Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA and JOVITA R.

ESTRADA, Petitioner
vs.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and EDUARDO R. SA YLAN, Respondents

G.R. No. 203902 July 19, 2017

DEL CASTILLO, J.: FIRST DIVISION

NATURE OF ACTION: This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the May 16, 2012 Decision and
October 1, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95520, which partially
granted the appeal filed therewith by respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Philippine Rabbit)
and denied petitioners spouses Dionisio C. Estrada (Dionisio) and Jovita R. Estrada's motion for
reconsideration thereto.

Complaint for Damages

FACTS:

A mishap occurred on April 9, 2002 along the national highway in Pangasinan, between the
passenger bus driven by respondent Eduardo Saylan and owned by Philippine Rabbit Bus, Lines, Inc., and
the Isuzu truck driven by Willy U. Urez and registered in the nan1e of Rogelio Cuyton, Jr. The collision
happened at the left lane or the lane properly belonging to the Isuzu truck. Before the collision, the bus
was following closely a jeepney. When the jeepney stopped, the bus suddenly swerved to the left
encroaching upon the rightful lane of the Isuzu truck, which resulted in the collision of the two (2)
vehicles. Petitioner Dionisio Estrada, who was among the passengers of the Philippine Rabbit bus, as
evidenced by the ticket issued to him, was injured on the right arm as a consequence of the accident. His
injured right arm was amputated.

Dionisio demands for Philippine Rabbit to pay him damages for the injury he sustained.
Philippine Rabbit in its Answer9 averred that it carried Dionisio safely as far as human care and foresight
could provide with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person and with due regard for all the
circumstances prevailing. Philippine Rabbit nevertheless argued that the cause thereof was an
extraordinary circumstance independent of its driver's action or a fortuitous event.

RTC was unconvinced after it found that (1) Philippine Rabbit failed to show that it had taken all
the necessary and actual steps to thoroughly examine the qualifications of Eduardo as a driver worthy of
employment; and (2) no proof relative to the existence of company rules and regulations, instructions, and
policies affecting its drivers, as well as to their actual implementation and observance, were presented.
CA partially granted the appeal it argued that moral damages are not recoverable in an action for
damages predicated on breach of contract except when death results or when the carrier is guilty of fraud
or bad faith.

ISSUE: Whether or not moral damages are recoverable in an action for breach of contract?

RULING:

No, moral damages are not recoverable in this case.

Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission.

Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the following and
analogous cases: (1) a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries; (3) seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts; (4) adultery or concubinage; (5) illegal or
arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) illegal search; (7) libel, slander, or any other form of defamation; (8)
malicious prosecution; (9) acts mentioned in Article 309; and (1) acts and actions referred to in Articles
21, 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

Since breach of contract is not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219, moral damages,
as a general rule, are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on breach of contract.

In this case, the fraud or bad faith that must be convincingly proved by petitioners should be one
which was committed by Philippine Rabbit in breaching its contract of carriage with Dionisio.
Unfortunately for petitioners, the Court finds no persuasive proof of such fraud or bad faith. There is no
showing here that Philippine Rabbit induced Dionisio to enter into a contract of carriage with the former
through insidious machination.