo

r the

dam

age

tope

titio

ners

jeep

ney,

sho

uld

be b

indi

ng o

n Su

nga.

It is

imm

ater

ial

that

the

prox

imat

e ca

use

of th

e co

llisi

on b

etw

een

the

jeep

ney

and

the

truc

k w

as t

he n

eglig

ence

of t

he t

ruck

dri

ver.

The

doct

rine

of

prox

imat

e ca

use

is a

pplic

able

onl

y in

act

ions

for

quas

i-del

ict,

not

in a

ctio

ns in

volv

ing

brea

ch o

f con

trac

t. Th

e do

ctri

ne is

a d

evic

e fo

rim

putin

g lia

bilit

y to

a p

erso

n w

here

ther

e is

no

rela

tion

betw

een

him

and

ano

ther

par

ty. I

n su

ch a

case

, the

obl

igat

ion

is cr

eate

d by

law

itse

lf. B

ut, w

here

the

re is

a p

re-e

xist

ing

cont

ract

ual r

elat

ion

betw

een

the

part

ies,

it is

the

par

ties

them

selv

es w

ho c

reat

e th

eob

ligat

ion,

and

the

func

tion

of t

he la

w is

mer

ely

to r

egul

ate

the

rela

tion

thus

crea

ted.

Sam

e; S

ame;

Sam

e; S

ame;

Pre

sum

ptio

n of

Neg

ligen

ce; U

pon

the

happ

enin

g of

the

acc

iden

t, th

e pr

esum

ptio

n of

neg

ligen

ce a

ton

ce a

rise

s, a

nd it

bec

omes

the

dut

y of

a c

omm

on c

arri

er t

o pr

ove

that

he

ob

serv

ed

extr

aord

inar

y di

ligen

ce

in

the

care

of

hi

spa

ssen

gers

.In

the

cas

e at

bar

, up

on t

he h

appe

ning

of

the

acci

dent

, th

e pr

esum

ptio

n of

neg

ligen

ce a

t on

ce a

rose

, an

d it

beca

me

the

duty

of

pe

titio

ner

to

prov

e th

at

he

obse

rved

extr

aord

inar

y di

ligen

ce in

the

care

of h

is p

asse

nger

s. N

ow, d

id th

edr

iver

of

jeep

ney

carr

y Su

nga

saf

ely

as f

ar a

s hu

man

car

e an

dfo

resi

ght

coul

d pr

ovid

e,

usin

g th

e ut

mos

t di

ligen

ce

of

very

caut

ious

per

sons

, with

due

reg

ard

for

all

the

circ

umst

ance

s a

sre

quir

ed b

y Ar

t. 17

55? W

e do

not

thin

k so

. Sev

eral

fact

ors m

ilita

teag

ains

t pet

ition

ers

cont

entio

n.

Sam

e; S

ame;

For

tuito

us E

vent

; W

ords

and

Phr

ases

; Th

eta

king

of a

n e

xten

sion

sea

t is

not

an

impl

ied

assu

mpt

ion

of r

isk

on t

he p

art

of t

he p

asse

nger

; A

caso

for

tuito

is

an e

vent

whi

chco

uld

not

be f

ores

een,

or

whi

ch,

thou

gh f

ores

een,

was

ine

vita

ble;

Req

uisi

tes.

W

e fin

d it

hard

to g

ive

seri

ous

thou

ght t

o pe

titio

ners

cont

entio

n th

at S

unga

s ta

king

an

ext

ensi

on s

eat

am

ount

ed t

o

an i

mpl

ied

assu

mpt

ion

of r

isk.

It

is a

kin

to a

rgui

ng t

hat

the

inju

ries

to

the

man

y vi

ctim

s of

the

tra

gedi

es in

our

sea

s sh

ould

not

be c

ompe

nsat

ed m

erel

y be

caus

e th

ose

pass

enge

rs a

ssum

ed a

grea

ter

risk

of d

row

ning

by

boar

ding

an

over

load

ed fe

rry.

Thi

s is

also

true

of p

etiti

oner

s co

nten

tion

that

the

jeep

ney

bein

g bu

mpe

dw

hile

it w

as im

prop

erly

par

ked

cons

titut

es c

aso

fort

uito

. A c

aso

fort

uito

is a

n ev

ent w

hich

coul

d no

t

358

358

SUPR

EME

COU

RT R

EPO

RTS

ANN

OTA

TED

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

be f

ores

een,

or

whi

ch,

thou

gh f

ores

een,

was

ine

vita

ble.

