8wEET L|NE8, |N6. vs.

TEVE8

Facts: Pr|vale resporderls Ally. Tardog ard T|ro, a corlraclors oougrl l|c|els lor voyage al lre orarcr oll|ce ol
pel|l|orer, a sr|pp|rg corpary lrarsporl|rg |rler-|s|ard passergers ard cargoes, al Cagayar de 0ro C|ly.
Resporderls Were lo ooard pel|l|orer's vesse| oourd lor Tago||arar C|ly v|a lre porl ol Ceou. upor |earr|rg lral lre
vesse| Was rol proceed|rg lo 8oro|, s|rce rary passergers Were oourd lor 3ur|gao, pr|vale resporderls per
adv|ce, Werl lo lre orarcr oll|ce lor proper re|ocal|or lo arolrer vesse|. 8ecause lre sa|d vesse| Was a|ready l|||ed lo
capac|ly, lrey Were lorced lo agree lo r|de al lre cargo secl|or lo avo|d |rspecl|or ol lre oll|cers ol lre Pr|||pp|re
Coaslguard. Pr|vale resporderls a||eged lral lrey Were, dur|rg lre lr|p, exposed lo lre scorcr|rg real ol lre sur
ard lre dusl cor|rg lror lre sr|p's cargo ol corr gr|ls, ard lral lre l|c|els lrey oougrl al Cagayar de 0ro C|ly lor
Tago||arar Were rol rorored ard lrey Were corslra|red lo pay lor olrer l|c|els. lr v|eW lrereol, pr|vale resporderls
sued pel|l|orer lor darages ard lor oreacr ol corlracl ol carr|age oelore Courl ol F|rsl lrslarce ol V|sar|s 0r|erla|.
Pel|l|orer roved lo d|sr|ss lre corp|a|rl or lre grourd ol |rproper verue. Tr|s rol|or Was prer|sed or lre
cord|l|or pr|rled al lre oac| ol lre l|c|els, Cord|l|or No. 11, Wr|cr reads: 'll |s rereoy agreed ard urderslood lral
ary ard a|| acl|ors ar|s|rg oul ol lre cord|l|ors ard prov|s|ors ol lr|s l|c|el, |rrespecl|ve ol Wrere |l |s |ssued, sra|| oe
l||ed |r lre corpelerl courls |r lre C|ly ol Ceou. Tre rol|or Was der|ed rerce lre |rslarl pel|l|or.
|ssue:
1} ls Cord|l|or No. 11 pr|rled al lre oac| ol lre pel|l|orer's passage l|c|els purcrased oy pr|vale resporderls,
Wr|cr ||r|ls lre verue ol acl|ors ar|s|rg lror lre corlracl ol carr|age lo lreCourl ol F|rsl lrslarce ol Ceou,
va||d ard erlorceao|e?
e|d:
1} No. Cors|dered |r lre ||grl ol c|rcurslarces preva|||rg |r lre |rler-|s|ard sr|pp|rg |rduslry |r lre courlry
loday, we l|rd ard ro|d lral Cord|l|or No. 11 pr|rled al lre oac| ol lre passage l|c|els srou|d oe re|d as
vo|d ard urerlorceao|e lor lre lo||oW|rg reasors l|rsl, urder c|rcurslarces oo||gal|or |r lre |rler-|s|ard
sr|pp|rg |rduslry, |l |s rol jusl ard la|r lo o|rd passergers lo lre lerrs ol lre cord|l|ors pr|rled al lre oac|
ol lre passage l|c|els, or Wr|cr Cord|l|or No. 11 |s Pr|rled |r l|re |ellers, ard secord, Cord|l|or No. 11
suoverls lre puo||c po||cy or lrarsler ol verue ol proceed|rgs ol lr|s ralure, s|rce lre sare W||| prejud|ce
r|grls ard |rleresls ol |rrurerao|e passergers |ocaled |r d|llererl p|aces ol lre courlry Wro, urder
Cord|l|or No. 11, W||| rave lo l||e su|ls aga|rsl pel|l|orer or|y |r lre C|ly ol Ceou. Cors|der|rg lre experse
ard lrouo|e a passerger res|d|rg ouls|de ol Ceou C|ly Wou|d |rcur lo prosecule a c|a|r |r lre C|ly ol Ceou,
re Wou|d rosl prooao|y dec|de rol lo l||e lre acl|or al a||. Tre cord|l|or W||| lrus deleal, |rslead ol errarce,
lre erds ol jusl|ce. upor lre olrer rard, pel|l|orer ras orarcres or oll|ces |r lre respecl|ve porls ol ca|| ol
|ls vesse|s ard car allord lo ||l|gale |r ary ol lrese p|aces. lerce, lre l|||rg ol lre su|l |r lre CFl ol V|sar|s
0r|erla|, as Was dore |r lre |rslarl case, W||| rol cause |rcorver|erce lo, rucr |ess prejud|ce, pel|l|orer.

