Vicente Calalas vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.

122039; May 31, 2000]

AUTHOR: Alfonso Dimla
TOPIC: Breach of Contract of Carriage
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.

DOCTRINE: The liability of petitioner arises from his negligence in the performance of his
contractual obligation or breach of contract of carriage. Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death
or injuries to passengers, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in
Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. 

FACTS:
Respondent, Eliza Sunga took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas.
The jeepney was already filled with passengers so she was given by the conductor an “extension
seat,” a wooden stool at the back of the door.
As she was seated at the rear end of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger.
Unfortunately, a truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear
portion of the jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured.
Sunga then filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the contract of carriage
by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the
other hand, filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, the owner of the truck.
RTC: Absolved Calalas of liability and ruled that Salva as third-party defendant was responsible for the
accident. It took cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and
Verena, for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37 of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly
liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney.
CA: Reversed RTC’s ruling on the ground that Sunga’s cause of action was based on a contract of
carriage, not quasi-delict, and that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required under
the Civil Code. It also dismissed the third-party complaint against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for
damages to Sunga.

ISSUE/S & RATIO: Whether or not respondent carrier is responsible for the injury caused to its
passenger even when the accident was caused by another vehicle.

RULING:  Yes. The liability of petitioner arises from his negligence in the performance of his
contractual obligation or breach of contract of carriage. Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death or
injuries to passengers, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts.
1733 and 1755 of the Code.

This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof. It is now the duty of
petitioner to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.

However, in this case, petitioner failed to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of
his passengers. It was found that the jeepney was not properly parked and he took more passengers
than the allowed seating capacity.

The taking of an “extension seat” is not an implied assumption of risk on the part of the passenger.

A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was
inevitable. This requires that the following requirements be present:
 A. the cause of the breach is independent of the obligor’s will;
B. the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable;
C. the event is such as to render it impossible for the obligor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner, and
D. the obligor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor. Petitioner should have
foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the
highway.

On a final note, the petitioner having not acted in bad faith in the performance of the contract of
carriage, cannot be made liable for moral damages.

As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach
of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.

As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death
of a passenger, as provided in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the
cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 1995, and its
resolution, dated September 11, 1995, are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the
award of moral damages is DELETED.