G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966
It is of common knowledge
LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., petitioner, vs.
ANTONIO TIONGSON and FELICITAS J.
TIONGSON, respondents.
FACTS:
On June 3, 1958, in Bay, Laguna, LTB’s bus no.
204 (coming from San Pablo going to Manila),
collided with a 7-Up delivery truck from the
opposite direction. As a consequence, the bus fell
on its right side, on the shoulder of the road. The
passengers of the bus were injured, and Ricardo
Tiongson and another woman passenger died.
The Bay Chief of Police made an on-the spot
investigation and prepared a sketch of the spot
where the collision occurred. It appeared that the
asphalt road had a rectangular depression on the
left side (direction going to Manila).
Samonte, the bus driver, claims that around
5:30pm that day of the accident, when he saw the
7-Up truck, he was running at 30kph and
thereafter slacked his speed and applied brakes.
He maneuvered to the right side of the road but
the truck still hit his left front mudguard.
Both the drivers of the LTB bus and the 7-Up
delivery truck were prosecuted for double
homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and
damage to property thru reckless imprudence.
However, a separate action for damages for
breach of contract of carriage was filed by
Tiongson’s heirs against LTB.
LTB answered that it should not be held liable
because it observed utmost diligence in operating
the bus and such accident was a fortuitous event
as far as it was concerned. It further alleges that
the proximate cause of the death of Tiongson was
the negligence of the employer and driver of the
7-Up delivery truck, or in the alternative, the
highway authorities in failing to keep and maintain
the national roads in good condition.
TC ruled in favor of Tiongson and held LTB liable
for P50,000 as actual, compensatory and moral
damages, and P5000 attys fees.
Meanwhile, CFI Laguna acquitted Samonte, LTB’s
driver in the criminal case, on ground of
reasonable doubt.
Then, CA affirmed TC’s decision in the civil case.
ISSUE: W/N LTB successfully discharged its
burden of disproving its preemptive
negligence and had established its defense
of fortuitous event.
HELD/RATIO: No.
Although Samonte would like the court to believe
that it was not negligent in the collision, because
it was running at only around 30kph, the court
believes otherwise.
that a delivery truck fully loaded with cases of soft
drinks is a slower-moving vehicle than a
passenger bus. A passenger bus is necessarily
designed for speed because travellers usually
want to arrive at their destinations within the
shortest possible time, whereas soft drinks
delivery trucks are built for the safety of its
bottled cargo than for speed.
Also, it would seem that he applied the brakes too
late. He was not unaware of such depression, and
the location thereof for he had been travelling on
the same route for a considerable length of time
prior to 3 June 1958.
Also, only two weeks before the fatal collision,
Samonte had been apprehended for
overspeeding. The Court of Appeals therefore
expressly found that petitioner not only failed to
disprove the presumption of negligence arising
against it (Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 of the
New Civil Code) but that, on the contrary, its
negligence had been established by more than
mere preponderance of evidence.
ISSUE: W/N award of moral damages is
proper.
HELD/RATIO: Yes.
Award of moral damages is proper because
although the genereal rule as stated in Art. 2220
of the NCC states that there can be no recovery of
moral damages for a breach of contract in the
absence of fraud or bad faith, an exception to the
rule is when the violation of the contract leads to
the death of a passenger.
"Art. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this
section shall be awarded in accordance with Title
XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article
2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger
caused by the breach of contract by a common
carrier.
"Art. 2206. x x x xxx xxx
"(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
demand moral damages for mental anguish by
reason of the death of the deceased."
Also, the award is not excessive. The deceased
Ricardo C. Tiongson, at the time of his death on
June 3, 1958, was only thirty-two years old. He
was a Bachelor of Science in Commerce (Far
Eastern University - 1949) and obtained
employment with the San Pablo City Branch of the
People's Bank in 1954 with a starting monthly
salary of P150.00 which, after six months in the
service, was increased to P175.00. While thus
employed with the People's Bank, he was also
administering his mother's farm in Calamba,
Laguna. He was the only son of respondent
spouses Antonio Tiongson and Paz Cailles
Tiongson, and had been married hardly three
years when he died. The foregoing circumstances,
in our opinion, fully justify the damages awarded
in the appealed decision which are substantially in
accord with the rules of law contained in Articles
1764 and 2206, Nos. 1 and 3 of the New Civil
Code.