Facts Ultimate Facts The defendant is common carrier doing business under the name Don Mariano Transit

Corporation. The defendant is the o ner and operator of the bus ith plate number !"C #$% plying the route of &o'aliches to Pacita Comple( in )aguna. The 'ictim rode the defendant-s bus at +time and place, as he usually does to go to or.. The dri'er of the bus as rec.lessly dri'ing the bus beyond the speed limit for buses along S.y ay. The bus s er'ed to the left then to the right before hitting the barrier and fell on 3est Ser'ice Road in Barangay Marcelo /reen in Parana4ue City. The bus as a total rec. after falling and hitting an aluminum 'an ith plate number !)5 678. The crash instantly .illed the 'ictim. The tires of the bus are orn out and not safe for tra'el. The 'ictim is the bread inner9head of the family lea'ing his spouse and t o children ho depend on him for support. The defendant has not rene ed its compliance certificate ith the )T*RB since :uly ;<$2. The 'ictim is a Mechanical Engineer employed by Toyota Motors Philippines, 1nc. ith a monthly salary of P ;2,8$=.%; net after ta( and contributions. The heirs incurred a.e and burial e(penses amounting to P $;$,<<<.<<. Cause of Action Cause of ?ction Breach of Contract of Carriage Elements +$, consent of the contracting parties@ +;, an obAect certain hich is the subAect of the contract@ +2, the cause of the obligation hich is established@ and +8, failure ithout legal reason to comply ith the terms of the contract :urisprudence ? contract is a meeting of minds bet een t o persons hereby one agrees to gi'e something or render some ser'ice to another for a consideration. There is no contract unless the follo ing re4uisites concurB +$, consent of the contracting parties@ +;, an obAect certain hich is the subAect of the contract@ and +2, the cause of the obligation hich is established. Breach of contract is defined as the Cfailure ithout legal reason to comply ith the terms of a contract.C D=E 1t is also defined as the CDfEailure, ithout legal e(cuse, to perform any promise hich forms the hole or part of the contract.F Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. Vs. Spouses Daniel Vazquez and Maria Louisa Madrigal Vazquez G !o. "#$%&' March "&( )$$' Issues $. 3hether or not the defendant corporation passenger bus- road orthiness. as negligent because of its failure to maintain its as rec.less in his operation of defendants Evidence SEC Registration, Certification of Bureau of Permits of Caloocan City and Barangay Certificates Certificate of Public Con'enience issued by the )and Transportation and *ranchising Regulatory Board +)T*RB, Susana /on0ales, ife of the 'ictim 1rene Sisperes + itness,, CCT" *ootage of S.y ay, Ryan Brecia +sur'i'or ho as seated 2 ro s behind the dri'er, and final findings of the )T*RB. *inal findings of the )T*RB, 1rene Sisperes + itness,, CCT" footage of S.y ay, police and media reports. *inal )T*RB *indings and Police and media reports. Police report and death certificate. *inal )T*RB *indings and Police and media reports, pictures. 3alter Santos, 1mmediate Boss of the 'ictim, :effrey Cru0, close officemate of the 'ictim, Certificate of Marriage of 'ictim and his ife and Certificates of )i'e Birth of the 'ictim-s children Certification signed by Chairman 3inston /ine0 of the )T*RB. College Diploma, Professional Regulations Commission )icense, Certificate of Employment, and Pay Slips for the last t o months prior to the accident >fficial Receipts

;. 3hether or not the defendant corporation-s dri'er passenger bus

2. 3hether or not the defendant corporation is liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage to the 'ictim if the court finds that defendant as negligent due to its failure to maintain its passenger bus- road orthiness and its dri'er-s rec.less in operating it. Laws !ew Ci*il Code Pro*isions ?rt. $722. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to obser'e e(traordinary diligence in the 'igilance o'er the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. ?rt. $7==. ? common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can pro'ide, using the utmost diligence of 'ery cautious persons, ith a due regard for all the circumstances. ?rt. $7=%. 1n case of death of or inAuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to ha'e been at fault or to ha'e acted negligently, unless they pro'e that they obser'ed e(traordinary diligence as prescribed in ?rticles $722 and $7==. ?rt. $7=#. Common carriers are liable for the death of or inAuries to passengers through the negligence or illful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they e(ercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and super'ision of their employees. ?rt. $7%8. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be a arded in accordance ith Title 5"111 of this Boo., concerning Damages. ?rticle ;;<% shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. ?rt. ;;<%. ( ( ( +2, The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and the ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. !urisprudence +eirs of ,ose Marcial -. .choa( na/ely0 u1y 2. .choa( et al. *. G 3 S 4ransport Corporation5G 3 S 4ransport Corporation *. +eirs of ,ose Marcial -. .choa( na/ely0 u1y 2. .choa( et al.( G !o. "6$$6" 3 G. . !o. "6$")#( March 7( )$"" G1n a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent hen a passenger dies or is inAured. 1n fact, there is e'en no need for the court to ma.e an e(press finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be o'ercome by e'idence that the carrier e(ercised e(traordinary diligence. 2aliwag 4ransit *. Court of Appeals G !o. ""8""$ May "#( "778

? common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can pro'ide, using the utmost diligence of a 'ery cautious person, ith due regard for all the circumstances. 1n a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier as at fault or as negligent hen a passenger dies or is inAured. !nless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not e'en ma.e an e(press finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be o'ercome by e'idence that the carrier e(ercised e(traordinary diligence as prescribed in ?rticles $722 and $7== of the Ci'il Code. Philtranco *. Paras( G !o. "8"7$7 April )#( )$")

?s a general rule, moral damages are not reco'erable in an action predicated on a breach of contract. This is because such action is not included in ?rticle ;;$# of the Civil Code as one of the actions in hich moral damages may be reco'ered. By ay of e(ception, moral damages are reco'erable in an action predicated on a breach of contractB (a) (b) here the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as pro'ided in ?rticle $7%8, in relation to ?rticle ;;<%+2,, of the Civil Code@ and here the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith, as pro'ided in ?rticle ;;;< of the Civil Code.

,apan Airlines *. Si/angan( G !o. "6$"&" April ))( )$$% E(emplary damages, hich are a arded by ay of e(ample or correction for the public good, may be

reco'ered in contractual obligations, as in this case, if defendant acted in oppressi'e, or male'olent manner.

anton, fraudulent, rec.less,

E(emplary damages are designed by our ci'il la to permit the courts to reshape beha'iour that is socially deleterious in its conse4uence by creating negati'e incenti'es or deterrents against such beha'iour. 1n re4uiring compliance ith the standard of e(traordinary diligence, a standard hich is, in fact, that of the highest possible degree of diligence, from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them, the la see.s to compel them to control their employees, to tame their rec.less instincts and to force them to ta.e ade4uate care of human beings and their property. %# &eglect or malfeasance of the carrierHs employees could gi'e ground for an action for damages. People *. Li1rando( '7$ Phil. #&'( ##7 9)$$$: The amount of damages reco'erable for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased is based on t o factorsB $, the number of years on the basis of hich the damages shall be computed@ and ;, the rate at hich the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be fi(ed. The first factor is based on the formula +;92 ( 6< I age of the deceased at the time of his death J life e(pectancy, hich is adopted from the ?merican E(pectancy Table of Mortality.