8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 1 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guest540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs. BautistaG.R. No. 41423. February 23, 1989.*LUISJOSEPH,petitioner,vs.HON.CRISPINV.BAUTISTA,PATROCINIOPEREZ,ANTONIOSIOSON,JACINTOPAGARIGAN,ALBERTOCARDENOandLAZARO VILLANUEVA, respondents.Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Cause of Action; When there isonly one delict or wrong, there is only one cause of action regardlessof the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to oneperson.Theargumentthattherearetwocausesofactionembodiedinpetitionerscomplaint,hencethejudgmentonthecompromiseagreementunderthecauseofactionbasedonquasi-delict is not a bar________________* SECOND DIVISION.541VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 541Joseph vs. Bautistato the cause of action for breach of contract of carriage, is untenable.Acauseofactionisunderstoodtobethedelictorwrongfulactoromissioncommittedbythedefendantinviolationoftheprimaryrights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can be8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 2 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestviolativeofvariousrightsatthesametime,aswhentheactconstitutesjuridicallyaviolationofseveralseparateanddistinctlegal obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong,thereisbutasinglecauseofactionregardlessofthenumberofrightsthatmayhavebeenviolatedbelongingtooneperson.Thesingleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict orwrongviolatingtherightsofoneperson.Nevertheless,ifonlyoneinjury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of actionarises.Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoquestionthatthepetitionersustained a single injury on his person. That vested in him a singlecauseofaction,albeitwiththecorrelativerightsofactionagainstthe different respondents through the appropriate remedies allowedby law.CivilLaw;ObligationsandContracts;SolidaryObligation;Payment made by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequentrelease from liability results in the release from liability of the othersolidarydebtors.Therespondentshavingbeenfoundtobesolidarily liable to petitioner, the full payment made by some of thesolidarydebtorsandtheirsubsequentreleasefromanyandallliability to petitioner inevitably resulted in the extinguishment andrelease from liability of the other solidary debtors, including hereinrespondent Patrocinio Perez.APPEAL by certiorari to review the orders of the Court ofFirst Instance of Bulacan, Br. III. Bautista, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Jose M. Castillo for petitioner.ArturoZ.Siosonforprivaterespondent,PatrocinioPerez.CiprianoB.FarralesforprivaterespondentsexceptP. Perez.REGALADO, J.:Petitionerpraysinthisappealbycertiorarifortheannulmentandsettingasideoftheorder,datedJuly8,1975,dismissingpetitionerscomplaint,aswellastheorder,datedAugust22,1975,denyinghismotionforreconsideration of said5428/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 3 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guest542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs. Bautistadismissal,bothissuedbyrespondentJudgeCrispinV.BautistaoftheformerCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,Branch III.Petitioner herein is the plaintiff inCivilCaseNo.50-V-73entitledLuisJosephvs.PatrocinioPerez,DomingoVillaydeJesus,RosarioVargas,AntonioSioson,LazaroVillanuevaandJacintoPagarigan,filedbeforetheCourtof First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, and presided overbyrespondentJudgeCrispinV.Bautista;whileprivaterespondentsPatrocinioPerez,AntonioSioson,JacintoPagariganandLazaroVillanuevaarefourofthedefendantsinsaidcase.DefendantDomingoVillaydeJesusdidnotanswereithertheoriginalortheamendedcomplaint,whiledefendantRosarioVargascouldnotbeservedwithsummons;andrespondentAlbertoCardenoisincludedhereinashewasimpleadedbydefendantPatrocinioPerez,oneofrespondentsherein,inhercross-claim.Thegenerativefactsofthiscase,asculledfromthewritten submission of the parties, are as follows:RespondentPatrocinioPerezistheownerofacargotruck with Plate No. 25-2 YT Phil. 73 for conveying