Thi

sre

quir

es th

at th

e fo

llow

ing

requ

irem

ents

be

pres

ent:

(a) t

he c

ause

of t

he b

reac

h is

inde

pend

ent

of t

he d

ebto

rs w

ill; (

b) t

he e

vent

isun

fore

seea

ble

or u

navo

idab

le; (

c) th

e ev

ent i

s su

ch a

s to

ren

der

itim

poss

ible

for

the

deb

tor

to f

ulfil

l hi

s ob

ligat

ion

in a

nor

mal

man

ner;

and

(d) t

he d

ebto

r did

not

take

par

t in

caus

ing

the

inju

ryto

the

cre

dito

r. Pe

titio

ner

shou

ld h

ave

fore

seen

the

dan

ger

ofpa

rkin

g hi

s je

epne

y w

ith it

s bo

dy p

rotr

udin

g tw

o m

eter

s in

to th

ehi

ghw

ay.

Sam

e; S

ame;

Dam

ages

; As

a ge

nera

l rul

e, m

oral

dam

ages

are

not

reco

vera

ble

in a

ctio

ns f

or d

amag

es p

redi

cate

d on

a b

reac

h of

cont

ract

for

it is

not

one

of t

he it

ems

enum

erat

ed u

nder

Art

. 221

9of

the

Civ

il C

ode.

As

a g

ener

al r

ule,

mor

al d

amag

es a

re n

otre

cove

rabl

e in

act

ions

for

dam

ages

pre

dica

ted

on a

bre

ach

ofco

ntra

ct fo

r it

is n

ot o

ne o

f the

item

s en

umer

ated

und

er A

rt. 2

219

of th

e Ci

vil C

ode.

As

an e

xcep

tion,

suc

h da

mag

es a

re r

ecov

erab

le:

(1)

in c

ases

in

whi

ch t

he m

isha

p re

sults

in

the

deat

h of

apa

ssen

ger,

as p

rovi

ded

in A

rt. 1

764,

in r

elat

ion

to A

rt. 2

206(

3) o

fth

e Ci

vil C

ode;

and

(2) i

n th

e ca

ses i

n w

hich

the

carr

ier i

s gui

lty o

ffr

aud

or b

ad fa

ith, a

s pro

vide

d in

Art

. 222

0.

Sam

e; B

ad F

aith

; Th

e co

mm

on c

arri

ers

adm

issi

on i

n op

enco

urt t

hat h

is d

rive

r fa

iled

to a

ssis

t the

inju

red

pass

enge

r in

goi

ngto

a n

earb

y ho

spita

l ca

nnot

be

cons

true

d as

an

adm

issi

on o

f ba

dfa

ith.

In t

his

case

, th

ere

is n

o le

gal

basi

s fo

r aw

ardi

ng m

oral

dam

ages

sin

ce th

ere

was

no

fact

ual f

indi

ng b

y th

e ap

pella

te c

ourt

that

pet

ition

er a

cted

in

bad

faith

in

the

perf

orm

ance

of

the

cont

ract

of

ca

rria

ge.

Sung

as

cont

entio

n th

at

petit

ione

rsad

mis

sion

in

open

cou

rt t

hat

the

driv

er o

f th

e je

epne

y fa

iled

toas

sist

her

in g

oing

to a

nea

rby

hosp

ital c

anno

t be

cons

true

d as

an

adm

issi

on o

f bad

faith

. The

fact

that

it w

as th

e dr

iver

of t

he Is

uzu

truc

k w

ho to

ok h

er to

the

hosp

ital d

oes

not i

mpl

y th

at p

etiti

oner

was

utt

erly

indi

ffere

nt to

the

plig

ht o

f his

inju

red

pass

enge

r. If

atal

l, it

is m

erel

y im

plie

d re

cogn

ition

by

Vere

na th

at h

e w

as th

e on

eat

faul

t for

the

acci

dent

.

PETI

TIO

N fo

r rev

iew

on

cert

iora

ri o

f a d

ecis

ion

of th

eCo

urt o

f App

eals

.

The

fact

s are

stat

ed in

the

opin

ion

of th

e Co

urt.

L

eo B

. Dio

cos f

or p

etiti

oner

.

359

VOL.

332

, MAY

31,

200

035

9C

alal

as v

s. C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls

E

nriq

ue S

. Em

pleo

for p

riva

te re

spon

dent

Sun

ga.

E

duar

do T

. Sed

illo

for p

riva

te re

spon

dent

Sal

va.

MEN

DO

ZA, J

.:

This

is a

pet

ition

for

revi

ew o

n ce

rtio

rari

of t

he d

ecis

ion1

of

the

Cour

t of A

ppea

ls, d

ated

Mar

ch 3

1, 1

991,

rev

ersi

ng th

eco

ntra

ry d

ecis

ion

of t

he R

egio

nal

Tria

l Co

urt,

Bran

ch 3

6,D

umag

uete

City

, and

aw

ardi

ng d

amag

es in

stea

d to

pri

vate

resp

onde

nt E

liza

Juje

urch

e Su

nga

as p

lain

tiff i

n an

act

ion

for b

reac

h of

cont

ract

of c

arri

age.

