G.R. No. 209969. September 27, 2017.
JOSE SANICO AND VICENTE CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. WERHERLINA P. COLIPANO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Werherlina Colipano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against petitioners Jose Sanico, the jeepney owner/operator, and Vicente Castro, the driver. Colipano alleged that on December 25, 1993, as a paying passenger, she was seated on an empty beer case at the rear entrance of the jeepney with her child. While traversing an uphill road in Carmen, Cebu, the jeepney lost power and slid backwards. To prevent being thrown out, Colipano braced her feet against the wet step board, but her left foot slipped and was crushed between the step board and a coconut tree, resulting in the eventual amputation of her leg. Petitioners admitted the incident but contended it was due to Colipano’s own fault in attempting to disembark, and they presented an Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim allegedly executed by Colipano.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners solidarily liable for breach of contract and awarded actual damages and compensatory damages for loss of income. The Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the compensatory damages. Petitioners filed this Rule 45 petition directly assailing the CA Decision without a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether both petitioners breached the contract of carriage; (2) the validity and effect of the Affidavit of Desistance; and (3) the propriety of the damages awarded.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that only Sanico, as the owner-operator, was liable for breach of contract of carriage. Citing Soberano v. Manila Railroad Co., the Court ruled that a contract of carriage exists only between the passenger and the carrier (owner/operator). Castro, as a mere employee-driver, was not a party to that contract. Therefore, Colipano had no cause of action against Castro, and the complaint against him should have been dismissed. The Court found Sanico liable as a common carrier bound to observe extraordinary diligence under Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The failure to transport Colipano safely constituted a breach, and Sanico was presumed negligent under Article 1756, having failed to rebut this presumption.
On the second issue, the Court declared the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim void for being contrary to law and public policy. A contract exempting a common carrier from liability for negligence is void under Article 1745 of the Civil Code. The Court found the affidavit, which purported to release Sanico from all claims, to be precisely such an invalid stipulation.
On the third issue, the Court modified the damages. It reinstated the RTC’s award of P360,000.00 as compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity, finding the CA’s reduction to P200,000.00 based on a flawed computation that used an incorrect life expectancy formula. The Court affirmed the award of actual damages (P2,098.80) but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages, as these were not granted by the lower courts and were not prayed for in the petition. The liability for damages was imposed solely upon Sanico.