GR L 15392; (September, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15392; September 30, 1960
REX TAXICAB CO., petitioner, vs. JOSE BAUTISTA, as guardian ad litem of the minor Narcisa Bautista, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
On February 13, 1952, at about 4:00 a.m., the minor Narcisa Bautista (then about 6 years old), her aunt Pelagia Bautista, and other companions boarded a taxicab (Plate No. 1401) owned by petitioner Rex Taxicab Co. and driven by its employee, Mario Miranda, at Taft Avenue, Manila. They were bound for Tutuban Railroad Station. While the taxicab was running along Taft Avenue, Narcisa, who was seated near the left rear door, asked permission to spit. After her aunt consented, she stood up, placed her crossed arms on the window sill of the left rear door, and leaned out to spit. Suddenly, the door opened, causing Narcisa to fall onto the pavement. She sustained fractures in the parrieto-occipital region of her head, as well as other wounds and bruises. She was hospitalized from February 13 to 18, 1952, and incurred medical and incidental expenses totaling P790.00. The Court of First Instance of Manila awarded respondent Jose Bautista (as guardian ad litem) P1,075.00 as actual/compensatory damages and P1,500.00 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. Petitioner contends its driver was not negligent and that the fall was an accident or caused by the minor’s own act, but the Court of Appeals’ factual finding of driver negligence is binding. Petitioner also contests the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
1. Whether moral damages are recoverable in an action for damages predicated on a breach of contract of carriage under the circumstances of this case.
2. Whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.
RULING
1. No, moral damages are not recoverable. The Supreme Court, reiterating its rulings in Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab, Inc., Necesito v. Paras, Fores v. Miranda, and Tamayo v. Aquino, held that moral damages are not recoverable in an action for damages based on a breach of contract of transportation, pursuant to Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. The exceptions are: (a) when the mishap results in the death of a passenger (under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206), or (b) when the carrier is proved guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not result. In this case, Narcisa Bautista did not die. Furthermore, the mere carelessness (negligence) of the carrier’s driver does not, per se, constitute or justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier, and no other evidence of such malice or bad faith was presented. Therefore, the award of P1,500.00 as moral damages was improper and is eliminated.
2. Yes, the award of attorney’s fees was proper. The Court of Appeals found that the actual compensatory damages proven were only P790.00 (the total disbursements). The trial court had awarded P1,075.00 as compensatory damages. The Court of Appeals construed the difference of P285.00 as a reasonable award for attorney’s fees, to which respondent was justly and equitably entitled under Article 2208(11) of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court found no error in this regard and sustained the award.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED by eliminating the award of P1,500.00 as moral damages. The decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. No costs.