The

fact

s, as

fou

nd b

y th

e Co

urt

of A

ppea

ls,

are

asfo

llow

s:At

10

oclo

ck in

the

mor

ning

of A

ugus

t 23,

198

9, p

riva

tere

spon

dent

El

iza

Juje

urch

e G

. Su

nga,

th

en

a co

llege

fres

hman

maj

orin

g in

Phy

sica

l Ed

ucat

ion

at t

he S

ilim

anU

nive

rsity

, too

k a

pass

enge

r je

epne

y ow

ned

and

oper

ated

by p

etiti

oner

Vic

ente

Cal

alas

. As

the

jeep

ney

was

fille

d to

capa

city

of

abou

t 24

pas

seng

ers,

Sung

a w

as g

iven

by

the

cond

ucto

r an

ext

ensi

on se

at,

a w

oode

n st

ool a

t the

bac

k of

the

door

at t

he re

ar e

nd o

f the

veh

icle

.O

n th

e w

ay to

Pob

laci

on S

ibul

an, N

egro

s O

ccid

enta

l, th

eje

epne

y st

oppe

d to

let a

pas

seng

er o

ff. A

s sh

e w

as s

eate

d at

the

rear

of

the

vehi

cle,

Sun

ga g

ave

way

to

the

outg

oing

pass

enge

r. Ju

st a

s sh

e w

as d

oing

so,

an

Isuz

u tr

uck

driv

enby

Igle

ceri

o Ve

rena

and

ow

ned

by F

ranc

isco

Sal

va b

umpe

dth

e le

ft re

ar p

ortio

n of

the

jeep

ney.

As

a re

sult,

Sun

ga w

asin

jure

d. S

he s

usta

ined

a fr

actu

re o

f the

dis

tal t

hird

of t

hele

ft tib

ia-fi

bula

with

sev

ere

necr

osis

of

the

unde

rlyi

ngsk

in.

Clos

ed r

educ

tion

of t

he f

ract

ure,

lon

g le

g ci

rcul

arca

stin

g, a

nd c

ase

wed

ging

wer

e do

ne u

nder

sed

atio

n. H

erco

nfin

emen

t in

the

hos

pita

l la

sted

fro

m A

ugus

t 23

to

Sept

embe

r 7,

198

9. H

er a

tten

ding

phy

sici

an, D

r. D

anilo

V.

Olig

ario

, an

orth

oped

ic s

urge

on, c

ertif

ied

she

wou

ld re

mai

n

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

on a

cast

for a

per

iod

of

____

____

____

___

1 Per

Jus

tice

Arte

mon

D. L

una

and

conc

urre

d in

by

Just

ices

Hec

tor

L.H

ofile

na a

nd B

.A. A

defu

in-d

ela

Cruz

.

360

360

SUPR

EME

COU

RT R

EPO

RTS

ANN

OTA

TED

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

thre

e m

onth

s an

d w

ould

hav

e to

am

bula

te i

n cr

utch

esdu

ring

said

per

iod.

On

Oct

ober

9, 1

989,

Sun

ga fi

led

a co

mpl

aint

for d

amag

esag

ains

t Ca

lala

s, al

legi

ng

viol

atio

n of

th

e co

ntra

ct

ofca

rria

ge b

y th

e fo

rmer

in

faili

ng t

o ex

erci

se t

he d

ilige

nce

requ

ired

of h

im a

s a

com

mon

car

rier

. Cal

alas

, on

the

othe

rha

nd,

filed

a

thir

d-pa

rty

com

plai

nt

agai

nst

Fran

cisc

oSa

lva,

the

owne

r of t

he Is

uzu

truc

k.Th

e lo

wer

cou

rt r

ende

red

judg

men

t ag

ains

t Sa

lva

asth

irdp

arty

def

enda

nt a

nd a

bsol

ved

Cala

las

of l

iabi

lity,

hold

ing

that

it w

as t

he d

rive

r of

the

Isu

zu t

ruck

who

was

resp

onsi

ble

for

the

acci

dent

. It

took

cog

niza

nce

of a

noth

erca

se (

Civi

l Cas

e N

o. 3

490)

, file

d by

Cal

alas

aga

inst

Sal

vaan

d Ve

rena

, fo

r qu

asi-d

elic

t, in

whi

ch B

ranc

h 37

of

the

sam

e co

urt

held

Sal

va a

nd h

is d

rive

r Ve

rena

join

tly li

able

to C

alal

as fo

r the

dam

age

to h

is je

epne

y.O

n ap

peal

to

the

Cour

t of

App

eals

, th

e ru

ling

of t

helo

wer

cou

rt w

as r

ever

sed

on th

e gr

ound

that

Sun

gas

caus

eof

act

ion

was

bas

ed o

n a

cont

ract

of

carr

iage

, no

t qu

asi-

delic

t, an

d th

at t

he c

omm

on c

arri

er f

aile

d to

exe

rcis

e th

edi

ligen

ce r

equi

red

unde

r th

e Ci

vil

Code

. Th

e ap

pella

teco

urt d

ism

isse

d th

e th

irdp

arty

com

plai

nt a

gain

st S

alva

and

adju

dged

Ca

lala

s lia

ble

for

dam

ages

to

Su

nga.

