8/11/2019 Gr 161909 Digest - Damages

1/2

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC. vs FELIX PARAS AND INLAND

TRAILWAYS, INC., AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 161909, Ap!" #$, #01#

F%&'s(

Felix Paras is engaged in the buy and sell of fish products. Sometime on his way home to

Manila from Bicol Region, he boarded a bus owned and operated by Inland railways, Inc. anddri!en by its dri!er "al!in "oner.

#hile the said bus was tra!elling, it was bumped at the rear by another bus owned and

operated by Philtranco Ser!ice $nterprises, Inc. %s a result of the strong and !iolent impact, theInland bus was pushed forward and smashed into a cargo truc& par&ed along the outer right

portion of the highway and the shoulder. "onse'uently, the said accident bought considerable

damage to the !ehicles in!ol!ed and caused physical in(uries to the passengers and crew of thetwo buses, including the death of "oner.

Paras was not spared from the effects of the accident. )e was ta&en for an emergency

treatment in the nearby hospital and thereafter ta&en to the *ational +rthopedic )ospital in

which underwent se!eral operations.

In !iew of financial constraints, Paras filed a complaint for damages based on breach of

contract of carriageagainst Inland to which it denied responsibility, by alleging, among others,

that its dri!er "oner had obser!ed an utmost and extraordinary care and diligence to ensure the

safety of its passengers. In support of it, Inland in!o&ed the Police In!estigation Report whichestablished the fact that the Philtranco bus dri!er, %polinar Miralles was the one which !iolently

bumped the rear portion of the Inland bus, and therefore, the direct and proximate cause of Paras

in(uries.

he R" ruled in fa!or of Paras and held that Philtranco and %polinar Miralles (ointly

and se!erally liable for actual and moral damages including attorneys fees.

+n appeal to the "%, it affirmed the R"s ruling that no trace of negligence at the time

of the accident was attributable to Inlands dri!er, rendering Inland not guilty of breach of

contract of carriage.

Iss)*(

-. #hether or not moral damages is a!ailing in !iew of the fact that the complaint had beenanchored on a breach of contract of carriage

. #hether or not the award of temperate damages is proper

H*"+(

-. he S" held that Paras can reco!er moral damages based on a 'uasi/delict. %s a general

rule, moral damages are not reco!erable in an action predicated on a breach of contract. hisis because such action is not included in %rticle -0 of the Civil Code as one of the actionsin which moral damages may be reco!ered. By way of exception, moral damages are

reco!erable in an action predicated on a breach of contract1 2a3 where the mishap results in

the death of a passenger, as pro!ided in %rticle -456 in relation to %rticle 75, 283 of the

Civil Code9 and 2b3 where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith, as

pro!ided in %rticle 7 of the Civil Code.

8/11/2019 Gr 161909 Digest - Damages

2/2

. In awarding temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, the "% did not err, because Paras

and Inland were definitely shown to ha!e sustained substantial pecuniary losses.%rticle 6 of the Civil Code expressly authori:es the courts to award temperate damages

despite the lac& of certain proof of actual damages. #hen the court finds that some

pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, bepro!ed with certainty, temperate damages may be reco!ered. emperate damages may be

allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be

adduced, although the court is con!inced that the aggrie!ed party suffered some pecuniaryloss.