ROSALINA MARTINEZ, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Madarang and Quijano and T. F. Cachero for plaintiff-appellant.
Ramirez, Angeles and Felizardo for defendants-appellee.
!AREDES,
Plaintiff-appellant Rosalina Martinez filed a case for damages against defendants-appellees, Aurelia
Gonzales and Luis Fornal, owner and driver, respectively, of Banner Taxi Cab Plate No. 3303-58,
due to physical injuries sustained by her, while a passenger of said taxi cab, asking P2,000-00 for
moral damages, P2,000.00 for exemplary damages, P200.00 for actual damages and P500.00 for
attorney's fees. After trial in the CF of Manila, where defendants failed to appear, and after receiving
plaintiff's evidence ex-parte, the lower court rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which
recite:
t appears that at about 12:00 o'clock noon of July 15, 1958, the plaintiff, Rosalina Martinez,
who is a filing clerk in the NAWASA with a monthly salary of P150.00 boarded the "Banner
taxicab, plate No. 3303-58, driven by defendant Luis Formal, at the corner of Teodoro Alonzo
and Azcarraga streets, Manila and instructed the driver to take her to her residence at
Misericordia Street, Sta. Cruz. When said vehicle arrived at the intersection of O'Donne and
Mayhaligue streets, it bumped a "Golden" taxicab, causing the plaintiff to fall from her seat
and to lose consciousness. She regained consciousness at the North General Hospital,
where she was taken by a passing Police Mobile Patrol Car at said Hospital, she was treated
by Dr. Ricardo Gochico for the following injuries; Contusion chin, left, infrascapular, left,
buttocks, lateral, left, lumbar, posterior left. (Exhibit "A"). After treatment, she was allowed to
go home but she returned to the hospital dispensary for further treatment for a period of five
(5) days. For her medical experts plaintiff incurred the sum of P150.00. Although he claims in
her complaint that as a result of the injuries sustained by her because of the accident, she
was prevented from performing her daily work at the office where she was employed, it
appears, however, after questioning by the Court, that she was able to receive her salary
covering the period of her absence from off ice.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendants, Aurelia Gonzales and
Luis Formal y Soniel to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff, Rosalina Martinez, the sum of
P150.00 as compensatory damages, plus the further amount of P200.00 as attorney's fees,
and the costs.
Plaintiff moved for a reconsideration of the above judgment insofar as it did not award the moral and
exemplary damages amounting to P4,000.00, prayed for in the complaint. The motion was denied,
so the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the same to this Court, since the
facts were not at all controverted.
As this case now stands, the only issue we are called upon to determine is whether the court a
quo erred in not awarding the moral and exemplary damages and in reducing the attorney's fees.
t is the contention of the plaintiff-appellant that having suffered physical injuries, she is entitled to
moral and exemplary damages, pursuant to Articles 2219 and 2229 of the New Civil Code, quoted
hereunder:
ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and "analogous cases":
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) llegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) llegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35;
xxx xxx xxx
ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction
for the public good in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
The action of plaintiff is based on breach of contract of transportation, which, as may be seen, is not
one of those enumerated under Article 2219, authorizing the award of moral damages. The query
would be, is the cause of action included under the expression "analogous cases". This Court has
had the occasion to pass upon the above question in recent cases, in which we made the following
pronouncements:
. . . a breach of contract cannot be considered included in the descriptive term "analogous
cases" used in Art. 2219; not only because Art. 2220 specifically provides for the damages
that are caused by contractual breach, but because the definition of quasi-delict in Art. 2176
of the Code expressly excluded the cases where there is a "pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties. (S. S. Verzosa vs. R. Baytan, et al., G.R. No. L-14092, April 29, 1960).
Petitioner next contends that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages to
respondent Bautista.