Th

edi

spos

itive

por

tion

of it

s dec

isio

n re

ads:

WH

EREF

ORE

, the

dec

isio

n ap

peal

ed fr

om is

her

eby

REVE

RSED

and

SET

ASID

E, a

nd a

noth

er o

ne is

ent

ered

ord

erin

g de

fend

ant-

appe

llee

Vice

nte

Cala

las t

o pa

y pl

aint

iff-a

ppel

lant

:

P50,

000.

00 a

s act

ual a

nd co

mpe

nsat

ory

dam

ages

;P5

0,00

0.00

as m

oral

dam

ages

;P1

0,00

0.00

as a

ttor

neys

fees

; and

P1,0

00.0

0 as

exp

ense

s of l

itiga

tion;

and

to p

ay th

e co

sts.

SO O

RDER

ED.

Hen

ce, t

his

petit

ion.

Pet

ition

er c

onte

nds

that

the

rulin

g in

Civi

l Cas

e N

o. 3

490

that

the

negl

igen

ce o

f Ver

ena

was

the 361

VOL.

332

, MAY

31,

200

036

1C

alal

as v

s. C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls

prox

imat

e ca

use

of t

he a

ccid

ent

nega

tes

his

liabi

lity

and

that

to

rule

oth

erw

ise

wou

ld b

e to

mak

e th

e co

mm

onca

rrie

r an

ins

urer

of

the

safe

ty o

f its

pas

seng

ers.

He

cont

ends

tha

t th

e bu

mpi

ng o

f th

e je

epne

y by

the

tru

ckow

ned

by S

alva

was

a c

aso

fort

uito

. Pe

titio

ner

furt

her

assa

ils t

he a

war

d of

mor

al d

amag

es t

o Su

nga

on t

hegr

ound

that

it is

not

supp

orte

d by

evi

denc

e.Th

e pe

titio

n ha

s no

mer

it.Th

e ar

gum

ent t

hat S

unga

is b

ound

by

the

rulin

g in

Civ

ilCa

se N

o. 3

490

findi

ng th

e dr

iver

and

the

owne

r of t

he tr

uck

liabl

e fo

r qu

asi-d

elic

t ign

ores

the

fact

that

she

was

nev

er a

part

y to

tha

t ca

se a

nd,

ther

efor

e, t

he p

rinc

iple

of

res

judi

cata

doe

s not

app

ly.

Nor

are

the

iss

ues

in C

ivil

Case

No.

349

0 an

d in

the

pres

ent

case

the

sam

e. T

he i

ssue

in

Civi

l Ca

se N

o. 3

490

was

whe

ther

Sal

va a

nd h

is d

rive

r Ve

rena

wer

e lia

ble

for

quas

idel

ict

for

the

dam

age

caus

ed t

o pe

titio

ners

jeep

ney.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd,

the

issu

e in

thi

s ca

se i

s w

heth

erpe

titio

ner

is l

iabl

e on

his

con

trac

t of

car

riag

e. T

he f

irst

,qu

asi-d

elic

t, al

so k

now

n as

cul

pa a

quili

ana

or c

ulpa

ext

raco

ntra

ctua

l, ha

s as

its

so

urce

th

e ne

glig

ence

of

th

eto

rtfe

asor

. Th

e se

cond

, br

each

of

co

ntra

ct

or

culp

aco

ntra

ctua

l, is

pr

emis

ed

upon

th

e ne

glig

ence

in

th

epe

rfor

man

ce o

f a co

ntra

ctua

l obl

igat

ion.

Cons

eque

ntly

, in

qua

si-d

elic

t, th

e ne

glig

ence

or

faul

tsh

ould

be

clea

rly

esta

blis

hed

beca

use

it is

the

bas

is o

f the

actio

n, w

here

as i

n br

each

of

cont

ract

, th

e ac

tion

can

bepr

osec

uted

mer

ely

by p

rovi

ng th

e ex

iste

nce

of th

e co

ntra

ctan

d th

e fa

ct t

hat

the

oblig

or,

in t

his

case

the

com

mon

carr

ier,

faile

d to

tra

nspo

rt h

is p

asse

nger

saf

ely

to h

isde

stin

atio

n.2 I

n ca

se o

f dea

th o

r inj

urie

s to

pas

seng

ers,

Art.

1756

of t

he C

ivil

Code

pro

vide

s th

at c

omm

on c

arri

ers

are

pres

umed

to h

ave

been

at f

ault

or to

hav

e ac

ted

negl

igen

tlyun

less

th

ey

prov

e th

at

they

ob

serv

ed

extr

aord

inar

ydi

ligen

ce a

s def

ined

in A

rts.

