G.R. No. L-56487 October 21, 1991
REYNALDA GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian, a paying passenger, was injured when respondent Arsenio Delim’s mini-bus, due to a mechanical defect, veered off the road and overturned. She sustained lacerations and abrasions, including a scar on her forehead. While confined, the respondent’s wife paid for medical expenses and gave petitioner a small sum for transportation home. Before leaving, she had the injured passengers, including petitioner, sign a pre-prepared Joint Affidavit stating the accident was due to mechanical defect and that they were “no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil” against the driver and owner because they had helped with treatment. Despite this, petitioner filed an action for damages, citing the disfiguring scar causing mental suffering and loss of employment opportunities.
The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the signed Affidavit as a waiver of her right of action. The Court of Appeals reversed the finding of a valid waiver but affirmed the dismissal, denying the claim for damages. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Joint Affidavit constitutes a valid waiver of petitioner’s cause of action for damages arising from the breach of contract of carriage.

RULING

No, the Joint Affidavit does not constitute a valid waiver. The Supreme Court held that a waiver must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms that leave no doubt as to the intention to abandon a right. The language in the Affidavit merely stated the signatories were “no longer interested to file a complaint,” which expresses a mere desire or lack of current interest, not an explicit and categorical renunciation of the right itself. Following the standard in Yepes and Susaya v. Samar Express Transit, such phrasing is insufficient to effect a valid waiver.
On the merits, the Court found the respondent, as a common carrier, liable for breach of its contract of carriage. Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers. The mechanical failure of the vehicle constitutes a prima facie case of negligence, and the respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The accident was not due to force majeure. Petitioner is therefore entitled to damages. The Court awarded P15,000.00 as actual damages for the cost of plastic surgery to remove the scar, P30,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and diminution of her social standing, and P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The decisions of the lower courts were reversed and set aside.