The contention is meritorious. This Court has repeatedly held (Cachero v. Manila Yellow
Taxicab, nc., G.R. No. L-8721, prom. May 23, 1957; Necesito v. Paras, et al., G.R. No. L-
10605-10606, prom. June 30, 1958; Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163, prom. March 4,
1959; Tamayo v. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. L-12634, prom. May 29, 1959) that moral damages
are not recoverable in damages actions, predicated on a breach of the contract of
transportation, as in the instant case, in view of the provisions of Articles 2219 and 2220 of
the New Civil Code. The exceptions according to the Fores case, supra (which we here re-
affirm), are (1) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger, and (2) where it is
proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not result. (Rex
Taxicab Co., nc. vs. Jose Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-15392, Sept. 30, 1960).
We gleaned, therefore, from the above mentioned decisions, (1) that the case of a
passenger of a carrier who suffered physical injuries "because of the carrier's negligence
culpa contractual cannot be considered in the descriptive expression "analogous cases",
used in Art. 2219; and (2) that in cases of breach of contract (including one of transportation)
proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus) i.e., wanton or deliberate injurious conduct is essential to
justify an award of moral damages. There being no evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith,
contemplated by law, on the part of the respondents, because the cause of the accident was
merely the bursting of a tire while the bus was overspeeding, the cause of petitioner Nita Lira
should fail, as far as moral damages is concerned. Moral damages was, therefore, correctly
eliminated by the Court of Appeals. (Mercado, et al. vs. Lira, et al.; Lira vs. Mercado, et al.,
G.R. Nos. L-13328-29; L-13353, Sept. 29, 1961).
Appellant's complaint does not allege fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of the defendants-
appellees. Neither was there any allegation of wanton or gross negligence. n fact, plaintiff-appellant
designated the incident asaccident and predicated her cause of action on the failure of the defendant
to perform her obligation, as a carrier, to bring plaintiff-appellant safely to her destination. This being
the case, no moral damages are awardable.
Plaintiff-appellant not being entitled to moral damages, she is not also entitled to exemplary
damages. For one to recover exemplary damages, he must first show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate liquidated or compensatory damages (Yutuk vs. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-13016,
May 31, 1961, and cases cited therein).
Plaintiff-appellant also impugns the award for only P200.00 as attorney's fees. All circumstances
considered, however, we find the amount to be reasonable.
CONFORMABLY WTH THE FOREGONG, we find the decision appealed from in conformity with
the law on the matter. The same should be, as it is hereby, affirmed in all respects, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon,
Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur

6A6ER0 vs. HAN|LA YELL0w TAX|6A 60., |N6.,

Facts: Ally. Cacrero ooarded a Ye||oW Tax|cao dr|ver oy 0regor|o V|ra Ao|r|or ard oWred oy lre Var||a Ye||oW
Tax|cao Co., lrc. 0r pass|rg 0roqu|ela oelWeer 0oroleo Jos ard Lope de vega slreels, 0regor|o V|ra Ao|r|or
ourped sa|d lax|cao aga|rsl a Vera|co posl, W|lr lre resu|l lral lre cao Was oad|y srasred ard lre p|a|rl|ll le|| oul
ol lre ver|c|e lo lre grourd, suller|rg lrereoy prys|ca| |rjur|es, s||grl |r ralure.
Tre craulleur Was suosequerl|y proseculed oy lre C|ly F|sca| ard or Feoruary 2, 1953, upor r|s p|ea ol gu||ly lre
Vur|c|pa| Courl ol Var||a serlerced r|r lo suller 1 rorlr ard 1 day ol arreslo rayor, ard lo pay lre cosls.
0r 0eceroer 1Z, 1952, Trarqu|||ro F. Cacrero addressed a |eller lo lre Var||a Ye||oW Tax|cao Co., lrc.,
Wr|cr Was lo||oWed oy arolrer ol Jaruary , 1953, Wr|cr re as|s lor darages.
Tre Tax|cao Co. lo avo|d experses ard l|re ol ||l|gal|or ollered lo sell|e lre case ar|cao|y W|lr p|a|rl|ll oul
lre |aller or|y agreed lo reduce r|s derard lo lre sur ol PZ2,050.20 as r|s or|y oas|s lor sell|ererl Wr|cr, ol
course, Was rol accepled oy sa|d corpary. 3o p|a|rl|ll |rsl|luled ar acl|or |r lre Courl ol F|rsl lrslarce ol Var||a.
|ssue: wrelrer or rol lre delerdarl derarded ar exoro|larl rora| darages?