1733

and

____

____

____

___

2 Se

e B.

BAL

DER

RAM

A, T

HE

PHIL

IPPI

NE

LAW

ON

TO

RTS

AND

DAM

AGES

20

(195

3).

362

362

SUPR

EME

COU

RT R

EPO

RTS

ANN

OTA

TED

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

1755

of

the

Code

. Thi

s pr

ovis

ion

nece

ssar

ily s

hifts

to

the

com

mon

carr

ier t

he b

urde

n of

pro

of.

Ther

e is

, thu

s, no

bas

is fo

r the

cont

entio

n th

at th

e ru

ling

in C

ivil

Case

No.

349

0, fi

ndin

g Sa

lva

and

his

driv

er V

eren

alia

ble

for

the

dam

age

to p

etiti

oner

s je

epne

y, s

houl

d be

bind

ing

on S

unga

. It

is

imm

ater

ial

that

the

pro

xim

ate

caus

e of

the

col

lisio

n be

twee

n th

e je

epne

y an

d th

e tr

uck

was

the

neg

ligen

ce o

f th

e tr

uck

driv

er.

The

doct

rine

of

prox

imat

e ca

use

is a

pplic

able

onl

y in

act

ions

for

qua

si-

delic

t, no

t in

act

ions

inv

olvi

ng b

reac

h of

con

trac

t. Th

edo

ctri

ne is

a d

evic

e fo

r im

putin

g lia

bilit

y to

a p

erso

n w

here

ther

e is

no

rela

tion

betw

een

him

and

ano

ther

par

ty.

Insu

ch a

cas

e, t

he o

blig

atio

n is

cre

ated

by

law

its

elf.

But,

whe

re t

here

is a

pre

-exi

stin

g co

ntra

ctua

l rel

atio

n be

twee

nth

e pa

rtie

s, it

is t

he p

artie

s th

emse

lves

who

cre

ate

the

oblig

atio

n, a

nd th

e fu

nctio

n of

the

law

is m

erel

y to

regu

late

the

rela

tion

thus

cre

ated

. Ins

ofar

as

cont

ract

s of

car

riag

ear

e co

ncer

ned,

som

e as

pect

s re

gula

ted

by t

he C

ivil

Code

are

thos

e re

spec

ting

the

dilig

ence

req

uire

d of

com

mon

carr

iers

with

reg

ard

to t

he s

afet

y of

pas

seng

ers

as w

ell a

sth

e pr

esum

ptio

n of

neg

ligen

ce in

case

s of

dea

th o

r inj

ury

topa

ssen

gers

. It p

rovi

des:

ART.

173

3. C

omm

on c

arri

ers,

from

the

nat

ure

of t

heir

bus

ines

san

d fo

r re

ason

s of

pu

blic

po

licy,

ar

e bo

und

to

obse

rve

extr

aord

inar

y di

ligen

ce in

the

vigi

lanc

e ov

er th

e go

ods

and

for t

hesa

fety

of t

he p

asse

nger

s tr

ansp

orte

d by

them

, acc

ordi

ng to

all

the

circ

umst

ance

s of e

ach

case

.Su

ch e

xtra

ordi

nary

dili

genc

e in

the

vigi

lanc

e ov

er th

e go

ods

isfu

rthe

r ex

pres

sed

in a

rtic

les

1734

, 173

5, a

nd 1

746,

Nos

. 5, 6

, and

7,

whi

le

the

extr

aord

inar

y di

ligen

ce

for

the

safe

ty

of

the

pass

enge

rs is

furt

her s

et fo

rth

in a

rtic

les 1

755

and

1756

.AR

T. 1

755.

A c

omm

on c

arri

er is

bou

nd to

car

ry th

e pa

ssen

gers

safe

ly a

s fa

r as

hum

an c

are

and

fore

sigh

t ca

n pr

ovid

e, u

sing

the

utm

ost d

ilige

nce

of v

ery

caut

ious

per

sons

, with

due

reg

ard

for

all

the

circ

umst

ance

s.AR

T. 1

756.

In

case

of

deat

h of

or

inju

ries

to

pass

enge

rs,

com

mon

car

rier

s ar

e pr

esum

ed t

o ha

ve b

een

at f

ault

or t

o ha

veac

ted

negl

igen

tly,

unle

ss

they

pr

ove

that

th

ey

obse

rved

extr

aord

inar

y di

ligen

ce a

s pre

scri

bed

by a

rtic

les 1

733

and

1755

. 363

VOL.

