CASE TITLE: Cariaga vs Laguna Tayabas TOPIC/ARTICLE: Art 1162 FACTS: 1. Jun Jun 18 1952: 1952: A bus bus under under Laguna Laguna Tayab Tayabas as Bus Compan Company y (LTB (LTB), ), while on its way to Lilio, Laguna bumped against the engine of a train a. The bus and train collided at the intersection of the railroad track and the national highway of Bay, Laguna b. Driver immediately died while many passengers were injured including Edgardo Cariaga, a 4th yr med student if UST 2. Cariaga Cariaga was was conf confined ined to the the ff: ff: a. San Pablo Pablo City City Hospi Hospital tal – from from June June 18 1952 1952 b. De los Santos Santos Clinic, Clinic, QC – June 20 to Oct Oct 14 1952 1952 c. UST Hosp Hospita itall – Oct Oct 14 to to Nov Nov 15 1952 1952 d. De los Santos Santos Clinic, Clinic, QC – Nov 15 to Jan Jan 15 1953 1953 e. Private Private hous house e in QC – Jan 15 15 to Apr Apr 1953 1953 3. LTB LTB paid paid for for all all hosp hospit ital al,, medi medica call and and misce iscell llan aneo eous us expe expens nses es incurred from June 18 to April 1953 Aprr 24 19 1953 53:: pres presen entt acti action on was was file filed d agai agains nstt LTB LTB and and Mani Manila la 4. Ap Railroad Co. (MRR Co) to claim 312k as actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and 18k for Cariaga’s parents 5. LTB denied denied liabilit liability: y: acciden accidentt was due to MRR Co.’s Co.’s negligen negligence ce for not not prov provid idin ing g a cros crossi sing ng bar bar at the the poin pointt where where the the nat’ nat’ll hwy hwy crossed the railroad track 6. LTB LTB filed iled cros ross-cla -claim im agai agains nstt MRR MRR Co: Co: LTB was was claim laimin ing g Ph Php p 18,194.75 for their expenses to Cariaga 7. MRR Co denied denied liability: liability: reckless reckless negligence negligence of the the bus driver driver 8. Lowe Lowerr Cour Courtt held held:: a. bus bus driv driver er was was negl neglige igent nt b. senten sentenced ced LTB to pay Cariaga Cariaga 10, 490ph 490php p as compensa compensatory tory damages w interest c. Dismis Dismissed sed cros cross-c s-clai laim m agains againstt MRR Co. Co. d. Denied moral damage damages s and atty’ atty’s s fees that Cariaga Cariaga claims claims 9. Caria Cariaga ga and and LTB LTB appeal appealed ed ISSUE: 1. W/N the bus driver driver was was neglig negligent ent 2. W/N the the compen compensat satory ory damag damages es is enough enough 3. W/N Cariag Cariaga’s a’s claim claim for moral moral damage damages s and atty’s atty’s fees should should be denied 4. W/N Cariaga Cariaga’s ’s parents parents’’ claim claim should should be be denied denied HELD: 1. Yes a. Base Based d on eviden evidence ce,, the the whis whistl tle e of the train train was sounde sounded d 4 times from an adequate distance of at least 300m – enough to warn the bus driver to stop and wait for the train to pass by. Nonetheless, the driver disregarded the warning. 2. No. This This cour courtt increas increased ed it to to 25k. a. Cari Cariag aga’ a’s s ment mental alit ity y has has been been so redu reduce ced d that that he can can no longer continue studying med b. He has become become completely completely misfit misfit for any work work
By: Marian Kay Yambao
c. Can hardly walk w/o someone helping him d. Based on Art 2201 of CC: not only the medical, hospital and other expenses should be included, but also the income of Cariaga which me could’ve earned had he not been in an accident must also be included because such income is to be deemed in the same category as the mentioned expenses that could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded the bus 3. Yes a. Art 2219 of CC: the present action cannot come under par 2 of this article bec it is NOT a quasi-delict since there is a preexisting contractual relation b/w LTB and Edgardo Cariaga b. LTB was an obligor in good faith bec it exercised due diligence in selecting its employees like the drivers c. Cachero vs Manila Yellow Taxicab Co mentioned the ff: i. Quasi-delict: obligations w/c do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts or criminal offenses ii. Cangco vs Manila Railroad : distinction b/w obligation derived from negligence and obligation as a result of a breach or contract was shown 1. Contract of Carriage: foundation of legal liability where the breach of which is based from the failure of the obligor to exercise due care in its performance of an action. Hence, its liability is direct and immediate. 2. Art 1903 of CC is applicable to extra-contractual obligations (quasi-delicts / culpa aquiliana) 4. Yes a. The present action is based on a breach of contract of carriage to which the spouses (parents) were not a party b. Their claim is NOT a quasi-delict or negligence of LTB because they (parents) were not injured as a result of the collision
By: Marian Kay Yambao