GR L 20761; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966
LA MALLORCA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On December 20, 1953, respondents Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their minor children, including 4½-year-old Raquel, boarded a bus owned by petitioner La Mallorca. They alighted at their destination, Anao, and stood about four or five meters away. Mariano returned to the still-stopped bus to retrieve a bag he left inside. While he was on the running board waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag, the bus suddenly started moving forward even though the conductor had not given the signal, as he was still attending to the baggage. Mariano jumped off. At that time, he saw his daughter Raquel, who had apparently followed him, lying dead, having been run over by the bus. The trial court found La Mallorca liable for breach of contract of carriage and awarded damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the liability but based it on quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, and increased the damages awarded.
ISSUE
1) Whether petitioner La Mallorca can be held liable for quasi-delict despite the complaint being primarily for breach of contract of carriage. 2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the award of damages when the respondents did not appeal from the trial court’s decision.
RULING
1) Yes, petitioner can be held liable for quasi-delict. The contract of carriage had not fully terminated as to Mariano Beltran when he returned to the bus for his baggage, and his presence near the bus was reasonable. As to the child, the carrier failed to exercise the utmost diligence required by law when its driver started the bus without the conductor’s signal while people were still near it. Even assuming the contract had terminated, the complaint contained a sufficient allegation of quasi-delict, stating the death was caused by the negligence of the defendant and its agent. This alternative pleading is permissible under the rules. The negligence was proven, giving rise to a presumption that petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee, which presumption petitioner failed to overcome.
2) Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the damages. The general rule is that an appellate court can only consider issues raised by the appellant. The respondents did not appeal from the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding P3,000.00, nor did they point out the inadequacy of the award in their brief as appellees. Therefore, the increase was improper. The decision was modified, sentencing petitioner to pay the original amounts of P3,000.00 as damages for death and P400.00 as actual damages.