cargoesandpassengersforaconsiderationfromDagupanCitytoManila.OnJanuary12,1973,saidcargotruckdrivenbydefendantDomingoVillawasonitswaytoValenzuela,BulacanfromPangasinan.Petitioner,withacargooflivestock,boardedthecargotruckatDagupanCityafterpayingthesumofP9.00asone-wayfaretoValenzuela,Bulacan.WhilesaidcargotruckwasnegotiatingtheNationalHighwayproceedingtowardsManila,defendantDomingoVillatriedtoovertakeatricyclelikewiseproceeding in the same direction. At about the same time, apick-up truck with Plate No. 45-95 B, supposedly owned byrespondentsAntonioSiosonandJacintoPagarigan,thendrivenbyrespondentLazaroVillanueva,triedtoovertakethe cargo truck which was then in the process of overtakingthe tricycle, thereby forcing the cargo truck to veer towardstheshoulderoftheroadandtoramamangotree.Asaresult,petitionersustainedabonefractureinoneofhis8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 4 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestlegs.1_______________1 Rollo, 5-7, 24-26.543VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 543Joseph vs. BautistaThe following proceedings thereafter took place:2PetitionerfiledacomplaintfordamagesagainstrespondentPatrocinioPerez,asownerofthecargotruck,basedonabreachofcontractofcarriageandagainstrespondentsAntonioSiosonandLazaroVillanueva,asowneranddriver,respectively,ofthepick-uptruck,basedon quasi-delict.RespondentSiosonfiledhisanswerallegingthatheisnotandneverwasanownerofthepick-uptruckandneither would he acquire ownership thereof in the future.OnSeptember24,1973,petitioner,withpriorleaveofcourt, filed his amended complaint impleading respondentsJacintoPagariganandacertainRosarioVargasasadditionalalternativedefendants.Petitionerapparentlycouldnotascertainwhotherealownerofsaidcargotruckwas,whetherrespondentsPatrocinioPerezorRosarioVargas, and who was the real owner of said pick-up truck,whether respondents Antonio Sioson or Jacinto Pagarigan.Respondent Perez filed her amended answer with cross-claimagainstherco-defendantsforindemnityandsubrogationintheeventsheisorderedtopaypetitionersclaim,andthereinimpleadedcross-defendantAlbertoCardeno as additional alternative defendant.On September 27, 1974, respondents Lazaro Villanueva,AlbertoCardeno,AntonioSiosonandJacintoPagarigan,thrutheirinsurer,InsuranceCorporationofthePhilippines, paid petitioners claim for injuries sustained intheamountofP1,300.00.Byreasonthereof,petitionerexecutedareleaseofclaimreleasingfromliabilitythefollowingparties,viz:InsuranceCorporationofthe8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 5 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=GuestPhilippines,AlbertoCardeno,LazaroVillanueva,AntonioSioson and Jacinto Pagarigan.OnDecember2,1974,respondentsLazaroVillanueva,AlbertoCardenoandtheirinsurer,theInsuranceCorporationofthePhilippines,paidrespondentPatrocinioPerez claim for damages to her cargo truck in the amountof P7,420.61.Consequently,respondentsSioson,Pagarigan,CardenoandVillanuevafiledaMotiontoExonerateandExcludeDefs./Crossdefs.AlbertoCardeno,LazaroVillanueva,Antonio Si-_______________2 Ibid., 6-9, 26-27; Petitions Brief, 2.544544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDJoseph vs. BautistaosonandJacintoPagariganontheInstantCase,allegingthatrespondentsCardenoandVillanuevaalreadypaidP7,420.61bywayofdamagestorespondentPerez,andallegingfurtherthatrespondentsCardeno,Villanueva,SiosonandPagariganpaidP1,300.00topetitionerbywayof amicable settlement.Thereafter,respondentPerezfiledherOppositiontoCross-defs. motion dated Dec. 2, 1974 and Counter Motiontodismiss.Theso-calledcountermotiontodismisswaspremisedonthefactthatthereleaseofclaimexecutedbypetitionerinfavoroftheotherrespondentsinuredtothebenefitofrespondentPerez,consideringthatalltherespondents are solidarity liable to herein petitioner.On July 8, 1975, respondent judge issued the questionedorderdismissingthecase,andamotionforthereconsiderationthereofwasdenied.Hence,thisappeal,petitionercontendingthatrespondentjudgeerredindeclaring that the release of claim executed by petitioner infavorofrespondentsSioson,VillanuevaandPagariganinuredtothebenefitofrespondentPerez;ergo,itlikewiseerred in dismissing the case.8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 6 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=GuestWe