G.R. No. L-19882; June 30, 1964
Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., petitioner, vs. Rufina Diasanta, assisted by her husband Evero Tajada, respondent.

FACTS

On July 28, 1958, respondent Rufina Diasanta boarded a bus owned by petitioner Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. bound for Manila. The bus driver, Henry Betito, operated the vehicle with such recklessness that upon nearing Pagbilao, Quezon, the bus veered off the asphalted road onto its rough shoulder. Due to the excessive speed and the road’s holes and ruts, the bus jolted violently, throwing Diasanta from her seat to the floor and causing a fracture in her vertebrae. She required extensive medical treatment, including immobilization in a cast for several months.
After her demands for indemnity were ignored, Diasanta filed an action for damages. The Court of First Instance of Manila awarded her P1,281.05 for actual expenses, P3,000 as consequential damages, P3,000 for moral and exemplary damages, P2,000 as attorney’s fees, and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but modified the award, reducing the P3,000 for moral and exemplary damages to P1,000 solely for exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the awards for actual and consequential damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees are legally justified under the Civil Code and applicable jurisprudence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The awards for actual damages (P1,281.05) and consequential damages (P3,000) are findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. As these are factual determinations made by the lower courts, they are not subject to review in this appeal by certiorari.
Regarding exemplary damages, the Court held that Article 2232 of the Civil Code allows such an award in contracts and quasi-contracts when the defendant acts in a “wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.” The factual findings conclusively established that the petitioner’s driver operated the bus recklessly. This distinguishes the case from Bautista vs. Lovina, where no finding of recklessness was made, and from Alegre vs. Batangas Transportation Co., where the driver was not found reckless and the injured party contributed to the accident. The Court found no reason to disturb the lower courts’ discretionary award of exemplary damages.
Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees under Article 2208 is also proper, as it is expressly allowed “when exemplary damages are awarded.” The Supreme Court concluded that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the lower courts’ exercise of discretion. The decision was affirmed with costs against the petitioner.