JOSE SANICO AND VICENTE CASTRO, Petitioners,

vs
WERHERLINA P. COLIPANO,

FACTS:
- Colipano filed a breach of contract of carriage and damages against Sanico and Castro claiming
that at 4PM on Christmas Day, while paying the passengers in the jeepney operated by Sanico
and driven by Castro, she was made to sit on an empty beer case at the edge of the entrance of the
jeepney while her daughter was on her lap.
- During the trip, the jeepney met an uphill incline and the jeepney, having no force to reach the
top, slid backwards.
- In her attempt to save her and her child, she pushed her heet at the step board to prevent being
thrown out of the exit.
- Unfortunately, the board was wet causing her foot to be crushed between the step board and a
coconut tree which the jeepney bumped into.
- Her leg was severely injured and was amputated.
- Hence, her claims for actual damages, ​loss of income, moral damages, exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees.
- Sanico and Castro claimed that it was Colipano’s fault because she panicked and tried to
disembark the vehicle causing her foot to be crushed in between the step board and the coconut
tree.
- Sanico paid the medical expenses of Colipano and the latter executed an Affidavit of Desistance
and release of claim.
- The RTC found that Sanico and Castro breached the contract of carriage between them and
Colipano, but only awarded actual and compensatory damages in favor of Colipano.

ISSUE:
- W/N the CA erred in finding that Sanico and Castro breached the contract of carriage.
- W/N the affidavit of Desistance and release of claim is binding on colipano.

Ruling:
- Sanico, being the operator of the jeepney, has the direct liability towards Colipano and only
Sanico, breached the contract of carriage.
- Castro, being merely the driver cannot be held liable because he is not a party in a contract of
Carriage.
- The Supreme Court ruled in Soberano v Manila Railroad Co, that breach of contract of carriage
binds only the passenger, the bus owner, and the operator.
- It established a rule that a complaint for breach of contract of carriage is dismissible against the
driver.
- Calipano has no cause of action against Castro.
- The obligation to carry Calipano safety to her destination is with Sonico, being the operator of the
Jeepney and not with Castro.
- In fact, the elements of a contract of carriage existed between Colipano and Sanico:
 - Consent, as shown when Castro, as employee of Sanico, accepted Colipano as a
passenger when he allowed Colipano to board the jeepney, and as to Colipano, when she
boarded the jeepney;
- Cause or Consideration, when Colipano, for her part, paid her fare; and
- Object, the transportation of Colipano from the place of departure to the place of
destination
- Being an operator and owner of a common carrier, Sanico was required to exercise extraordinary
diligence in safely transporting Colipano.
- The presumption of fault or negligence was on Sanico and had the burden to prove that he
exercised the required extraordinary diligence when Colipano’s leg was injured.
- Sanico failed to prove this as mandated by the Civil Code.
- Negligence was established when Castro made Colipano sit on an empty beer ase with a child on
her lap.
- The defense of Castro and Sanico on engine failure only aggravated the circumstance considering
the need for maintenance and effort to regularly check the vehicle prior to travelling.
- Sacino cannot be free from the damages through the affidavit of desistance and release of claim
for Calipano could have no knowledge and understanding of the right she is waiving and the
extent of that right.
- She was made to sign an affidavit in a language she could not understand and was found that she
wasn’t aware of the extent to her rights that she has waived.
- Hence, the affidavit being contrary to public policy, is therefore deemed void.
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is hereby PARTLY GRANTED.