find the present recourse devoid of merit.Theargumentthattherearetwocausesofactionembodied in petitioners complaint, hence the judgment onthe compromise agreement under the cause of action basedon quasi-delict is not a bar to the cause of action for breachof contract of carriage, is untenable.Acauseofactionisunderstoodtobethedelictorwrongfulactoromissioncommittedbythedefendantinviolationoftheprimaryrightsoftheplaintiff.3Itistruethatasingleactoromissioncanbeviolativeofvariousrightsatthesametime,aswhentheactconstitutesjuridically a violation of several separate and distinct legalobligations.However,wherethereisonlyonedelictorwrong,thereisbutasinglecauseofactionregardlessofthenumberofrightsthatmayhavebeenviolatedbelonging to one person.4The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singlenessofthedelictorwrongviolatingtherightsofoneperson.Never-_______________3 Racoma vs. Fortich, et al., 39 SCRA 520 (1971).4 I Moran, 1979 Ed., 129-130.545VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 545Joseph vs. Bautistatheless,ifonlyoneinjuryresultedfromseveralwrongfulacts,onlyonecauseofactionarises.5Inthecaseatbar,thereisnoquestionthatthepetitionersustainedasingleinjuryonhisperson.Thatvestedinhimasinglecauseofaction,albeitwiththecorrelativerightsofactionagainstthe different respondents through the appropriate remediesallowed by law.Thetrialcourtwas,therefore,correctinholdingthattherewasonlyonecauseofactioninvolvedalthoughthebasesofrecoveryinvokedbypetitioneragainstthedefendants therein were not necessarily identical since therespondentswerenotidenticallycircumstanced.However,8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 7 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestarecoverybythepetitionerunderoneremedynecessarilybarsrecoveryundertheother.This,inessence,istherationalefortheproscriptioninourlawagainstdoublerecoveryforthesameactoromissionwhich,obviously,stemsfromthefundamentalruleagainstunjustenrichment.Thereisnoquestionthattherespondentshereinaresolidarily liable to petitioner. On the evidence presented inthe court below, the trial court found them to be so liable. Itisundisputedthatpetitioner,inhisamendedcomplaint,prayedthatthetrialcourtholdrespondentsjointlyandseverallyliable.Furthermore,theallegationsintheamendedcomplaintclearlyimpleadedrespondentsassolidarydebtors.Wecannotacceptthevacuouscontentionofpetitionerthatsaidallegationsareintendedtoapplyonlyintheeventthatexecutionbeissuedinhisfavor.Thereisnothinginlaworjurisprudencewhichwouldcountenance such a procedure.Therespondentshavingbeenfoundtobesolidarilyliabletopetitioner,thefullpaymentmadebysomeofthesolidary debtors and their subsequent release from any andallliabilitytopetitionerinevitablyresultedintheextinguishmentandreleasefromliabilityoftheothersolidarydebtors,includinghereinrespondentPatrocinioPerez.Theclaimthattherewasanagreemententeredintobetweenthepartiesduringthepre-trialconferencethat,aftersuchpaymentmadebytheotherrespondents,thecaseshallproceedasagainstrespondentPerezisbothincredible and unsub-_______________5 Op. cit., id., 132, 136.546546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDReynoso vs. Court of Appealsstantiated.Thereisnothingintherecordstoshow,eitherbywayofapre-trialorder,minutesoratranscriptofthe8/8/15, 6:31 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 170Page 8 of 8 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4a3c776176a718000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC899/?username=Guestnotes of the alleged pre-trial hearing, that there was indeedsuch as agreement.WHEREFORE,thechallengedordersoftherespondentjudge are hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla,andSarmiento, JJ., concur.Orders affirmed.Note.Acauseofactionisanactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightorrightsoftheother;and its essential elements are a legal right of the plaintiff,correlative obligation of the defendants and act or omissionof the defendant in violation of said legal right. (Santos vs.Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 238.)o0o Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 1 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-HerreraNo. L-32055. February 26, 1988.