CONSTRUCTION DEV CORP VS ESTRELLA FACTS: Respondents Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo City,
a BLTB bus bound for Pasay City. o!e"er, o!e"er, they ne"er reached their destination because their bus !as ra##ed fro# behind by a tractor$truc% of C&CP in the South E'press!ay. The strong i#pact pushed for!ard their seats and pinned their %nees to the seats in front of the#. They !ere in(ured due to the collision. Thereafter, respondents filed a Co#plaint ) for da#ages against C&CP, BLTB, BLTB, EspiridionPayunan, *r. and +ilfredo &atinguinoo. They alleged - that Payunan, *r. and &atinguinoo, !ho !ere the dri"ers of C&CP and BLTB buses, respecti"ely,, !ere negligent and did not obey traffic la!s/ 0 that BLTB and C&CP did not e'ercise the diligence of respecti"ely a good father of a fa#ily in the selection and super"ision of their e#ployees/ 1 that BLTB allo!ed its bus to operate %no!ing that it lac%ed proper #aintenance thus e'posing its passengers to gra"e danger/ 2 that they suffered actual da#ages a#ounting to P0)3,333.33 for Estrella and P133,333.33 for Fletcher/ ) that they suffered physical disco#fort, serious an'iety, fright and #ental anguish, bes#irched reputation and !ounded feelings, #oral shoc%, and lifelong social hu#iliation/ 4 that defendants failed to act !ith (ustice, gi"e respondents their due, obser"e honesty and good faith !hich entitles the# to clai# for e'e#plary da#age/ and 5 that they are entitled to a reasonable a#ount of attorney6s fees and litigation e'penses. Trial court rendered a decision finding C&CP and BLTB and their e#ployees liable for da#ages ( ointly and se"erally to pay for actual da#ages, #oral and e'e#plary da#ages and attorney7s fees. The trial court held that BLTB, as a co##on carrier, !as bound to obser"e e'traordinary diligence in the "igilance o"er the safety of its passengers. Thus, !here a passenger di es or is in(ured, the carrier is presu#ed to ha"e been at fault or has acted negligently. BLTB6s BLTB6s inability to carry respondents to their destination ga"e rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage !hile its failure to rebut the presu#ption of negligence #ade it liable to respondents for the breach. 8 Regarding C&CP, the trial court found that the tractor$truc% it o!ned bu#ped the BLT BLTB B bus fro# behind. E"idence sho!ed that C&CP6s dri"er !as rec%less and dri"ing "er y fast at the ti#e of the incident. The gross negligence of its dri"er raised the presu#ption that C&CP !as negligent either in the selection or in the super"ision of its e#ployees !hich it failed to rebut thus #a%ing it and its dri"er liable to respondents. C&CP appealed the decision contending that liability for actual da#ages and attorney6s fees is based on culpa contractual, thus, only BLTB BLTB should be held liable. l iable. Respondents, on the other hand, argue that petitioner is also at fault, hence, it !as properly (oined as a party. There #ay be an action arising out of one incident !here 9uestions of fact are co##on to all. Thus, the cause of action based on culpa aquiliana in aquiliana in the ci"il suit they filed against it !as "alid. :SS;E< - !hether BLTB BLTB and its dri"er +ilfredo + ilfredo &atinguinoo are solely liable for the da#ages sustained by respondents/ 0 !hether the da#ages, attorney6s fees and legal interest a!arded by the C= are e'cessi"e and unfounded. R;L:>G< - C&CP is solidarily liable !ith BLTB BLTB for da#ages.The case filed by respondents against petitioner is an action for culpa aquiliana or aquiliana or 9uasi$delict under =rticle 0-54 of the Ci"il Code.-1 :n this regard, =rticle 0-?3 pro"ides that the obligation i#posed by =rticle 0-54 is de#andable for the acts or o#issions of those persons for !ho# one is responsible. Conse9uently, an action based on 9uasi$delict #ay be instituted against the e#ployer for an e#ployee6s act or o#ission. The liability for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and and primary primary , but is -2 sub(ect to the defense of due dili gence in the selection and super"ision of the e#ployee. :n the instant case, the trial court found that petitioner failed to pro"e that it e'ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa#ily in the selection and super"ision of Payunan, *r. The trial court and the Court of =ppeals found petitioner solidarily liable !ith BLTB for the actual da#ages suffered by respondents because of the in(uries they sustained. :t !as established that Payunan, *r. !as dri"ing rec%lessly because of the s%id #ar%s as sho!n i n the s%etch of the police in"estigator.
:t is !ell$settled in Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,-) that the o!ner of the other "ehicle !hich collided !ith a co##on carrier is solidarily liable to the in(ured passenger of the sa#e. The sa#e rule of liability !as applied in situations !here the negligence of the dri"er of the bus on !hich plaintiff !as riding concurred !ith the negligence of a third party !ho !as the dri"er of another "ehicle, thus causing an accident. =s in the case of BLTB, pri"ate respondents in this case and her co$plaintiffs did not sta%e out their clai# against the carrier and the dri"er e'clusi"ely on one theory, #uch less on that of breach of contract alone.After all, it was permitted for them to allege alternative causes of action and join as many parties as may be liable on su ch causes of action so long as private respondent and her co-plaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury. ''The difficulty in the contention of the appellants is that they fail to recogni@e that the basis of the present action is tort. They fail to recogni@e the uni"ersal doctrine that each (oint tort feasor is not only indi"idually liable for the tort in !hich he participates, but is also (ointly liable !ith his tort feasors. ' '' 0 Aoral da#ages #ay be reco"ered in 9uasi$delicts causing physical in(uries. 0- The a!ard of #oral da#ages in fa"or of Fletcher and Estrella in the a#ount of P?3,333.33 #ust be reduced since pre"ailing (urisprudence fi'ed the sa#e at P)3,333.33.00 +hile #oral da#ages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the e'pense of the defendant, the a!ard should nonetheless be co##ensurate to the suffering inflicted. 01 The Court of =ppeals correctly a!arded respondents e'e#plary da#ages in the a#ount of P03,333.33 e ach. E'e#plary da#ages #ay be a!arded in addition to #oral and co#pensatory da#ages. 02 =rticle 001- of the Ci"il Code also states that in 9uasi$delicts, e'e#plary da#ages #ay be granted if the defendant acted !ith gross negligence.0) :n this case, petitioner6s dri"er !as dri"ing rec%lessly at the ti#e its truc% ra##ed the BLTB bus. Petitioner, !ho has direct and pri#ary liability for the negligent conduct of its subordinates, !as also found negligent in the selection and super"ision of its e#ployees. :n Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,04 !e held, thus< =RT. 0008 of the Ci"il Code also pro"ides that such da#ages #ay be i#posed, by !ay of e'a#ple or correction for the public good. +hile e'e#plary da#ages cannot be reco"ered as a #atter of right, they need not be pro"ed, although pl aintiff #ust sho! that he is entitled to #oral, te#perate or co#pensatory da#ages before the court #ay consider the 9uestion of !hether or not e'e#plary da#ages should be a!arded. E'e#plary &a#ages are i#posed not to enrich one party or i#po"erish another but to ser"e as a deterrent against or as a negati"e i ncenti"e to curb socially deleterious actions.
