GR L 6155; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6155 April 30, 1954
JOSE SON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEBU AUTOBUS COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Jose Son, filed an action for damages against the Cebu Autobus Company in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. He alleged that on September 18, 1948, the defendant’s TPU truck No. 312, in which he was a passenger and on which he had loaded seven hogs, fell into a canal in Macaas, Catmon, Cebu. The accident caused him serious injuries, including complete fractures of his pelvic bone, and resulted in the death of two of his hogs. He claimed the accident was due to a defect in the vehicle’s engine or the negligence of its driver. The defendant’s defense was that the accident was caused by unforeseen or inevitable events. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him P2,000 as moral damages and P286.80 for actual expenses and losses related to the hogs. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court solely on questions of law.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant carrier is liable for damages arising from the breach of its contract of carriage, notwithstanding its defense that the accident was due to a fortuitous event (the unexpected breakage of the drag-link spring).
RULING
Yes, the defendant is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the plaintiff’s action was based on a breach of the contract of carriage, not on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict). In a breach of contract, it is sufficient to prove the existence of the contract and its non-performance, which resulted in damages. The trial court found that the drag-link spring of the truck was not inspected before the trip. This finding, which is conclusive on the Supreme Court as the appeal was only on questions of law, effectively meant the spring was defective. The Court cited precedent (Lazam vs. Smith) stating that an accident caused by defects in the vehicle or the negligence of the driver is not a caso fortuito (fortuitous event). Therefore, the defendant’s defense of an unforeseen or inevitable event was rejected. The amounts of damages awarded by the trial court were also upheld.