*REYNALDOBERMUDEZ,SR.,and,ADONITAYABUTBERMUDEZ,petitioners-appellants,vs,HON.JUDGEA.MELENCIO-HERRERA,DOMINGOPONTINOyTACORDAandCORDOVANGSUNKWAN,respondents-appellees.Quasi-Delict; Actions; Damages; Injuredpartyorhisheirshasthechoicebetweenanactiontoenforcecivilliabilityarisingfromcrime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action forquasidelict under Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil Code.lncasesofnegligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice between anaction to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Article100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict underArticle 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, hemay hold the employer solidarily liable for the negligence act of hisemployee,subjecttotheemployer'sdefenseofexerciseofthediligence of a good father of the family.Same;Same;Same;Same;Factthatappellantsreservedtheirright in the criminal case to file an independent civil action did notprecludethemfromchoosingtofileacivilactionforquasi-delict.In the case at bar, the action filed by appellant was an action fordamagesbasedonquasi-delict.Thefactthatappellantsreservedtheirrightinthecriminalcasestofileanindependentcivilactiondid not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.Same;Same;Same;CriminalProcedure;Evenwithoutreservation under Section 2 of Rule ///, Rules of Court, injured partyinacriminalcasewhichresultedintheacquittaloftheaccusedisallowedtorecoverdamagesbasedonquasi-delict.Theappellant8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 2 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=GuestpreciselymadeareservationtofileanindependentcivilactioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection2ofRuleIII,RulesofCourt. In fact, even without such a reservation, we have allowed theinjured party in the criminal case which resulted in the acquittal ofthe accused to recover damages based on quasi-delict.APPEAL from the order of the Court of First Instance ofManila, Br. XVII.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court._______________* SECOND DIVISION.169VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 169Bermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-HerreraYAP, J.:ThisisadirectappealonpurequestionsoflawfromtheOrderofMarch10,1970oftheHonorableJudge(nowSupreme Court Justice) Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera of thedefunctCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchXVII,dismissing plaintiffsappellants' complaint in Civil Case No.77188 entitled "Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr. and Adonita YabutBermudez,plaintiffs,versusDomingoPontinoyTacordaandCordovaNgSunKwan.defendants,"andfromtheOrderofMay7,1970denyingplaintiffsappellants'Motionfor Reconsideration.The background facts of the case are as follows:A cargo truck, driven by Domingo Pontino and owned byCordova Ng Sun Kwan, bumped a jeep on which Rogelio, asixyear old son of plaintiffs-appellants, was riding. The boysustainedinjurieswhichcausedhisdeath.Asaresult,CriminalCaseNo.92944forHomicideThroughRecklessImprudencewasfiledagainstDomingoPontinobytheManilaCityFiscal'sOffice.Plaintiffs-appellantsfiledonJuly27,1969inthesaidcriminalcase "AReservationtoFile Separate Civil Action."8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 3 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=GuestI.II.III.OnJuly28,1969,theplaintiffs-appellantsfiledacivilcase for damages with the Court of First Instance of ManiladocketedasCivilCaseNo.77188,entitled"ReynaldoBermudez,Sr.?etal.,Plaintiffs,vs.DomingoPontinoyTacorda and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, Defendants." Findingthat the plaintiffs instituted the action "on the assumptionthat defendant Pontino's negligence in the accident of May10,1969constitutedaquasi-delict,"thetrialcourtstatedthat plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a"crime" by reserving in the criminal case their right to file aseparate civil action. That being so, the trial court decidedtoorderthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstdefendantCordovaNgSunKwanandtosuspendthehearingofthecase against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal caseforHomicideThroughRecklessImprudenceisfinallyterminated.Fromsaidorder,plaintiffsfiledthepresentappeal, stating