FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 206468, August 02, 2017
JUDITH D. DARINES AND JOYCE D. DARINES, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO QUIÑONES AND ROLANDO QUITAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the October 29, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95638, which reversed and set aside the July 14, 2010 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3 in Civil Case No. 6363-R for "Breach of Contract of Carriage & Damages." Also challenged is the March 6, 2013 CA Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration on the assailed Decision.
Factual Antecedents
Judith D. Darines (Judith) and her daughter, Joyce D. Darines (Joyce) (petitioners) alleged in their Complaint4 that on December 31, 2005, they boarded the Amianan Bus Line with Plate No. ACM 497 and Body No. 808 as paying passengers enroute from Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to Baguio City. Respondent Rolando M. Quitan (Quitan) was driving the bus at that time. While travelling on Camp 3, Tuba, Benguet along Kennon Road, the bus crashed into a truck (with Plate No. XSE 578) which was parked on the shoulder of Kennon Road. As a result, both vehicles were damaged; two passengers of the bus died; and the other passengers, including petitioners, were injured. In particular, Joyce suffered cerebral concussion while Judith had an eye wound which required an operation.
Petitioners argued that Quitan and respondent Eduardo Quinones (Quinones), the operator of Amianan Bus Line, breached their contract of carriage as they failed to bring them safely to their destination. They also contended that Quitan's reckless and negligent driving caused the collision. Consequently, they prayed for actual, moral, exemplary and temperate damages, and costs of suit.
For their part, Quinones and Quitan (respondents) countered in their Answer5 that, during the December 31, 2005 incident, Quitan was driving in a careful, prudent, and dutiful manner at the normal speed of 40 kilometers per hour. According to them, the proximate cause of the incident was the negligence of the truck driver, Ronald C. Fernandez, who parked the truck at the roadside right after the curve without having installed any early warning device. They also claimed that Quinones observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees as he conducted seminars on road safety measures; and Quitan attended such seminars including those required by the government on traffic safety. They likewise averred that Quitan was a licensed professional driver who, in his 12 years as a public utility driver, had not figured in any incident like the one at hand.
During the trial, Judith testified that Quitan was driving at a very fast pace resulting in a collision with the truck parked at the shoulder of the road.6 Consequently, the bone holding her right eye was fractured and had to be operated.7 She claimed that, as a result of incident, she failed to report for work for two months.8
To prove the actual damages that she suffered, Judith presented receipts for medicine, and a summary of expenses, which included those incurred for the ritual dao-is. She explained that she and Joyce are Igorots, being members of Ibaloi, Kankanay-ey, an indigenous tribe;9 and as their customary practice, when a member who meets an accident is released from the hospital, they butcher pigs to remove or prevent bad luck from returning to the family.10
Moreover, to support her claim for moral damages, Judith testified that she suffered sleepless nights since she worried about the result and possible effect of her operation.11
On the other hand, respondents presented Ernesto Benitez (Benitez), who, on behalf of respondents, testified that he bought the medicines and paid petitioners' hospitalization expenses, as evidenced by receipts he submitted in court.12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On July 14, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision ordering respondents to pay petitioners the following:
The RTC held that since the respondents already paid the actual damages relating to petitioners' medical and hospitalization expenses, then the only remaining matters for resolution were: whether respondents were liable to pay petitioners a) actual damages representing the expenses incurred during the dao-is ritual; and, Judith's alleged lost income; b) moral and exemplary damages; and, c) attorney's fees.
- Moral Damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);
- Exemplary Damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00);
- Attorney's Fees of Fifteen Percent (15%) of the Damages, plus Total Appearance Fees of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P16,500.00); and
- Costs of Suit.13
Petitioners' Arguments
- WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE OF PETITIONERS FALL[S] UNDER ARTICLES 20,1157,1759, 2176,2180 AND 2219 OF THE CIVIL CODE THEREBY ENTITL[ING THEM] TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES;
- WHETHER OR NOT THE XXX AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES BY THE TRIAL COURT BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY SINCE HEREIN RESPONDENTS DID NOT QUESTION THE SAME IN THEIR APPEAL BUT MERELY QUESTIONED THE AMOUNTS OF AWARD [FOR BEING] EXORBITANT.14
Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. (Emphasis supplied)The aforesaid concepts of fraud or bad faith and negligence are basic as they are distinctly differentiated by law. Specifically, fraud or bad faith connotes "deliberate or wanton wrong doing"19 or such deliberate disregard of contractual obligations20 while negligence amounts to sheer carelessness.21
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
x x x x
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, Vol. III, pp. 69-74; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Socorro B. Inting.
2 Records, pp. 410-423; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.
3 CA rollo, Vol. III, pp. 124-125.
4 Records, pp. 2-6.
5 Id. at 18-22.
6 Id. at 342-344.
7 Id. at 345-346.
8 Id. at 353.
9 Id. at 365.
10 Id. at 355-356.
11 Id. at 357.
12 Id. at 383-388.
13 Id. at 423.
14Rollo, p. 40.
15 CA rollo, Vol. III, p. 30.
16 Id. at 33.
17Calalas v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 146, 150-151 (2000).
18 Id. at 155.
19Verzosa v. Baytan, 107 Phil. 1010, 1017 (1960), citing Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266, 276 (1959).
20Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, 486 Phil. 574, 593 (2004).
21Verzosa v. Baytan, supra.
22Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Spouses Vazquez, 447 Phil. 306, 321 (2003).
23 Id. at 321-322.
24 123 Phil. 561 (1966).
25 132 Phil. 87 (1968).
26 Supra note 19.
27 Id. at 1015.
28 Id. at 1016, citing Fores v. Miranda, supra note 19.
29 280 Phil. 137 (1991).
30 328 Phil. 774 (1996).
31Verzosa v. Baytan, supra note 19 at 1017-1018, citing Fores v. Miranda, supra note 19 at 276.
32 Article 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.
Article 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. x x x
33 Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.