G.R. No. 99301 & 99343 March 13, 1997
VICTOR KIERULF, LUCILA H. KIERULF and PORFIRIO LEGASPI, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

On February 28, 1987, a Pantranco bus, driven by Jose Malanum, lost control while traveling along EDSA. It swerved, flew over the center island, and collided with an Isuzu pickup truck driven by Porfirio Legaspi and carrying passenger Lucila Kierulf. The accident resulted in significant injuries to Legaspi and Lucila, who required extensive medical treatment and surgeries, and caused major damage to the pickup truck owned by spouses Victor and Lucila Kierulf. Pantranco defended itself by alleging that a used engine differential fell from a junk truck ahead, struck the bus’s under chassis, and caused the driver to lose control, constituting a fortuitous event.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Kierulf spouses and Legaspi, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals modified the award, increasing some amounts but denying others. In G.R. No. 99301, the victims sought a further increase in moral, exemplary, and actual damages, including compensation for Victor Kierulf’s alleged loss of marital consortium due to his wife’s disfigurement and for Lucila’s lost income. In G.R. No. 99343, Pantranco sought exoneration, arguing the accident was due to a fortuitous event.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Pantranco is liable for damages or if the accident was a fortuitous event; (2) Whether the awards for moral, exemplary, and actual damages, including claims for lost income and loss of consortium, are proper and sufficient.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both petitions and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications on attorney’s fees. Pantranco is liable. The defense of fortuitous event fails because the falling differential, an object on the road, is a common hazard that a prudent driver must anticipate and manage. Pantranco failed to prove the driver exercised the requisite extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier. Thus, negligence is presumed under Article 1735 of the Civil Code.
On the awards, the Court found the moral damages of P200,000 for Lucila Kierulf and P25,000 for Legaspi to be just and reasonable, considering the physical suffering, trauma, and Lucila’s permanent facial disfigurement. The claim for loss of consortium was subsumed within the moral damages awarded for the physical injuries and not separately compensable. Exemplary damages of P100,000 were properly awarded due to Pantranco’s gross negligence. The Court denied the claim for Lucila’s lost income due to insufficient proof of actual loss of earning capacity. The award for damage to the vehicle was correctly based on the lower repair cost estimate (P96,825.15) rather than a higher claim, as the trial court’s factual finding on this point is conclusive. The Court, however, deleted the award for attorney’s fees due to lack of justification.