332

, MAY

31,

200

036

3C

alal

as v

s. C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls

In th

e ca

se a

t bar

, upo

n th

e ha

ppen

ing

of th

e ac

cide

nt, t

hepr

esum

ptio

n of

neg

ligen

ce a

t onc

e ar

ose,

and

it b

ecam

e th

edu

ty o

f pet

ition

er t

o pr

ove

that

he

obse

rved

ext

raor

dina

rydi

ligen

ce in

the

care

of h

is p

asse

nger

s.N

ow, d

id th

e dr

iver

of j

eepn

ey ca

rry

Sung

a s

afel

y as

far

as h

uman

car

e an

d fo

resi

ght

coul

d pr

ovid

e, u

sing

the

utm

ost d

ilige

nce

of v

ery

caut

ious

per

sons

, with

due

reg

ard

for

all t

he c

ircu

mst

ance

s a

s re

quir

ed b

y Ar

t. 17

55?

We

dono

t th

ink

so.

Seve

ral

fact

ors

mili

tate

aga

inst

pet

ition

ers

cont

entio

n.Fi

rst,

as fo

und

by th

e Co

urt o

f App

eals

, the

jeep

ney

was

not

prop

erly

par

ked,

its

rear

por

tion

bein

g ex

pose

d ab

out

two

met

ers

from

the

bro

ad s

houl

ders

of t

he h

ighw

ay, a

ndfa

cing

the

mid

dle

of th

e hi

ghw

ay in

a d

iago

nal a

ngle

. Thi

sis

a v

iola

tion

of th

e R.

A. N

o. 4

136,

as a

men

ded,

or t

he L

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Tr

affic

Cod

e, w

hich

pro

vide

s:

Sec.

54. O

bstr

uctio

n of

Tra

ffic.

N

o pe

rson

sha

ll dr

ive

his

mot

orve

hicl

e in

suc

h a

man

ner

as to

obs

truc

t or

impe

de th

e pa

ssag

e of

any

vehi

cle,

nor

, w

hile

dis

char

ging

or

taki

ng o

n pa

ssen

gers

or

load

ing

or u

nloa

ding

fre

ight

, ob

stru

ct t

he f

ree

pass

age

of o

ther

vehi

cles

on

the

high

way

.

Seco

nd,

it is

und

ispu

ted

that

pet

ition

ers

driv

er t

ook

inm

ore

pass

enge

rs t

han

the

allo

wed

sea

ting

capa

city

of

the

jeep

ney,

a v

iola

tion

of

32(a

) of t

he sa

me

law

. It p

rovi

des:

Exc

eedi

ng r

egis

tere

d ca

paci

ty.

No

pers

on o

pera

ting

any

mot

orve

hicl

e sh

all a

llow

mor

e pa

ssen

gers

or m

ore

frei

ght o

r car

go in

his

vehi

cle

than

its r

egis

tere

d ca

paci

ty.

The

fact

tha

t Su

nga

was

sea

ted

in a

n e

xten

sion

sea

tpl

aced

her

in a

per

il gr

eate

r th

an t

hat

to w

hich

the

oth

erpa

ssen

gers

w

ere

expo

sed.

Th

eref

ore,

no

t on

ly

was

petit

ione

r un

able

to

ov

erco

me

the

pres

umpt

ion

ofne

glig

ence

im

pose

d on

him

for

the

inj

ury

sust

aine

d by

Sung

a, b

ut a

lso,

the

evi

denc

e sh

ows

he w

as a

ctua

llyne

glig

ent i

n tr

ansp

ortin

g pa

ssen

gers

.W

e fin

d it

hard

to

give

ser

ious

tho

ught

to

petit

ione

rsco

nten

tion

that

Su

nga

s ta

king

an

e

xten

sion

se

at

amou

nted

to

an i

mpl

ied

assu

mpt

ion

of r

isk.

It

is a

kin

toar

guin

g th

at th

e

364

364

SUPR

EME

COU

RT R

EPO

RTS

ANN

OTA

TED

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

inju

ries

to

the

man

y vi

ctim

s of

the

tra

gedi

es i

n ou

r se

assh

ould

no

t be

co

mpe

nsat

ed

mer

ely

beca

use

thos

epa

ssen

gers

ass

umed

a g

reat

er ri

sk o

f dro

wni

ng b

y bo

ardi

ngan

ov

erlo

aded

fe

rry.

