G.R. Nos. L-12634 and L-12720, May 29, 1959 JOSE G. TAMAYO, petitioner, vs. INOCENCIO AQUINO, ET AL.

, and SILVESTRE RAYOS, respondents. LABRADOR, J.: Inocencio Aquino and his children brought this action against Jose G. Tamayo, holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate two trucks for damages for the death of Inocencio's wife, Epifania Gonzales, while riding aboard Tamayo's trucks. It is alleged that while his (Inocencio Aquino) wife was making a trip aboard truck with Plate No. TPU-735, it bumped against a culvert on the side of the road in Bugallon, Pangasinan; that as a consequence of this accident Epifania Gonzales was thrown away from the vehicle and two pieces of wood embedded in her skull, as a result of which she died; that the impact of the truck against the culvert was so violent that the roof of the vehicle was ripped off from its body, one fender was smashed and the engine damaged beyond repair. Complaint was filed for the recovery of P10,000 as actual damages, P10,000 as moral damages, and costs. Upon being summoned, defendant Tamayo answered alleging a that the truck is owned by Silvestre Rayos, so he filed a third-party complaint against the latter, alleging that he no longer had any interest whatsoever in the said truck, as he had sold the same before the accident to the third-party defendant Silvestre Rayos. Answering the third-party complaint, Rayos alleged that if any indemnity is due, it should come from Jose G. Tamayo, because he did not have any transaction with him regarding such sale. The Court of First Instance found that the truck with plate No. TPU-735 was one of the trucks of Tamayo under a certificate of public convenience issued to him; that he had sold it to Rayos in March, 1953, but did not inform the Public Service Commission of the sale until June 30, 1953, one month after the accident. On the basis of the above facts, the Court of First Instance ordered the defendant Tamayo and the third-party defendant Rayos to pay plaintiffs jointly and severally the sum of P6,000 as compensatory damages, and another sum of P5,000 as moral damages, with interest, and authorized the defendant or third-party defendant, whoever should pay the entire amount, to recover from the other any sum in excess of one-half of the amount ordered to be paid, with interest. The Court also dismissed the thirdparty complaint. Appeals against the above decision was made to the Court of Appeals. This court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in all respects, and against this judgment certiorari was issued by us on separate petitions of Tamayo and Rayos. Tamayo claims exemption from liability, arguing that the owner and operator of the truck at the time the accident was not he but Rayos. In answer we state that we have already held in the cases of Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil., 506; 52 Off. Gaz., (11) 4606; Timbol vs. Osias, 98 Phil., 432; 52 Off. Gaz. (3) 1392; Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182; 50 Off. Gaz., 108, and Roque vs. Malibay, L-8561, Nov. 18, 1955, that the registered owner of a public service

vehicle is responsible for damages that may be caused to any of the passengers therein, even if the said vehicle had already been sold, leased or transferred to another person who was, at the time of the accident, actually operating the vehicle. This principle was also reaffirmed in the case of Erezo vs. Jepte, 102 Phil., 103. The reason given by us for the above liability imposed upon the registered owner of the vehicle under a certificate of public convenience is as follows: . . . we hold with the trial court that the law does not allow him to do so; the law with its aim and policy in mind, does not relieve him directly of the responsibility that the law fixes and places upon him as an incident or consequence of registration. Were a registered owner alleged to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured, that is, to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured. (Erezo vs. Jepte, supra). The decision of the Court of Appeals is also attacked insofar as it holds that inasmuch as the third-party defendant had used the truck on a route not covered by the registered owner's franchise, both the registered owner and the actual owner and operator should be considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code. This Article is as follows: Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. But the action instituted in the case at bar is one for breach of contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety the deceased for her destination. The liability for which he is made responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, may not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not be held guilty of tort or a quasidelict; their responsibility is not solidary as held by the Court of Appeals. The question that poses, therefore, is how should the holder of the certificate of public convenience Tamayo participate with his transferee, operator Rayos, in the damages recoverable by the heirs of the deceased passenger, if their liability is not that of Joint tortfeasors in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code. The following considerations must be borne in mind in determining this question. As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his

responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in the vehicle or truck must be direct, for the reasons given in our decision in the case of Erezo vs. Jepte, supra, as quoted above. But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the accident and death he should in turn be made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence. In the case at bar, the court found, furthermore, that inspite of the fact that the agreement between Tamayo and Rayos was for Rayos to use the truck in carrying of gasoline, the latter used the same in transporting passengers outside the route covered by the franchise of Tamayo. For this additional reason, the agent or Rayos must be held responsible to the registered owner, to the extent that the latter may suffer damage by reason of the death caused during the accident. The responsibility of the transferee was already adverted to by us in the case of Erezo vs. Jepte, supra, when we held expressly: In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant. (Erezo vs. Jepte, supra.) We hereby affirm that the responsibility of the transferee of the public vehicle be as above denied. The procedural means by which the liability of the transferee to the holder of the certificate should be enforced is that indicated by us in the above-quoted portion of the case of Erezo vs. Jepte. This procedure was adopted by Tamayo, the defendant herein, when he presented a third party complaint against Rayos. The courts below should not have dismissed this third-party complaint, and should have adjudged the responsibility to make indemnity in accordance therewith. The transferee is liable to indemnify the registered owner for the damages that the latter may be required to pay for the accident, hence the remedy is by third-party complaint (See Rule 12, Rules of the Court). We now come to the question of the damages that the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance awarded to the plaintiffs. The actual or compensatory damage of P6,000 is not seriously questioned by any of the defendants, but the award of P5,000 as moral damages is questioned by them in this appeal. We agree with the appellants that as the responsibility of Tamayo and his agent Rayos is culpa-contractual, no award of moral damages can be given. The law on this matter is expressed in Article 2220 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals considered the violation of the rules of the Public Service Commission prohibiting transfer of public vehicles without approval by the Commission as justifying the award of moral damages. We believe that both courts erred. The law expressly provides that award of moral damages can be made in a suit for breach of contact only when the defendants acted fraudulently or in bad faith. We do not believe that the holder of the certificate, defendant Tamayo, was guilty of fraud or bad faith. There appears to be no fraud at all in the transfer. Transfers are prohibited only if made without approval by the Public Service Commission. There may have been a violation of the regulations because Tamayo did not secure a previous authority to transfer from said Commission, but he actually applied for and obtained said permission or approval about a month after the accident. Besides, the truck was transferred to Rayos with the understanding that the same was not to be used as a public convenience, so that insofar as Tamayo is concerned, there could have been no shade or tint of bad faith at all. Consequently, the ground upon which moral damages may be demanded from him by the plaintiffs does not exist. Neither can we find that there was fraud or bad faith committed on the part of the transferee or agent. There may have been a breach of the agreement between Tamayo and Rayos, but this was not the immediate cause of the accident. It was the negligence of the driver. What the law would seem to consider as bad faith which may furnish a ground for the award of moral damages in the case at bar would be bad faith in the securing and in the execution of the contract and in the enforcement of its terms (Article 1338, Civil Code), or any other kind of deceit which may have been used by both defendants. None can be said to have been present in the case at bar. There was no bad faith on the part of the agent Rayos; there was negligence of the driver employed by him, but this certainly not bad faith defendants' part contemplated by law. For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified, in that the defendant-appellant Tamayo is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff-appellees the sum of P6,000 as compensatory damages for the death of the deceased, but that he (Tamayo) has the right to be indemnified by third-party defendant-appellant Rayos of the amount he is hereby ordered to pay. With costs against appellants. G.R. No. 91856 October 5, 1990

YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND LARRY SALVADO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WENCESLAO M. POLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 19 of the RTC of Manila, and ROY CAMASO, respondents. Tomas R. Leonidas for petitioners. David B. Agoncillo for private respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.: Can a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action? This is the issue in this petition. On December 24, 1982, a five-year old boy, Roy Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk of M. de la Fuente Street, Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado. Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an information that was filed on January 6, 1983 with the then City Court of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 027184. On October 19, 1984 a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso represented by his father, David Camaso, against Yakult Philippines and Larry Salvado in the Regional Trial Court of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 8427317. In due course a decision was rendered in the civil case on May 26, 1989 ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff the sum of P13,006.30 for actual expenses for medical services and hospital bills; P3,000.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. Although said defendants appealed the judgment, they nevertheless filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court over said civil case. Petitioners' thesis is that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence of Salvado, being without malice, cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Further, it is contended that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. In a decision dated November 3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. 1 A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioners was denied on January 30, 1990. Hence this petition. The petition is devoid of merit. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others. The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual damages. In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial. (1a) Although the incident in question and the actions arising therefrom were instituted before the promulgation of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, its provisions which are procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case. 2 Under the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. It is also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In this case, the offended party has not waived the civil action, nor reserved the right to institute it separately. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. However, the civil action in this case was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. The civil liability sought arising from the act or omission of the accused in this case is a quasi delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code as follows: ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. The aforecited revised rule requiring such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the accused. Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. Thus, the Court finds and so holds that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil action brought before it. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 3, 1989 and its resolution dated January 30, 1990 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. DECISION VITUG, J.: The case before the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 April 2000 and 10 October 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60720, entitled Marjorie Navidad and Heirs of the Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al., which has modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City, exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor Navidad. On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven oclock in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token (representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard

assigned to the area approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously. On 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards. The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task. On 11 August 1998, the trial court rendered its decision; it adjudged: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the following: a) 2) 3) b) c) d) 1) Actual damages of P44,830.00;

Compensatory damages of P443,520.00; Indemnity for the death of Nicanor Navidad in the sum of P50,000.00; Moral damages of P50,000.00; Attorneys fees of P20,000; Costs of suit.

The complaint against defendants LRTA and Rodolfo Roman are dismissed for lack of merit. The compulsory counterclaim of LRTA and Roman are likewise dismissed.[1] Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its now assailed decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable thusly:

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED, by exonerating the appellants from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad, Jr. Instead, appellees Rodolfo Roman and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) are held liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs-appellees, the following amounts: a) b) c) d) e) P44,830.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as nominal damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the deceased; and P20,000.00 as and for attorneys fees.[2]

The appellate court ratiocinated that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage theretofore had already existed when the victim entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor. In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and operated at the time by Roman. The appellate court faulted petitioners for their failure to present expert evidence to establish the fact that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train. The appellate court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in its resolution of 10 October 2000. In their present recourse, petitioners recite alleged errors on the part of the appellate court; viz: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF NICANOR NAVIDAD, JR. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT

RODOLFO ROMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LRTA.[3] Petitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome. Petitioners would insist that Escartins assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented. The LRTA would add that the appellate courts conclusion on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA. Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation, and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier. Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.[4] The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of or injury to its passengers, provides: Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a

passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.[5] Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.[6] The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.[7] In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and[8] by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.[9] In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,[10] an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.[11] The foundation of LRTAs liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage. Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 2176[12] and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180,[13] of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for the employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent

contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194[14] of the Civil Code can well apply.[15] In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract.[16] Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasidelictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.[17] Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x. This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case. There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence. The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.[18] It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.[19] WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability. No costs. SO ORDERED.