e|d: lr a|| cases, lre allorrey's lees ard experses ol ||l|gal|or rusl oe reasorao|e.Tre preserl acl|or Was
|rsl|luled oecause p|a|rl|ll derarded ar exoro|larl arourl lor rora| darages (P0,000) ard ralura||y lre delerdarl
d|d rol ard cou|d rol y|e|d lo sucr derard. Tr|s |s re|lrer a case lral cores urder paragrapr 11 ol Arl|c|e 2208
oecause lre LoWer Courl d|d rol deer |l jusl ard equ|lao|e lo aWard ary arourl lor allorrey's lees. As we agree
W|lr lre lr|a| Judge or lr|s po|rl, we carrol dec|are lral re erred lor rol aWard|rg lo p|a|rl|ll ary sucr lees |r lr|s
case.
Rea||z|rg |ls oo||gal|or urder |ls corlracl ol carr|age W|lr lre p|a|rl|ll, ard oecause lre lacls ol lre case, as
rave oeer sroWr, rar| |l as rore proper lor lre Vur|c|pa| Courl or|y, lre delerdarl, lo avo|d lre experse ard l|re
ol ||l|gal|or, ollered lo sell|e lre case ar|cao|y W|lr p|a|rl|ll, oul lre |aller relused ard |rs|sled or r|s derard lor
PZ2,050.20 as lre or|y oas|s lor sell|ererl, lrus add|rg a c|ear|y pelly case lo lre a|ready overl|oW|rg des| ol lre
lororao|e Veroers ol lr|s Courl.
we adr|re ard respecl al a|| l|res a rar lor slard|rg up ard l|grl|rg lor r|s r|grls, ard Wrer sa|d r|grl
cors|sls |r |rjur|es susla|red due lo a oreacr ol a corlracl ol carr|age W|lr us, syrpalry ard urderslard|rg are
added lrerelo. 8ul Wrer a persor slarls derard|rg P2,050.20 lor a so||lary oru|se ard spra|r, |rjur|es lor Wr|cr lre
lr|a| courl, ever al |ls gererous a|lrougr erroreous oesl, cou|d or|y grarl P5,900, lrer respecl ard syrpalry g|ve
Way lo sorelr|rg e|se. ll |s l|re lo l|grl, lor, |r our ruro|e op|r|or, lrere |s rolr|rg rore |oalrsore ror lru|y Worlry
ol corderral|or lrar ore Wro uses r|s |rjur|es lor olrer purposes lrar jusl recl|l|cal|or. ll p|a|rl|ll's c|a|r |s grarled,
|l Wou|d oe a o|ess|rg, rol a r|slorlure, lo oe |rjured.
Tr|s case Was |rsl|luled oy a |aWyer Wro, as ar oll|cer ol lre courls, srou|d oe lre l|rsl |r re|p|rg us |r lre
adr|r|slral|or ol jusl|ce, ard aller go|rg over lre record ol lr|s case, We do rol res|lale lo say lral lre derard ol
lr|s case, We do rol res|lale lo say lral lre derard ol PZ2,050.20 lor a suo|uxal|or ol lre r|grl rurerus oore ard
ar |rs|gr|l|carl corlus|or |r 're cresl, ras rol ever lre sero|arce ol reasorao|eress. Tre p|a|rl|ll r|rse|l rusl
rave le|l eroarrassed oy r|s oWr all|lude Wrer aller rece|v|rg delerdarl's or|el as appe||arl, re ra|es |r r|s or|el
as appe||ee lre calegor|ca| slalererl lral re 00E3 N0T N0w lN3l3T N0R PRETEN0 lN TlE LEA3T lo co||ecl
lror lre delerdarl a|| lre darages re rad c|a|red |r r|s corp|a|rl, oul |rslead re |s suor|ll|rg r|s case lo lre
sourd d|screl|or ol lre lororao|e Courl lor lre aWard ol a reasorao|e ard equ|lao|e darages a||oWao|e oy |aW, lo
corpersale lre p|a|rl|ll ol lre suller|rg ard |osses re rad urdergore ard |rcurred oecause ol lre acc|derl
ollerl|res rerl|ored |r lr|s or|el |r Wr|cr p|a|rl|ll Was |rjured. Tr|s ac|roW|edgrerl cores loo |ale, lor p|a|rl|ll ras
a|ready depr|ved lre Courl ol Appea|s ol lre occas|or lo exerc|se |ls appe||ale jur|sd|cl|or over lr|s case Wr|cr re
rec||ess|y durped lo lr|s Courl. we cerla|r|y carrol |oo| W|lr lavor al lr|s all|lude ol p|a|rl|ll.
