THE SAN PEDRO BUS LINE, PAULINO DE LA CRUZ, and TEODOLO LACDAN, doing business under the

name of "THE SAN PEDRO BUS LINE," petitioners, 26

vs.
NICOLAS NAVARRO, and the HON. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST DIVISION, COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.

On April 21, 1943, Nicolas Navarro the respondent rode as a passenger in a bus owned and operated
by the defendants; while on its way the bus collided with another vehicle, causing serious physical injuries to
the respondent, with subsequent post-traumatic psychosis which incapacitated him for life. The defendants
admitted the occurrence of the accident and the injuries received the plaintiff, but disclaimed responsibility for
the accident. The respondent filed a complaint against herein petitioners for the recovery of damages with sum
of P4,500 for the actual medical and hospital expenses and loss of earning power.

ISSUE: WON THE PETITIONERS IS HELD CIVILLY LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENT FOR THE REASON
THAT TRIAL COURT HAD DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST PETITIONER PAULINO DE LA
CRUZ?

HELD:

The Supreme Court said that Yes they are still civilly liable even though the criminal charge had already
dismissed. The Court said that the action was not based on tort or quasi delict, but was one for breach of a
carrier's contract. There is clear distinction between culpa aquiliana which is the source and creator of
obligations and culpa contractual which is the performance of an already existing obligation. In the case at bar
the court said that it is a culpa contractual which is the performance of an already existing obligation.

On the contention of the petitioners that it was erroneous for the CA to award in favor of respondent
Navarro the damages in the amount of P9,500, which the claim in the complaint was being only for P4,500.
The court held that it was deemed just and equitable.

Now with the contention that respondent Navarro is not insane and that the additional award of P5,000
has no basis. The Court held that apart from the fact that the finding of the Court of Appeals is factual and
therefore conclusive, the said sum granted was not only for the resulting insanity of respondent Navarro but for
his pain and suffering in general.

1.The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was "no proof of the relation of the
defendants San Pedro Bus Line and Paulino de la Cruz with the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The Court of
Appeals rendered judgment in favour of the respondent to recover the total sum of P9,500. The defendants
have elevated the case by way of a petition for certiorari.

2.Indeed, under section 9, Rule 35, of the Rules of Court, "the judgment shall grant the relief to which the party
in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.