Spouses Estrada vs.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines

FACTS:

A collision between passenger bus driven by respondent Saylan and owned by Philippine Rabbit
Bus (PRB) and an Isuzu truck driven by Urez and registered to Cuyton Jr. occurred which injured
petitioner Estradas arm and was later amputated.
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages that pursuant to the contract of carriage between him
and PRB.
Petitioner claims are as follows: P500k for moral damages, P60k for actual damages, and P25k
for attorneys fees.
RTC rules in favor of petitioner concluding PRB driver was negligent in driving the PRB bus as he
was tailgating, did not apply the breaks when necessary and instead swerved, and operated the
bus at a speed greater than what was reasonably necessary for a full stop. Also established by
Art. 2185 of the NCC It is presumed that a person driving a motor vechilce has been negligent if
at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation, unless there is proof to the
contrary. Which the driver failed to rebut. Last clear chance is inapplicable in this case as the
suit is between passenger and common carrier. RTC awarded the moral damages, actual
damages, and attorneys fees.
The CA partially granted the appeal and agreed with PRBs contention that moral damages are
not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless death or a
passenger results, or it is proven that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death
does not result.
The CA ruled that the RTC erred in ruling PRB bus company and respondent driver are jointly
and severally liable because a driver may not be held liable under the contract of carriage, not
being a party of the same. The carrier thus is exclusively responsible to the passenger, even if
such breach be due to the negligence of his driver.
The basis of a cause of action of a passenger against the driver is either culpa criminal or culpa
aquiliana. A passenger may file a criminal case based on culpa criminal punishable by RPC or a
civil case based on culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code, both have separate and distinct causes
of action.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in declaring that there was no evidence to indicate bad faith or fraud on
PRB bus company to make it liable for moral damages.

HELD: No, CA ruled correctly. There being no evidence of bad faith or fraud, moral damages cannot
be awarded in a contract of carriage.

RATIO:

Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there must be an injury clearly sustained by the
claimant, whether physical, mental or psychological; (2) there must be a culpable act or
omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award for damages is
predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code

It has been held, however, that "allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence."In this case, the fraud or bad faith that must be convincingly proved by
petitioners should be one which was committed by Philippine Rabbit in breaching its contract of
carriage with Dionisio. Unfortunately for petitioners, the Court finds no persuasive proof of such
fraud or bad faith.
 There is no showing here that Philippine Rabbit induced Dionisio to enter into a contract of
carriage with the former through insidious machination. Neither is there any indication or even
an allegation of deceit or concealment or omission of material facts by reason of which Dionisio
boarded the bus owned by Philippine Rabbit. Likewise, it was not shown that Philippine Rabbit's
breach of its known duty, which was to transport Dionisio from Urdaneta to La Union,43 was
attended by some motive, interest, or ill will. From these, no fraud or bad faith can be attributed
to Philippine Rabbit.
Wherefore, Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied. Petitioners are entitled to temperate
damages, actual damages, and legal interest of 6% per annum.