G.R. No. L-24471 August 30, 1968
SILVERIO MARCHAN and PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS CO., INC., petitioners, vs. ARSENIO MENDOZA, LEONARDA ILAYA, and ZENAIDA MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

On the evening of January 22, 1954, respondents Arsenio Mendoza, his wife Leonarda Ilaya, and their child Zenaida Mendoza boarded petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines’ bus No. 141, driven by petitioner Silverio Marchan, in Malanday, Polo, Bulacan, bound for Manila. They paid their fares. While traveling at a high speed, the bus approached a parked six-by-six truck. Despite a passenger’s request to slow down, Marchan increased his speed to pass the truck and avoid an oncoming vehicle. In maneuvering, the bus’s rear tires skidded, causing it to fall into a ditch. The respondents were thrown out and sustained multiple injuries. Arsenio Mendoza suffered the most severe injuries, damaging his vertebrae and causing paralysis of his lower extremities, with his attending physician opining he may never walk again. Silverio Marchan was prosecuted and convicted for serious, less serious, and slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The respondents filed an action for damages against the driver and the bus company’s estate administrators, based on breach of contract of carriage and criminal negligence.

ISSUE

1. Whether an implied contract of carriage existed between the petitioner bus firm and the respondents, making the carrier liable for damages.
2. Whether the awards for compensatory damages (P40,000.00) and exemplary damages (P30,000.00) were proper.
3. Whether the award for attorney’s fees (P5,000.00) was proper.

RULING

1. Yes, an implied contract of carriage existed, and the carrier is liable. The Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1759 of the Civil Code, which holds common carriers directly and immediately liable for death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, even if such employees acted beyond their authority. The riding public is not expected to inquire whether a driver is authorized; the carrier cannot escape liability. The facts established that respondents boarded the bus, paid fares, and were treated as passengers, creating an implied contract of carriage breached by the driver’s gross negligence.
2. Yes, the awards for damages were proper.
* Compensatory Damages (P40,000.00): The amount was reasonable considering Arsenio Mendoza was 26 years old at the time of the accident, suffered paralysis condemning him to a maimed existence, lost his earning capacity (P100/month as a professional boxer and P100/month as an assistant supervisor), and had a life expectancy of about 30 more years.
* Exemplary Damages (P30,000.00): The award was justified. The complaint included a prayer for “such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable,” which is sufficient for claiming exemplary damages. The amount lies within the court’s discretion, and no vindictiveness or wantonness was shown in its imposition.
3. Yes, the award for attorney’s fees (P5,000.00) was proper. The Supreme Court found the assignment of error against this award to be “conspicuously futile” on its face.
MODIFICATION: Following the precedent in Soberano v. Manila Railroad Co., the Supreme Court modified the judgment to include legal interest: compensatory damages (P40,000.00) to earn legal interest from January 26, 1960 (date of the lower court decision); exemplary damages (P30,000.00) to earn legal interest from December 14, 1964 (date of the Court of Appeals decision); and attorney’s fees (P5,000.00) to earn legal interest from January 26, 1960. As modified, the decision was affirmed.