GR L 21486; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966
LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, petitioners, vs. VALENTIN DE JESUS, MANOLO TOLENTINO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. (La Mallorca-Pambusco) appealed by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The trial court ordered the petitioner to pay damages to respondents Valentin de Jesus and Manolo Tolentino arising from the death of Lolita de Jesus, the 20-year-old daughter of Valentin de Jesus and wife of Manolo Tolentino. The death occurred on October 8, 1959, in Marilao, Bulacan, due to a head-on collision between the petitioner’s bus, on which Lolita was a passenger, and a freight truck. The immediate cause of the collision was the driver losing control of the bus when its left front tire suddenly exploded. The petitioner argued that a tire blow-out constitutes a fortuitous event (caso fortuito) and should not give rise to liability for negligence.
ISSUE
1. Whether the tire blow-out that caused the accident constitutes a fortuitous event exempting the common carrier from liability.
2. Whether moral damages are recoverable for the death of a passenger due to a breach of contract of carriage by a common carrier.
RULING
1. No, the tire blow-out was not a fortuitous event. The Court found that the cause of the blow-out was a mechanical defect: the inner tube of the tire was pressed between the inner circle of the left wheel and the rim that had slipped out. This defect was easily discoverable through a thorough check-up before the bus operated. Furthermore, the bus was running quite fast before the accident, and the tire was not new. Therefore, the accident was due to the petitioner’s negligence in maintaining its vehicle and not to an unavoidable event.
2. Yes, moral damages are recoverable. Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded for the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common carrier. This principle has been upheld in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.