G.R. No. L-22193; May 29, 1964
LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, petitioner, vs. JULIETA CORNISTA, thru her parents, GIL CORNISTA and MANUELA BELSONTA CORNISTA, respondents.

FACTS

Julieta Cornista, through her parents, filed an action for damages against Laguna Tayabas Bus Company for breach of contract of carriage. She alleged that while a passenger on one of the company’s buses, she sustained physical injuries due to the negligence of the petitioner and its driver. The petitioner’s primary defense was that Cornista’s own negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. The Court of First Instance of Leyte ruled in favor of Cornista, awarding moral damages, medical expenses, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the liability but reduced the quantum of moral damages, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent for not holding tenaciously onto the bus itself instead of her companion’s hand.
The trial court’s factual findings, deemed final, established that the proximate cause of the injury was the recklessness of the bus driver, who operated at high speed on sharp curves despite passenger warnings. Crucially, the court also found the bus company itself negligent because the right side of the bus was not equipped with any protective bar to prevent passengers seated at the ends from falling out.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner-carrier is liable for moral damages arising from a breach of contract of carriage, given the findings of its driver’s recklessness and its own failure to provide adequate safety features on the bus.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the award of moral damages. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the carrier’s liability and the specific requirements for awarding moral damages in contractual breaches. Under Article 2220 of the New Civil Code, moral damages in cases of breach of contract are recoverable only if the breach was attended by fraud or bad faith, which denotes wanton, deliberate, or injurious conduct.
The Court held that the petitioner’s negligence was not merely casual. The combined findings of the driver’s reckless operation at high speed on curves and, more significantly, the company’s failure to install a protective bar on the bus side constituted a deliberate disregard for passenger safety. This failure to provide a basic safety device, knowing the foreseeable risk of passengers falling, transcends simple negligence and amounts to the wanton or deliberately injurious conduct contemplated by law. While the Court of Appeals correctly applied the principle of contributory negligence to reduce the damages, this did not exonerate the carrier from liability. The petitioner’s misconduct was a direct and proximate cause of the injury, justifying the award of moral damages under the established legal standard for breaches of contract involving bad faith.