GR 122039; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122039 . May 31, 2000.
VICENTE CALALAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ELIZA JUJEURCHE SUNGA and FRANCISCO SALVA, respondents.
FACTS
On August 23, 1989, respondent Eliza Jujeurche Sunga, a passenger in a jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas, was seated on an “extension seat” at the rear. When the jeepney stopped, she stood to give way to an alighting passenger. At that moment, an Isuzu truck owned by Francisco Salva and driven by Iglecerio Verena bumped the jeepney’s left rear portion, causing Sunga to sustain a leg fracture. She filed a complaint for damages against Calalas for breach of contract of carriage. Calalas filed a third-party complaint against Salva. The Regional Trial Court absolved Calalas, holding Salva and Verena liable based on a separate quasi-delict case (Civil Case No. 3490) filed by Calalas against them for damage to his jeepney.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Calalas, as a common carrier, is liable for breach of contract of carriage for the injuries sustained by passenger Sunga, notwithstanding a prior finding in a separate case that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the truck driver.
RULING
Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly held Calalas liable. The cause of action is based on breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual), not on quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana). These are distinct legal concepts. In a contract of carriage, a common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for passenger safety under Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. In case of injury, Article 1756 establishes a presumption of negligence against the carrier, who must prove it exercised extraordinary diligence to overcome this presumption. The proximate cause of the accident is immaterial in a breach of contract case; this doctrine applies only in quasi-delict actions. The separate ruling in Civil Case No. 3490, which found the truck driver negligent for the damage to the jeepney, does not bind Sunga, as she was not a party to that case, and the issues and causes of action were different. Calalas failed to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence. However, the award of moral damages was deleted, as there was no finding of fraud or bad faith on the part of the carrier, which is required for such an award in breach of contract cases under Article 2220.