Torts and Damages

1.31.24

Darines v. Quiñones
G.R. No. 206468

Judith D. Darines (Judith) and her daughter, Joyce D. Darines (Joyce) (petitioners) alleged in
their Complaint 4 that on December 31, 2005, they boarded the Amianan Bus Line with Plate
No. ACM 497 and Body No. 808 as paying passengers enroute from Carmen, Rosales,
Pangasinan to Baguio City. Respondent Rolando M. Quitan (Quitan) was driving the bus at that
time. While travelling on Camp 3, Tuba, Benguet along Kennon Road, the bus crashed into a
truck (with Plate No. XSE 578) which was parked on the shoulder of Kennon Road. As a result,
both vehicles were damaged; two passengers of the bus died; and the other passengers,
including petitioners, were injured.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not respondents were liable to pay petitioners a) actual damages representing the
expenses incurred during the dao-is ritual; and, Judith's alleged lost income; b) moral and
exemplary damages; and, c) attorney's fees.
Under UNDER ARTICLES 20, 1157, 1759, 2176, 2180 AND 2219 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

RTC Ruling:
Yes for moral and exemplary damages.

CA Ruling:
The CA held that, since no moral damages was awarded, then there was no basis to grant
exemplary damages. Finally, it ruled that because moral and exemplary damages were not
granted, then the award of attorney's fees must also be deleted.

Petitioners maintain that respondents are liable to pay them moral and exemplary damages
because the proximate cause of their injuries was the reckless driving of Quitan. As
regards Quiñones, his fault is presumed considering that he did not offer proof that he exercised
extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. They added that the
negligence of respondents resulted in the latter's failure to transport them to their destination
thereby constituting a breach of their contract of carriage.

Respondents, on their end, posit that they are not liable to pay moral damages because their
acts were not attended by fraud or bad faith.

SC Ruling:
No, the petitioners cannot be awarded moral and exemplary damages.
First of all, petitioners contend that the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees by the RTC already attained finality because respondents did not dispute such grants when
they appealed to the CA but only the fact that the amounts were exorbitant.
Such contention is without merit.

The Court fully agrees with the CA ruling that in an action for breach of contract, moral damages
may be recovered only when a) death of a passenger results; or b) the carrier was guilty of
fraud and bad faith even if death does not result; and that neither of these circumstances were
present in the case at bar. The CA correctly held that, since no moral damages was awarded
then, there is no basis to grant exemplary damages and attorney's fees to petitioners.

Petitioners propounded on the negligence of respondents, but did not discuss or impute
fraud or bad faith, or such gross negligence which would amount to bad faith, against
respondents. There being neither allegation nor proof that respondents acted in fraud or in bad
faith in performing their duties arising from their contract of carriage, they are then not liable
for moral damages.

Petitioners are not entitled to exemplary damages.

Pursuant to Articles 2229 and 2234 32 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded
only in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Since petitioners
are not entitled to either moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages, then their
claim for.

Sps Dalen v Mitsui

GR No.194403
Respondents were the heirs of those who drowned in the sunk MV vessel.

Based on the records of the case, it was found that Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, a non-resident
corporation, not doing business in the Philippines, was the charterer of MV Sea Prospect while
Diamond Camellia, S.A., another non-resident corporation, not doing business in the
Philippines, and of Panamian registry is the registered owner of the said vessel. 5

On January 1, 1998, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay), the manning agent of the
respondents in the Philippines, hired the

MV Sea Prospect sunk.

Respondents alleged that petitioners who are heirs and beneficiaries of the missing seafarers
received full payment of death benefits based on the employment contract as well as the
International Transport Workers' Federation-Japan Seaman Union — Associated Marine
Officers and Seafarers Union of the Philippines Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
governing the employment of the seafarers.
petitioners filed the complaint for damages against respondents before the Admiralty Court of
Panama. On September 28, 2000, respondent converted the petition for declaratory relief into
an ordinary civil action for breach of contract and damages and prayed for the approval of the
settlement agreement.
RTC decided that the settlement was valid.
SC of panama dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and forum nonconveniens.
the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the
persons of the respondents and prescription of action.
LA found that the action filed by petitioners has already prescribed.(1998 lumubog 2002 lang
nagfile. 3 yrs lang ang prescription ng action.
NLRC dismissed the appeal saying that the claim, even if based on tort was already included
in the quitclaims executed in favor of the respondents.
CA dismissed the petition for certiorari also.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioners' cause of action has prescribed; and
Whether the settlement agreement, receipt and general receipt and release of rights barred
petitioners from filing the complaint.

SC ruling:

Having settled that petitioners may no longer pursue their claim for quasi-delict based on the
grounds discussed above, it is not necessary to consider herein the issue on prescription of
action.
LA has no jurisdiction over the case because the complaint is of quasi-delict and not employer-
employee rel.
2. petitioners still cannot file the complaint with the trial court because the Settlement
Agreement signed by them was valid.
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was
voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and
may not later be disowned simply because of change of mind. It is only where there is clear
proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the
settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable
transaction.