Th

is

is

also

tr

ue

of

petit

ione

rsco

nten

tion

that

the

jee

pney

bei

ng b

umpe

d w

hile

it

was

impr

oper

ly p

arke

d co

nstit

utes

cas

o fo

rtui

to. A

cas

o fo

rtui

tois

an

even

t w

hich

cou

ld n

ot b

e fo

rese

en, o

r w

hich

, tho

ugh

fore

seen

, was

inev

itabl

e.3 T

his

requ

ires

tha

t th

e fo

llow

ing

requ

irem

ents

be

pres

ent:

(a)

the

caus

e of

the

bre

ach

isin

depe

nden

t of

th

e de

btor

s w

ill;

(b)

the

even

t is

unfo

rese

eabl

e or

una

void

able

; (c

) th

e ev

ent

is s

uch

as t

ore

nder

it im

poss

ible

for t

he d

ebto

r to

fulfi

ll hi

s obl

igat

ion

ina

norm

al m

anne

r; an

d (d

) the

deb

tor

did

not

take

par

t in

caus

ing

the

inju

ry t

o th

e cr

edito

r.4 P

etiti

oner

sho

uld

have

fore

seen

the

dan

ger

of p

arki

ng h

is j

eepn

ey w

ith i

ts b

ody

prot

rudi

ng tw

o m

eter

s int

o th

e hi

ghw

ay.

Fina

lly,

petit

ione

r ch

alle

nges

th

e aw

ard

of

mor

alda

mag

es a

llegi

ng t

hat

it is

exc

essi

ve a

nd w

ithou

t ba

sis

inla

w. W

e fin

d th

is co

nten

tion

wel

l tak

en.

In a

war

ding

mor

al d

amag

es,

the

Cour

t of

App

eals

stat

ed:

Plai

ntiff

-app

ella

nt a

t th

e tim

e of

the

acc

iden

t w

as a

fir

st-y

ear

colle

ge s

tude

nt i

n th

at s

choo

l ye

ar 1

989-

1990

at

the

Silli

man

Uni

vers

ity, m

ajor

ing

in P

hysi

cal E

duca

tion.

Bec

ause

of t

he in

jury

,sh

e w

as n

ot a

ble

to e

nrol

l in

the

seco

nd s

emes

ter

of t

hat

scho

olye

ar. S

he t

estif

ied

that

she

had

no

mor

e in

tent

ion

of c

ontin

uing

with

her

sch

oolin

g, b

ecau

se s

he c

ould

not

wal

k an

d de

cide

d no

t to

purs

ue h

er d

egre

e, m

ajor

in

Phys

ical

Edu

catio

n b

ecau

se o

f m

yle

g w

hich

has

a d

efec

t alr

eady

.Pl

aint

iff-a

ppel

lant

lik

ewis

e te

stifi

ed t

hat

even

whi

le s

he w

asun

der

conf

inem

ent,

she

crie

d in

pai

n be

caus

e of

her

inju

red

left

foot

. As

a r

esul

t of

her

inj

ury,

the

Ort

hope

dic

Surg

eon

also

cert

ified

tha

t sh

e ha

s r

esid

ual b

owin

g of

the

frac

ture

sid

e.

She

likew

ise

deci

ded

not t

o fu

rthe

r pu

rsue

Phy

sica

l Edu

catio

n as

her

maj

or su

bjec

t, be

caus

e m

y le

ft le

g x

x x

has a

def

ect a

lrea

dy.

____

____

____

___

3 CIV

IL C

OD

E, A

RT. 1

174.

4 Ju

an F

. Nak

pil

& S

ons

v. C

ourt

of

Appe

als,

144

SCRA

596

(19

86);

Vasq

uez

v. C

ourt

of

Appe

als,

138

SCRA

553

(19

85);

Repu

blic

v.

Luzo

nSt

eved

orin

g Co

rp.,

128

Phil.

313

(196

7).

365

VOL.

332

, MAY

31,

200

036

5

Cal

alas

vs.

Cou

rt o

f App

eals

Thos

e ar

e he

r ph

ysic

al p

ains

and

mor

al s

uffe

ring

s, th

e in

evita

ble

bedf

ello

ws

of th

e in

juri

es th

at s

he s

uffe

red.

Und

er A

rtic

le 2

219

ofth

e Ci

vil

Code

, she

is

entit

led

to r

ecov

er m

oral

dam

ages

in

the

sum

of P

50,0

00.0

0, w

hich

is fa

ir, j

ust a

nd re

ason

able

.

As a

gen

eral

rul

e, m

oral

dam

ages

are

not

rec

over

able

in

actio

ns fo

r da

mag

es p

redi

cate

d on

a b

reac

h of

con

trac

t fo

rit

is n

ot o

ne o

f the

item

s enu

mer

ated

und

er A

rt. 2

219

of th

eCi

vil C

ode.

5 As a

n ex

cept

ion,

such

dam

ages

are

reco

vera

ble:

(1) i

n ca

ses

in w

hich

the

mis

hap

resu

lts in

the

dea

th o

f apa

ssen

ger,

as p

rovi

ded

in A

rt.

