ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17812 May 20, 1964 - CIPRIANO DEFENSOR v. HON. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17212 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LT. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18763-64 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19562 May 23, 1964 - JOSE SERRANO v. LUIS SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16217 May 25, 1964 - ALFONSO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. LUIS DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-18783 May 25, 1964 - GENEROSO BAJE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18978 May 25, 1964 - MANUEL MORATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA.CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19566 May 25, 1964 - REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-19756 May 25, 1964 - ALEJANDRA ESQUIVEL-CABATIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19849 May 25, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OLIMPIO LIMLINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20614 and L-21517 May 25, 1964 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15998 May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18079 May 26, 1964 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. BERNARDO S. DUNGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18264 May 26, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15308 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16086 May 29, 1964 - M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16857 May 29, 1964 - MARCELO CASTILLO, JR., ET AL. v. MACARIA PASCO

  • G.R. No. L-17639 May 29, 1964 - CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18203 May 29, 1964 - MANUEL DE LARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18282 May 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18450 May 29, 1964 - LU DO, ET AL. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18777 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18808 May 29, 1964 - ACE PUBLICATION, INC. v. COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19060 May 20, 1964 - IGNACIO GERONA, ET AL. v. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19252 May 29, 1964 - TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL. v. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19265 May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964 - MATEO DE RAMAS v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22193 May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22696 May 29, 1964 - COMM. OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-6025 & L-6026 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15056 May 30, 1964 - M. S. GALUTERA v. MAERSK LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16315 May 30, 1964 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16547 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16569 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. ENGINEERING CORP. v. AMADO FLORENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16975 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17774 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: CEFERINO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18476 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. SY INDONG CO. RICE & CORN MILL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18758 May 30, 1964 - DY PEK LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 18767 and L-18789-90 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADRIGAL TORINO

  • G.R. No. L-19569 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZANA YUMANG

  • G.R. No. L-19749 May 30, 1964 - MONICO CRUZ v. CAMILO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19773 May 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-22193   May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-22193. May 29, 1964.]

    LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JULIETA CORNISTA, thru her parents, GIL CORNISTA and MANUELA BELSONTA CORNISTA, Respondents.

    Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for Petitioner.

    Lastrilla & Alimañgahan for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. DAMAGES; BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; EFFECT OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. — While contributory negligence on the part of the injured party justifies the reduction of moral damages in a breach of contract of carriage, it does not justify the exemption from liability of the carrier.

    2. ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES; NEGLIGENCE OF CARRIER. — The carrier’s negligence consisting in its failure to cover the right side of the bus in question with a bar or some other contrivance to safeguard and protect passengers falls within the category of the misconduct mentioned in Article 2220 of the New Civil Code.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    DIZON, J.:


    Julieta Cornista, through her parents, sued petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Leyte (Civil Case No. 2298) for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage, her claim being that, while a passenger of one of petitioner’s buses, she sustained physical injuries through the negligence of petitioner and its driver. Petitioner’s principal defense was that Julieta’s own negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. After trial, the Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff awarding her the amount of P6,000 as moral damages, plus the amount of P300 for medical attendance, and P1,000 as attorney’s fees, with costs. On appeal the Court of Appeals reduced the moral damages to P3,000, and affirmed the appealed decision in all other respects.

    Petitioner now seeks a review of the last mentioned decision for the purpose of having it set aside, or to have the award of moral damages eliminated.

    The principal facts, as found by the trial Court, are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    "The court, in considering the evidence presented in support of the main issue, is satisfied that the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff Julieta Cornista, as shown by Exhibit ‘A’ was the negligence of both the defendant and its driver of bus No. 284 who, at the time of the incident at bar, unmindful of the warning given him by his passengers, recklessly operated and drove said bus at high speed even on sharp curves of the road. A look at Exhs.’7’ and ‘7-A’ will readily show that bus No. 284, wherein on November 9, 1957, plaintiff Julieta Cornista was a passenger and from where she fell when said bus was running at a high speed on a curve, the right side of said bus is not covered nor protected by any bar to safeguard passengers sitting at the extreme ends of the seats on the right side from falling therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon the above facts — which must be deemed final — petitioner’s liability for damages cannot be doubted. The decision in Lara v. Valencia, 55 Off. Gaz., 4438, does not apply to the present for the reason that, as found by the trial Court, Julieta Cornista was not guilty of negligence. While the Court of Appeals found her chargeable with contributory negligence because, instead of holding the hand of her friend Myrna Cruz, who was seated beside her, she should have held tenaciously on to the bus itself, We believe with said Court that while such circumstances justifies the reduction of the moral damages awarded by the Court of origin, it does not justify the exemption from liability of petitioner herein.

    Regarding petitioner’s contention that no award of moral damages should have been made in favor of the injured passenger, it must be borne in mind that the Court of origin not only found petitioner’s driver guilty of reckless driving, but also found petitioner itself guilty of negligence because "the right side of said bus is not covered nor protected by any bar to safeguard passengers sitting at the extreme ends of the seats on the right side from falling therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the provisions of Art. 2220 of the New Civil Code, in cases of breach of contract (including one of transportation of carriage), either fraud or bad faith, that is, wanton and deliberately injurious conduct on the part of the carrier is necessary to justify an award of moral damages. Petitioner’s negligence consisting in its failure to cover the right side of the bus in question with a bar or some other contrivance to safeguard or protect passengers falls within this category of misconduct.

    WHEREFORE, petition under consideration is dismissed for lack of merit.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L. and Regala, JJ., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-22193   May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED