You are on page 1of 1

Baliwag Transit Corp vs CA  The suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, the Release of Claims executed by George

G.R. No. 80447 / Jan. 31, 1989 / Melencio-Herrera, J. / Party discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any and all liability is valid.
NATURE Complaint for Damages  He was in legal age, a graduating student of Agricultural Engineering, have the capacity to do
PETITIONERS Baliwag Transit, Inc. acts with legal effect (Article 37 in relation to Article 402, Civil Code). Thus, he could sue and
RESPONDENTS Court of Appeals and Sps Sotero Cailipan, Jr. & Zenaida Lopez & George L. be sued even without the assistance of his parents.
Cailipan  There is no question regarding the genuineness and due execution of the Release of Claims. It
is a duly notarized public document. It clearly stipulates the consideration received by George.

SUMMARY. George, of legal age, suffered multiple serious physical injuries when he was thrown off the MAIN ISSUE 2: Whether or not the parents can be parties in the suit
Baliwag Bus. His medical expenses was paid by his parents. Fortune Insurance and Baliwag each filed HELD: No.
MTD on the ground that George had executed a "Release of Claims". MTD denied by Trial Court. Parents  The contract of carriage was between George and Baliwag. As a common carrier, Baliwag was
appealed to CA. CA ruled in favor of parents they have substantial interest to the suit for paying the bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, and is
medical expenses. SC said parents can’t be party to the suit because a contract may be violated only by liable for injuries to them through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees (Articles 1755
the parties thereto, as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties in interest, and 1759, Civil Code).
either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said contract.  Thus, George had the right to be safely brought to his destination and Baliwag had the
DOCTRINE. The general rule of the common law is that every action must be brought in the name of the correlative obligation to do so. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as
party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed. against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties in interest, either as
plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said contract
 A real party-in-interest -plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party-in-interest-
Facts: defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violates the
legal right of the former (Lee vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. 60973, May 28, 1988).
 In the absence of any contract of carriage between Baliwag and George's parents, the latter
 A Complaint for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage was filed by private
are not real parties-in-interest in an action for breach of that contract.
respondents, the Spouses Sotero Cailipan, Jr. and Zenaida Lopez, and their son George, of
legal age, against petitioner Baliwag Transit (Baliwag).
 George, who was a passenger of a Baliwag bus, suffered multiple serious physical injuries
when he was thrown off the bus driven by Leonardo Cruz along Barangay Patubig, Marilao,
Bulacan. His medical expenses was borne by by his parents, the respondent Spouses
(SPOUSES).
 BALIWAG alleged that the cause of the injuries sustained by George was because through his
voluntary act when he suddenly stood up from his seat and headed and opened the door of
the bus in daze & jumped off from the moving bus. He did not hear the protest of the driver
and the conductor has no knowledge.
 BALIWAG then filed a Third-Party Complaint against Fortune Insurance & Surety Company,
Inc., on its third-party liability insurance. Fortune Insurance claimed limited liability.
 FORTUNE INSURANCE and BALIWAG each filed MTD on the ground that George had executed
a "Release of Claims". MTD denied by Trial Court.
 During the preliminary, Baliwag waived the presentation of testimonial evidence and instead
offered as evidence the "Release of Claims" signed by George and witnessed by his brother
Benjamin L. Cailipan, a licensed engineer. The Release of Claims was denied by the George’s
father
 RTC dismissed the Complaint and Third-party Complaint, ruling that since the contract of
carriage is between Baliwag and George, who is of legal age, had the exclusive right to
execute the Release of Claims despite the fact that he is still a student and dependent on his
parents for support. Consequently, the execution by George of the Release of Claims
discharges Baliwag and Fortune Insurance.
 Spouses appealed to CA. CA in favor of Spouses because they substantial interest in the case
since they spent a huge amount to the medical bills.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not of the Release of Claims executed by Georg during the pendency of this case has
legal effect

HELD: Yes.