1764

, in

rel

atio

n to

Art

.22

06(3

) of t

he C

ivil

Code

; and

(2) i

n th

e ca

ses

in w

hich

the

carr

ier

is g

uilty

of

frau

d or

bad

fai

th, a

s pr

ovid

ed in

Art

.22

20.6

In t

his

case

, the

re is

no

lega

l bas

is fo

r aw

ardi

ng m

oral

dam

ages

si

nce

ther

e w

as

no

fact

ual

findi

ng

by

the

appe

llate

cou

rt t

hat

petit

ione

r ac

ted

in b

ad f

aith

in

the

perf

orm

ance

of t

he c

ontr

act o

f car

riag

e. S

unga

s co

nten

tion

that

pet

ition

ers

adm

issi

on in

ope

n co

urt t

hat t

he d

rive

r of

the

jeep

ney

faile

d to

ass

ist h

er in

goi

ng to

a n

earb

y ho

spita

lca

nnot

be

cons

true

d as

an

adm

issi

on o

f bad

faith

. The

fact

that

it w

as th

e dr

iver

of t

he Is

uzu

truc

k w

ho to

ok h

er to

the

hosp

ital

does

no

t im

ply

that

pe

titio

ner

was

ut

terl

yin

diffe

rent

to th

e pl

ight

of h

is in

jure

d pa

ssen

ger.

If at

all,

itis

mer

ely

impl

ied

reco

gniti

on b

y Ve

rena

tha

t he

was

the

one

at fa

ult f

or th

e ac

cide

nt.

WH

EREF

ORE

, th

e de

cisi

on o

f th

e Co

urt

of A

ppea

ls,

date

d M

arch

31,

199

5, a

nd it

s re

solu

tion,

dat

ed S

epte

mbe

r11

, 199

5, a

re A

FFIR

MED

, with

the

MO

DIF

ICAT

ION

tha

tth

e aw

ard

of m

oral

dam

ages

is D

ELET

ED.

SO O

RDER

ED.

B

ello

sillo

(Cha

irm

an) a

nd B

uena

, JJ.

, con

cur.

____

____

____

___

5 For

es v

. Mir

anda

, 105

Phi

l. 23

6 (1

959)

; Mer

cado

v. L

ira,

3 S

CRA

124

(196

1).

6 Phi

lippi

ne R

abbi

t Bus

Lin

es, I

nc. v

. Esg

uerr

a, 1

17 S

CRA

741

(198

2);

Sabe

na B

elgi

an W

orld

Air

lines

v. C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls, 1

71 S

CRA

620

(198

9);

Chin

a Ai

rlin

es,

Ltd.

v.

Inte

rmed

iate

App

ella

te C

ourt

, 16

9 SC

RA 2

26(1

989)

.

366

366

SUPR

EME

COU

RT R

EPO

RTS

ANN

OTA

TED

Peop

le v

s. D

oino

g

Q

uisu

mbi

ng a

nd D

e Le

on, J

r., J

J., O

n le

ave.

Judg

men

t affi

rmed

with

mod

ifica

tion.

Notes.

The

rule

s on

ext

raor

dina

ry r

espo

nsib

ility

of

com

mon

car

rier

s re

mai

n ba

sica

lly u

ncha

nged

eve

n w

hen

the

cont

ract

is b

reac

hed

by t

ort

alth

ough

non

cont

radi

ctor

ypr

inci

ples

on

quas

i-del

ict

may

the

n be

ass

imila

ted

as a

lso

form

ing

part

of t

he g

over

ning

law

. (Sa

bena

Bel

gian

Wor

ldAi

rlin

es v

s. C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls, 2

55 S

CRA

38 [1

996]

)Pr

oxim

ate

caus

e,

whi

ch

is

dete

rmin

ed

by

a m

ixed

cons

ider

atio

n of

logi

c, co

mm

on s

ense

, pol

icy

and

prec

eden

t,is

tha

t ca

use

whi

ch, i

n na

tura

l an

d co

ntin

uous

seq

uenc

e,un

brok

en b

y an

y ef

ficie

nt in

terv

enin

g ca

use,

pro

duce

s th

ein

jury

, an

d w

ithou

t w

hich

the

res

ult

wou

ld n

ot h

ave

occu

rred

. (B

ank

of t

he P

hilip

pine

Isl

ands

vs.

Cou

rt o

fAp

peal

s, 64

1 SC

RA 3

26 [2

000]

)W

hile

the

driv

er o

f an

impr

oper

ly p

arke

d ve

hicl

e m

ay b

elia

ble

in ca

se o

f col

lisio

n, th

e dr

iver

of a

mov

ing

vehi

cle

who

had

no o

ppor

tuni

ty t

o av

oid

the

colli

sion

due

to

his

own

mak

ing

is n

ot r

elie

ved

of l

iabi

lity,

suc

h as

whe

n hi

sne

glig

ence

is

the

imm

edia

te a

nd p

roxi

mat

e ca

use

of t

heco

llisi

on.

(Aus

tria

vs.

Cou

rt o

f Ap

peal

s, 32

7 SC

RA 6

68[2

000]

)

o0o

C

opyr

ight

201

6 C

entra

l Boo

k S

uppl

y, In

c. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.