GR L 21151; (June, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21151 June 26, 1968
LOURDES MUNSAYAC, petitioner, vs. BENEDICTA DE LARA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lourdes Munsayac owned and operated a jeepney. Respondent Benedicta de Lara was a passenger on that jeepney and suffered injuries due to an accident. The trial court found the driver recklessly negligent for driving at excessive speed on a road under repair, ignoring passengers’ pleas to slow down. The court awarded compensatory damages, plus P1,000.00 as exemplary damages and P500.00 as attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, justifying the exemplary damages award based on the defendant’s admission of the accident and the plaintiff’s extensive injuries, and the defendant’s failure or refusal to placate the plaintiff’s sufferings, which necessitated the filing of the action. The case is before the Supreme Court on review by certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant (carrier) can be held liable for exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code based on her failure to placate the plaintiff’s sufferings after the breach of contract (the accident), and not based on her authorization or ratification of the driver’s reckless negligence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the judgment by eliminating the award for exemplary damages. The Court held that for a defendant in a breach of contract case to be liable for exemplary damages under Article 2232, the wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent act must be coetaneous with and characterize the breach of contract, not an act subsequent to it with no causal relation. The defendant’s failure to placate the plaintiff’s sufferings after the accident is too tenuous a basis to conclude she approved of the driver’s wrongful act with full knowledge. The Court cited the rule that a principal can be liable for exemplary damages based on an agent’s act only where the principal participated in, authorized, or subsequently ratified it with full knowledge. There was no showing of such previous authority or subsequent ratification by the defendant-owner regarding the driver’s recklessness. The award for attorney’s fees was affirmed.