EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL. vs.

LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY

G.R. No. L-11037 December 29, 1960

FACTS:

One of the buses of Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (LTB) collided with a train. Due to said accident, the driver of the
bus died and many of its passengers sustained severe injuries. Among these passengers was Edgardo Cariaga. An
action for the collection of actual, compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages was filed against LTB. Lower
court ruled against LTB and ordered them to pay Eduardo Cariaga Php 10,490.00 as compensatory damages.
Cross-claim against MRC was likewise dismissed.

Both Cariaga and LTB appealed said decision to the SC. Cariaga contends that LTB should also be ordered to pay
actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees. They also claim that the award given to them is inadequate
considering the nature and the after effects of the physical injuries sustained by Cariaga. LTB, on the other hand,
contends that their cross-claim should not have been dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether the amount of damages granted by the trial court was inadequate and whether moral damages should
also be awarded.

RULING:

The amount of damages was insufficient, but the moral damages claimed cannot be awarded.

From the deposition given by the doctors who attended to Cariaga, it appears that as a result of the physical
injuries suffered by Edgardo, he is now in a helpless condition. He can no longer finish his studies as a medical
student in UST and has become unfit for any kind of work. Appellant LTB admits that under Art. 2201 of the Civil
Code the damages for which the obligor, guilty of a breach of contract but who acted in good faith, is liable shall be
those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach and which the parties had forseen or could
have reasonably forseen at the time the obligation was constituted, provided such damages, according to Art. 2199
of the same Code, have been duly proved. Upon this premise it claims that only the actual damages suffered by
Edgardo Cariaga were his medical and hospital expeses. The SC was of the opinion that the income which Edgardo
Cariaga could earn if he should finish the medical course and pass the corresponding board examinations must be
deemed to be within the same category because they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the
time he boarded the bus owned and operated by the LTB. Hence, the award for compensatory damages was
increased to P25,000.

However, no moral damages may be awarded. Article 2219 enumerated the instances wherein a plaintiff may
recover for moral damages. Present case does not fall under any of said instances. Plaintiff cannot recover based on
the first instance (criminal offense resulting in physical injuries) because the one who committed the offense was
not LTB. It does not fall also under the second instance (quasi-delict causing physical injuries) because of the pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties.

Neither could defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company be held liable to pay moral damages to Edgardo Cariaga
under Article 2220 of the Civil Code on account of breach of its contract of carriage because said defendant did not
act fraudulently or in bad faith in connection therewith. The plaintiff Edgardo Cariaga is also not entitled to recover
for attorney's fees, because this case does not fall under any of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil
Code.
G.A MACHINERIES, INC., Petitioner, v. HORACIO YAPTINCHAY, doing business under the name and style "HI-
WAY EXPRESS" and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. G.R. No. L-30965. November 29, 1983

FACTS:

G.A. Machineries Inc (GAMI) offered to sell a brand-new Fordson Diesel Engine to Horacio Yaptinchay, owner of the
freight hauling business ‘Hi-Way Express’ which the latter accepted. Within the week after its delivery, however,
the engine in question started to have a series of malfunctions which necessitated successive trips to GAMI’s repair
shop. This prompted Yaptinchay to write a letter protesting that the engine was not brand-new. Scientific
examination and verification tests revealed that the original motor number of the engine aforesaid was tampered.

Yaptinchay filed a complaint for indemnification for damages against GAMI. The trial court ruled in his favour and
ordered GAMI to pay actual damages, reimburse the purchase price, and to pay attorney’s fees. The amount of
actual damages awarded also covers the probable income which the respondent failed to realize because of the
breach of contract.

GAMI appealed to the CA but CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. GAMI then elevated the case to the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether the award for actual damages should also cover the probable income which the respondent failed to
realize because of the breach of contract.

RULING:

SC ruled that the actual damages was not warranted.

Article 2200 of the Civil Code entitles the respondent to recover as compensatory damages not only the value of
the loss suffered but also prospective profits while Article 2201 entitles the respondent to recover all damages
which may be attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. However, in order to recover this kind of
damages, the plaintiff must prove his case. In Cerreno vs. Tan, SC said that when the existence of a loss is
established, absolute certainty as to its amount is not required. The benefit to be derived from a contract which one
of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is of necessity to some extent, a matter of speculation, but the
injured party is not to be denied all remedy for that reason alone. He must produce the best evidence of which his
case is susceptible and if that evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits
which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated but for the defendant’s wrongful act, he is entitled to
recover.

Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we find the evidence of the respondent insufficient to be considered
within the purview of "best evidence." The bare assertion of the respondent that he lost about P54,000.00 and the
accompanying documentary evidence presented to prove the amount lost are inadequate if not speculative. The
document itself merely shows that everytime a truck travels, Mr. Yaptinchay earns P369.88. This amount is then
multiplied by the number of trips which the truck was allegedly unable to make. The estimates were prepared by a
certain Dionisio M. Macasieb whose identity was not even revealed by the Respondent. Mr. Yaptinchay was in the
freight truck business. He had several freight trucks among them the truck with the subject Fordson diesel engine,
covering the route from Manila to Baguio. To prove actual damages, it would have been easy to present the average
actual profits realized by the other freight trucks plying the Manila-Baguio route. With the presentation of such
actual income the court could have arrived with reasonable certainty at the amount of actual damages suffered by
the respondent.
Chiang Kai Shek School Vs. Court Of Appeals And Faustina Franco Oh
G.R. No. L-58028 April 18, 1989

FACTS:

When Fausta F. Oh reported back for work at Chiang Kai Shek, she was surprised to find out that she had no
assignment for the next semester. The school did not give any justification for this. Fausta filed a complaint
demanding for separation pay, SSS benefits, salary differentials, maternity benefits, and moral and exemplary
damages.

CFI dismissed the complaint. On appeal, CA set aside the decision of the trial court and found that the school was
liable for illegal dismissal. Moral damages was likely awarded. Chiang Kai Shek then filed a petition for review with
the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether the award for moral damages made by the respondent court was warranted.

RULING:

Yes. Fausta Oh was illegally dismissed from work. Fausta was arbitrarily treated by the petitioner, which has
shown no cause for her removal nor had it given her the notice required by law. It is easy to imagine the
astonishment and hurt she felt when she was flatly and without warning told she was dismissed. There was not
even the amenity of a formal notice of her replacement, with perhaps a graceful expression of thanks for her past
services. She was simply informed she was no longer in the teaching staff. To put it bluntly, she was fired.

For the wrongful act of the petitioner, the private respondent is entitled to moral damages. As a proximate result of
her illegal dismissal, she suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and even besmirched
reputation as an experienced teacher for more than three decades. We also find that the respondent court did not
err in awarding her exemplary damages because the petitioner acted in a wanton and oppressive manner when it
dismissed her.
Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 82068, March 31, 1989

FACTS:

Private respondents bought 3 round trip tickets for the routes covering Manila-Brussels-Barcelona-Madrid from
Sabena Belgian World Airlines (SBWA). Before the flight arrived in Brussels, it was announced that the city would
be cloudy and rainy. When they arrived at the airport, there were no ground stewards with umbrella. They were
forced to walk under the rain. This scenario happened again when their connecting flight to Barcelona was
announced.

In Barcelona, the luggage of the private respondent went missing. While her luggage was missing, she incurred
expenses for the purchase of several clothes and an overseas call. While they were at the hotal, the private
respondent had an asthma attack. Her children also developed fever. These may be attributed to the rainy weather
condition upon their arrival and departure from Brussels. Hence, plaintiff likewise incurred medical expenses.
Respondent wrote a complaint letter to the Sabena office. Sabena said that their Madrid office would pay about half
of what she was asking, and the balance would be paid in Manila. She received a check and signed a document
written in French, a language she did not understand. Contents of the letter were not explained to her. When she
returned to Manila, she found out that the document she signed was a quitclaim. Private respondent filed a
complaint to recover the balance of her claim as well as moral damages. Trial court ordered Sabena to pay the
respondent actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, CA modified said decision. CA reduced the moral damages awarded in favor of the private respondent.
SBWA filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC. Petitioner contends that the award of moral damages
was not proper because it did not act in bad faith.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner SBWA is liable to the respondents for moral and exemplary damages.

RULING:

Yes, SBWA is liable to pay for moral damages but not for exemplary damages. In this case, there is no finding that
the carrier’s delay in delivering respondent’s luggage was wrongful or due to bad faith and hence, no award for
moral damages may be given for that instance. Nonetheless, an award of P25,000.00 for the airline’s bad faith in
making the respondent sign a quitclaim without informing her of its contents, which were written in French, is
justified.

On the other hand, the award for exemplary damages was not warranted. SC stated that SBWA failed to protect
respondent from the rain in disembarking from the plane for the stopover in Brussels and again in re-boarding it
for the onward flight to Barcelona. This constitutes a neglect of its duty to its passengers; however, SC does not
think that its neglect was so gross as to amount to bad faith or wantonness. The award of exemplary damages
cannot be justified. In the Airlines Cases in which the Supreme Court awarded moral and exemplary damages, the
airlines concerned were found guilty of either gross neglect or malfeasance or even malice. In contrast, what is
involved in this case was simple negligence, considering that the rain through which the plaintiff-appellees had to
walk was a slight drizzle. If it was driving rain or heavy snow, perhaps there would be basis for finding the
defendant-appellant guilty of gross negligence, in light of the duty of air carriers to observe utmost or
extraordinary diligence.