Damages Receivable from Common Carriers – Actual/Compensatory
Fernandez, psychiatrist – Cariaga’s mentality has been so
G.R. No. L-11037 – Cariaga v. LTBCo and MRR
DIZON, J.
Cariaga, a 4th year UST med student was severely injured in an accident as he was boarding
a bus operated by LTB. This caused the removal of the right frontal lobe of his brain which
rendered him virtually invalid. RTC ordered LTB to pay P10,000 as compensatory damages
to which Cariaga appealed. SC rules that the compensatory damages should be increased
to P25,000 as the income he could possibly earn should he finish his course and pass the
exams must be deemed as one that can be reasonably foreseen by the parties at the time
he boarded the bus, in accordance with Art. 2201.
DOCTRINE
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in
good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the
breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably
foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
FACTS
1. June 18, 1952 – A bus of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co, left Manila for Lilio, Laguna.
One of its passengers was Edgardo Cariaga, 4th yr medical student at UST.
2. At 3pm, at the area where the national highway crossed a railroad track, the bus
bumped against the engine of a Manila Railroad Company train then passing by,
causing the first wheels of the train to be derailed. The driver immediately died and
several passengers including Cariaga were severely injured.
3. Cariaga was confined at different hospitals: (June 18 – 20) San Pablo City Hospital;
(June 2- Oct 14) Delos Santos Clinic-QC; (Oct14 – Nov 15) UST hospital; (Nov 15 –
Jan 15, 1953) Delos Santos Clinic; (Jan 15 – Apr) private house. All medical and
miscellaneous expenses were paid for by LTB, plus daily subsistence allowance from
Jan to Apr, amounting to P16,964.45 and P775.30 respectively.
4. Cariaga was unconscious for the first 35 days. Dr. Gustillo removed the fractured
bones which lacerated the right frontal lobe of his brain and covered the big hole
on the right frontal part of the head with a tantalum plate.
5. Present action was filed against LTB and MRR to recover for Cariaga P312,000 of
compensatory, moral and exemplary damages and for his parents the same
damages amounting to P18,000.
6. Defenses:
LTB (filed a cross claim against MRR): Accident was due to MRR’s negligence in
not providing a crossing bar at point of intersection
MRR: denies liability. It was the negligence of the LTB bus driver that cause the
accident.
7. RTC ruled in favor of Cariagas, sentenced LTB to pay Cariaga P10,490.00 as
compensatory damages. Cross-claim dismissed. Both Cariaga and LTB appealed.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N the award of P10,000 compensatory damages to Cariaga was proper? NO.
 Cariaga claims that the award was inadequate considering the nature and the after
effects of the physical injuries suffered by him.
 Considering the ff. evidence, SC finds the contention to be well founded.
o Deposition of Dr. Gustillo, neurosurgeon – Cariaga’s right forehead was
fractured necessitating the removal of practically all of the right frontal lobe of
his brain.
o Deposition of Dr.
reduced that he can no longer finish his studies as a medical student; that he
has become completely misfit for any kind of work; that he can hardly walk
around without someone helping him, and has to use a brace on his left leg
and feet.
o LC also found that the removal of Cariaga’s right frontal lobe of the brain
reduced his intelligence by about 50%; that due to the replacement of the right
frontal bone of his head with a tantalum plate he has to lead a quiet and retired
life because "if the tantalum plate is pressed in or dented it would cause his
death.
o One can gather from the evidence that as a result of the physical injuries
suffered by Cariaga, he is now in a helpless condition, virtually an invalid, both
physically and mentally.
 LTB claims that under Art. 2201 of NCC, the damages for which the obligor, guilty
of a breach of contract but who acted in good faith, is liable shall be those that are
the natural and probable consequences of the breach and which the parties had
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted, provided such damages (Art. 2199) have been duly proved. Thus, only
the actual damages suffered by Cariaga consisting of medical, hospital and other
expenses in the total sum of P17,719.75 are within the category.
 SC holds however that that the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if
he should finish the medical course and pass the corresponding board
examinations must be deemed to be within the same category because they
could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded
the bus of LTB.
o At the time, he was already a fourth-year student in medicine in a reputable
university.
o While his scholastic may not be first rate, it is sufficient to justify the
assumption that he could have passed the board test in due time.
o Accdg to Dr. Amado Doria, a witness for the LTB, the amount of P300.00
could easily be expected as the minimum monthly income of Edgardo had he
finished his studies.
 SC so holds that the compensatory damages awarded to Edgardo Cariaga
should be increased to P25,000.00.
2. W/N the claim by the spouses Cariaga for actual and compensatory damages was aptly
denied by the trial court? YES.
 In so far as the LTB is concerned, the present action is based upon a breach of
contract of carriage to which said spouses were not a party.
 Neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi-delict of the LTB
for they were not themselves injured as a result of the collision.
3. W/N the claim for moral damages was aptly denied by the trial court? YES.
 Article 2219 of CC enumerates the instances when moral damages may be
covered and the case under consideration does not fall under any one of them.
 Neither can it fall under Article 2220 of CC on account of breach of its contract of
carriage because said defendant did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in
connection therewith.
4. W/N the trial court erred in dismissing the cross claim upon MRR? NO.
 Based on the testimony of Gregorio Ilusondo, witness for MRR, the TC found that
the whistle of the locomotive was sounded four times — two long and two short —
"as the train was approximately 300 meters from the crossing"; secondly, that
1
 another LTB bus which arrived at the crossing ahead of the one where Cariaga
was a passenger, paid heed to the warning and stopped before the "crossing".
 LTB had the burden of proving that the engineer of the locomotive failed to ring the
bell altogether, in violation of the section 91 of Article 1459, incorporated in the
charter of MRR. However, such burden was not satisfactorily discharged.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Modified as above indicated, the appealed judgement is hereby affirmed in all other respects.

OTHER NOTES

DIGESTER: Sophia Sy