Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. (1960)  F: Plaintiff was a 4th year medical student who was severelyinjured when the bus he was riding, which was operated byrespondent, hit the engine of a moving train.

H: LTB, as an obligor guilty of a breach of contract in goodfaith, is liable under Art. 2201, CC for such damages which arethe “natural and probable consequences of the breach andwhich the parties had foreseen or could have reasonablyforeseen at the time the obligation was constituted.” Aside

from the medical expenses paid for by LTB, the income whichCariaga could earn if he should finish his medical course andpass the corresponding board examinations should also beconsidered part of this category of damages. The Court heldthat such income could have reasonably been foreseen by theparties at the time he boarded the bus.

Pan Am v. IAC  F: Respondent was going to exhibit films in the US and Guam.Pan Am sought to limit its liability for the lost baggage. TheCFI ordered Pan Am to pay respondents actual damages.

H: Carriage liability is subject to the rules and limitationsrelating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention:“Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited asfollows unless a higher value is declared in advance andadditional charges are paid: (1)for most international travel(including domestic portions of international journeys) toapproximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kilo) for checkedbaggage and $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage: (2)for travel wholly between U.S. points, to $750 per passengeron most carriers (a few have lower limits). Excess valuationmay not be declared on certain types of valuable articles.Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles.” 

Villa-Rey Transit Inc. v. IAC (1970)  F: When a bus operated by petitioner hit the side of a bullcart,

a bamboo pole penetrated Quintos’ left eye. He died the same

day. RTC used the life expectancy of Quintos as the number of 

years on the basis of which damages shall be computed, and

applied the formula adopted in the American Expectancy

Table of Mortality. It pegged his life expectancy at 33-1/3

years.

H: There is no fixed standard in the determination of the

indemnity to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased; the

amount of the loss sustained by heirs is computed by

determining the deceased’s net earning capacity, which is the

total of his earnings less the necessary expenses for his own

living and other incidental expenses. While life expectancy is

not the sole element determinative of the computation, it is

nonetheless an important element in fixing the amount 

recoverable.

PAL v. CA (1990) F: Nicanor died in a plane crash. CA awarded his mother

indemnity using Nicanor’s life expectancy as basis.PAL

contends that that the CA erred in computing the awarded

indemnity on the basis of the life expectancy of Nicanor rather

than on the life expectancy of Natividad. It argued that in the

controlling element in determining loss of earnings arising

from death is the life expectancy of the deceased or of the

beneficiary, whichever is shorter.

H: Indemnity to the heirs of a victim of a breach of contract of 

carriage should be computed on the basis of the life

expectancy of the deceased, not that of the beneficiary.

Victory Liner v. Gammad (2004) 

F: Gammad and his wife were on board a Victory Liner buswhich fell on a ravine. His wife died. The award of compensatory damages was based only on the testimonyof Gammad as to his wife’s earning capacity.  

H: As a general rule, documentary evidence should bepresented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. The exceptions to this rule are when 1) thedeceased is self-employed earning less than the minimumwage, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in thedeceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available;

or 2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage workerearning less than the minimum wage.