Cariaga vs LTB Co

J. Dizon
Facts
Moncada was driving a bus of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (LTB)
and Cariaga was one of the passengers. The bus is bound for Lilio,
Laguna (coming from Manila).
As the bus reached the poblacion of Bay, Laguna, where the national
highway crossed a railroad track, it (bus) bumped against the engine of a
train then passing by. The impact was so strong that it caused the first six
wheels of the train to be derailed, while the engine and front part of the
body of the bus were wrecked.
Moncada (bus driver) died while Cariaga suffered major injuries.
o Cariaga was unconscious during the first 35 days after the
accident.
o A portion of his brain was removed. According to the doctors, due
to this operation, Cariagas mentality has been so reduced (by
50%) that can no longer finish his studies as a medical student
o Also, Cariaga ended up in a helpless ocndition, virtually an invalid,
both physically and mentally.
LTB paid Cariagas hospital, medical and miscellaneous expenses. Also,
LTB gave him Php 10.00 daily allowance from January until April 1953.
Complaint was filed agains LTB and MRR Co. for recovery of damages.
LTBs argument
o The accident was due to the negligence of MRR for not providing a
crossing bar at the point where the national highway crossed the
railway track
o That the driver of the train violated the law
In sounding the whistle only when the collision was about to
take place instead of at a distance of at least 300 meters
from the crossing
And in not ringing the locomotive bell at all
MRRs argument
o It was the reckless negligence of the bus driver that caused the
accident
RTC held that it was the negligence of the bus driver that caused the
accident. It ordered LTB to pay Cariaga compensatory damages.
Hence, this appeal where the Carriagas claim that the RTC should have
also awarded them moral and actual damages.
ISSUE + RATIO
WON the bus driver was negligent - Yes
o Evidence shows that the train whistle had been sounded several
times before it reached the crossing and the bus driver simply
ignored the warnings.

Instead of slowing down, Moncada (bus driver) tried to make

the bus pass the crossing before the train by not stopping a
few meters from the railway track and in proceeding ahead.
In fact, there was a bus which arrived at the crossing ahead
of the one driven by Moncada. Said bus stopped before the
crossing, hence nothing happened to it.
o WON the amound awarded by the RTC as compensatory damages
shall be increased Yes
Liability of common carriers
In contracts, the obligor in good faith (common
carrier) is liable only for the natural and probable
consequences of the breach and which the parties
have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at
the time the obligation was constituted.
If in bad faith, fraud, malice or wanton attitude, the
obligor in breach is liable for all damages reasonably
attributed to the breach.
In both instances, provided that the damages have
been proven
In the case at bar, LTB is liable not only for the actual
damages suffered for medical and hospital expenses but
also for the income which the passenger would have earned
had he finished medical school. These are likewise
considered as actual damages because they could have
been reasonably foreseen by the parties at the time the
passenger boarded the bus.
No moral damages could be awarded (passenger did not
die), because it was not shown that the breach of contract,
for which the action is based, was not tainted with fraud or
bad faith.
The claim made by spouses Cariaga for actual and
compensatory damages cannot be awarded due to the fact
that the present action is based upon a breach of contract of
carriage to which said spouses were not a party, and neither
can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasidelict of LTB because they were not the ones injured in the
accident.
DISPOSITION: RTC afformed with modification.