Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Maxima San Diego vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co.

61 O.G. 3416, April 14, 1964

Doctrine: Failure to include the driver or employee in the complaint for damages
arising from breach of contract is NOT a jurisdictional defect. Said driver is NOT a
necessary party thereto.

Facts:
 San Diego is claiming for damages, attorney’s fees and costs, for injuries
suffered thru the negligence of the employees of MD Transit.
o San Diego was waiting for the bus. She motioned for the bus to stop
so she can board. Her right foot was already on the running board,
but the driver of the bus run. This caused her to lose balance and
fall face downward with her two legs hanging in the air and her skirt
up.
 Only San Diego’s counsel appeared in the hearing.
 Judgment was rendered in favor of San Diego. Court ordered MD Transit to
pay: 100 pesos (actual damages), 500 pesos (moral damages), and 100 pesos
(attorney’s fees).
 MD Transit filed a Motion for New Trial. It claimed that there was honest
mistake and/or excusable negligence for its failure to attend the hearing –
Denied
 Hence, this appeal. MD Transit contends that:
o It cannot be made liable for damages arising from culpa aquiliana
because the driver who allegedly incurred the negligence was not
made party to the suit
o The denial of its Motion for New Trial should be set aside.

MAIN ISSUE: W/N Motion for New Trial is correctly denied – YES

TRANSPO ISSUE: W/N the non-inclusion of the driver is a jurisdictional defect - NO

 From the moment a person puts his foot on the running board of a
passenger vehicle which had stopped at his signal so he could board it, a
contract of carriage is perfected between the carrier and the person.
 In the event the person is unable to board the bus due to a negligent act of
the driver, causing injuries to the person, the carrier and NOT the employee
or driver, causing injuries to the person, is directly and primarily liable to
the injured passenger under Art. 1755 of the CC.
o Failure to include the driver or employee in the complaint for
damages arising from breach of contract is NOT a jurisdictional
defect. Said driver is NOT a necessary party thereto.