wrerelore, lre dec|s|or appea|ed lror |s rereoy rod|l|ed oy reduc|rg lre arourl aWarded as urearred
proless|ora| lees lror P3,000 lo P2,000 ard oy e||r|ral|rg, lre rora| darages ol P2,000 aWarded oy lre LoWer
Courl lo lre p|a|rl|ll. 3a|d dec|s|or |s |r a|| olrer respecls all|rred, W|lroul prorourcererl as lo cosls. ll |s so
ordered.

G.R. No. L-12951 November 17, 1959

FILI!INAS !ERALTA DE GUERRERO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
MADRIGAL SHI!!ING CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
oilo Aguinaldo and Ricardo G. Peralta for appellants.
Bausa, Ampil and Suarez for appellee.
AUTISTA ANGELO,
This is an action instituted before the court of First nstance of locos Norte to recover damages
resulting from the death of Pacifico Acacio when the ship where the latter was riding as passenger
capsized in San Jose, Antique.
On April 30, 1957, the wife and daughter of Pacifico Acacio, plaintiffs herein, filed a complaint
against defendant corporation alleging that on November 1, 1949 Pacifico Acacio entered into a
contract of carriage with defendant whereby for certain consideration the latter undertook to carry the
former on it vessel "M.S. Regulus" from Malangas, Zamboanga, to the City of Manila; that while the
vessel was passing San Jose, Antique, its crew without taking the necessary precaution managed
and steered the same in a reckless and imprudent manner thereby causing the vessel to capsized
and resulting to the death of Pacifico Acacio.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff's cause of action has already
prescribed. t contended that they should have filed the action within six years from the time of the
alleged breach of contract, or on November 1, 1955, or more than 7 years thereafter, the complaint
was filed out of time.
The lower court sustained the motion holding that since the nature of the action is one for recovery
of damages which is not based on a written contract, the action is already barred by the statute of
limitations. Hence, the present appeal.
t appears that the complaint was dismissed by the trail court on the strength of a motion filed by
defendant on the ground that the cause of action has already prescribed. No evidence was
presented by any party in support of or against the motion, the ruling of the court having been based
merely on the factula allegations of the complaint. The question that now arise is: Do the allegations
of the complaint shows that the cause of action of plaintiffs is merely for recovery of damages, as
found by the trial court, or is one based on a written contract of carriage as claimed by appellants?
We are inclined to uphold the contention of the appellants for cursory reading of the complaint would
show that their cause of action is predicated upon the failure of appellee to comply with its contract
of carrying the deceased from Malangas, Zamboanga to the City of Manila safely, in that the vessel
on which he was riding belonging to defendant capsized because of the reckless and imprudent
manner it was managed and steered by its crew. t is true that the complaint does not in so many
words state that the transportation was undertaken by virtue of aritten contract of carriage, but this
can be implied from the complaint because t is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a
passenger boards a ship for transportation from one place to another he is issued a ticket by the
shipper wherein the terms of the contract are specified. According to appellants, "This ticket is in
itself a complete written contract by and between the shipper and the passenger. t has all the
elements of a complete contract, namely: (1) the consent of the contracting parties manifested by
the fact that the passenger board the ship and the shipper consents or accepts him in the sip for
transportation; (2) cause or consideration which is the fare paid by the passenger as stated in the
ticket; and (3) object, which is the transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the
place of destination which are stated in the ticket."
Considering that the ticket is not now before us because the case has been decided merely on the
motion to dismiss, and this ticket is necessary to determine the right of action of appellants, it would
have been more proper had action on the motion been deferred until after trial on the merits. This is
authorized by the rule if the ground alleged in the motion does not appear to be indubitable (Section
3, Rule 8 of the Rules of the Court). We are therefore of the opinion that, in fairness to the appellants
the trial court should not have dismissed the case out right but should have deferred action on the
motion until after trial for the evidence to be presented may still show that the contract of the parties
is really written and merely oral as intimated by the court a quo.
Wherefore, the order appealed is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and
Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.