FarEast Bank vs CA
GR No. 108164

private respondent Luis A. Luna applied for, and was accorded, a FAREASTCARD issued by
petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company ("FEBTC") at its Pasig Branch. Upon his request,
the bank also issued a supplemental card to private respondent Clarita S. Luna.
2. Clarita lost her credit card in August 1988.
3. The policy of the bank is to tag the lost card and the master card as "hot card" or "cancelled
card" in its master file.
4. On 06 October 1988, Luis tendered a despedida lunch for a close friend, a Filipino-American,
and another guest at the Bahia Rooftop Restaurant of the Hotel Intercontinental Manila. The
card was not honored and Luis was forced to pay in cash.
In a letter, dated 11 October 1988, private respondent Luis Luna, through counsel, demanded
from FEBTC the payment of damages.

Festejo also sent a letter to the Manager of the Bahia Rooftop Restaurant to assure the latter
that private respondents were "very valued clients" of FEBTC. William Anthony King, Food
and Beverage Manager of the Intercontinental Hotel, wrote back to say that the credibility of
private respondent had never been "in question." A copy of this reply was sent to Luis by
Festejo.

Still evidently feeling aggrieved, private respondents, on 05 December 1988, filed a complaint
for damages with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Pasig against FEBTC.

RTC rendered decision in favor of Luis.

In culpa contractual, moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have
acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the contract.
Concededly, the bank was remiss in indeed neglecting to personally inform Luis of his own
card’s cancellation.

Nothing in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, however, can sufficiently
indicate any deliberate intent on the part of FEBTC to cause harm to private respondents.
Neither could FEBTC's negligence in failing to give personal notice to Luis be considered
so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith.

SC RULING:
The Court finds, therefore, the award of moral damages made by the court a quo, affirmed by
the appellate court, to be inordinate and substantially devoid of legal basis.

Nevertheless, the bank's failure, even perhaps inadvertent, to honor its credit card issued to
private respondent Luis should entitle him to recover a measure of damages sanctioned under
Article 2221 of the Civil Code.Nominal Damages under Art 2221 of the NCC.
Moral and exemplary damages was deleted and ang iaaward lang ay 5k for Nominal
Damges.

Elcano v Hill
GR No. L-24803

the complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor,
married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he
was living and getting subsistence, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs,
named Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said accused was acquitted
on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with
mistake."
Naacquit dito si Reginald Hill.
After due trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal because of "lack
of intent to kill, coupled with mistake." Parenthetically, none of the parties has favored Us
with a copy of the decision of acquittal, presumably because appellants do not dispute that such
indeed was the basis stated in the court's decision.

ISSUE:
Won the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case
wherein the action for civil liability was not reversed.

SC ruling:

No, the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-
delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code be applied against Atty. Hill.

the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is already free from responsibility cannot be upheld.

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327,
Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the marriage of the minor
(child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the
minor is not really full or absolute. Thus "(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession
shall terminate parental authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer
his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber
real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian

GR No. 76093
Sometime in October 1977, private respondent Narciso Morales thru his representative, Ms.
Janet Tolentino, purchased an airline ticket from Aspac Management Corporation, petitioner's
General Sales Agent in Makati.
While in New York, U.S.A. on 3 November 1977, private respondent Morales obtained three (3)
medical certificates (Exhibits G, G-1, G-2) attesting to ear an infection which necessitated
medical treatment. From New York, he flew to Paris, Stockholm and then Copenhagen where
he made representations with the petitioner's office to shorten his trip by deleting some of
the cities in the itinerary.

Respondent Morales was informed that, as a matter of procedure, confirmation of petitioner's

office in Manila (as ticketing office) must be secured before shortening of the route (already paid
for). Air France in Amsterdam telexed AF Manila requesting for rerouting of the passenger to
Amsterdam, Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong, Manila.
Upon arrival in Manila, respondent sent a letter-complaint to Air France dated 20 December
1977 thru Aspac Management Corporation. Respondent Morales was advised to surrender the
unused flight coupons for a refund of its value, but he kept the same and, instead, filed a
complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages.

CFI Judge Marcelino Sayo found Air France in evident bad faith for violation of the contract of
carriage, aggravated by the threatening attitude of its employees in Hamburg.
Considering the social and economic standing of respondent, who is chairman of the board of
directors of a multi-million corporation and a member of several civic and business
organizations, an award of moral and exemplary damages, in addition to the actual damages
incurred, was deemed proper under the circumstances

SC ruling:
Air France Manila acted upon the advise of ASPAC in denying private respondent's request.
There was no evident bad faith when it followed the advise not to authorize rerouting. 15 At
worst, the situation can be considered a case of inadvertence on the part of ASPAC in not
explaining the non-endorsable character of the ticket. Of importance, however, is the fact that
private respondent is a lawyer, and the restriction box 16 clearly indicated the non-endorsable
character of the ticket.