as their main reasons the following:ThemainissuebroughtbeforethisHonorableCourtiswhetherthepresentactionisbasedonquasi-delictunderthe Civil Code and therefore could proceed independently ofthe criminal case for homicide170170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-Herrerathru reckless imprudence.The second question of law is whether the lower court couldproperlysuspendthehearingofthecivilactionagainstDomingoPontinoanddismissedthecivilcaseagainsthisemployer Cordova Ng Sun Kwan by reason of the fact that acriminalcaseforhomicidethrurecklessimprudenceispending in the lower court against Domingo Pontino.ThelastquestionoflawiswhetherthesuspensionofthecivilactionagainstDomingoPontinoandthedismissalofthecivilcaseagainsthisemployerCordovaNgSunKwanbyreasonofthependingcriminalcaseagainstDomingoPontino for homicide thru reckless imprudence in the lowercourtcouldbevalidlydoneconsideringthatthecivilcase8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 4 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guestagainstsaiddefendants-appelleesalsosoughttorecoveractual damages to the jeep of plaintiffs-appellants,"We find the appeal meritorious.Theheartoftheissueinvolvedinthepresentcaseiswhether the civil action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants isfounded on crime or on quasi-delict. The trial court treatedthecaseasanactionbasedonacrimeinviewofthereservation made by the offended party in the criminal case(CriminalCaseNo.92944),alsopendingbeforethecourt,to file a separate civil action. Said the trial court:"ItwouldappearthatplaintiffsinstitutedthisactionontheassumptionthatdefendantPontino'snegligenceintheaccidentofMay 10,1969 constituted a quasi-delict. The Court cannot accept thevalidityofthatassumption.InCriminalCaseNo.92944ofthisCourt, plaintiffs had already appeared as complainants. While thatcase was pending, the offended parties reserved the right to instituteaseparatecivilaction.If,inacriminalcase,therighttofileaseparate civil action for damages is reserved, such civil action is tobebasedoncrimeandnotontort.ThatwastherulinginJoaquinvs. Aniceto, L-18719, Oct. 31, 1964."We do not agree. The doctrine in the case cited by the trialcourtisinapplicabletotheinstantcase.InJoaquinvs.Aniceto, the Court held:"The issue in this case is: May an employee's primary civil liabilityforcrimeandhisemployer'ssubsidiaryliabilitythereforbeprovedinaseparatecivilactionevenwhilethecriminalcaseagainsttheemployee is still pending?171VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 171Bermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-HerreraTobeginwith,obligationsarisefromlaw,contract,quasi-contract,crimeandquasi-delict.Accordingtoappellant,heractionisonetoenforcethecivilliabilityarisingfromcrime.Withrespecttoobligations arising from crimes, Article 1161 of the New Civil Codeprovides:8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 5 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest'Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by thepenal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinentprovisionsofChapter2,Preliminary,Title,onHumanRelations,andofTitle XVIII of this book, regulating damages.'x x x xItisnowsettledthatforanemployertobesubsidiarilyliable,thefollowingrequisitesmustbepresent:(1)thatanemployeehascommittedacrimeinthedischargeofhisduties;(2)thatsaidemployee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability; (3) thattheemployerisengagedinsomekindofindustry.(1Padilla,Criminal Law, Revised Penal Code 794 [1964])Withouttheconvictionoftheemployee,theemployercannotbesubsidiarily liable."Incasesofnegligence,theinjuredpartyorhisheirshasthechoicebetweenanactiontoenforcethecivilliabilityarisingfromcrimeunderArticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may holdtheemployersolidarilyliableforthenegligentactofhisemployee,subjecttotheemployer'sdefenseofexerciseofthe diligence of a good father of the family.Inthecaseatbar,theactionfiledbyappellantwasanactionfordamagesbasedonquasi-delict.1Thefactthatappellantsreservedtheirrightinthecriminalcasetofileanindependentcivilactiondidnotprecludethemfromchoosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.The appellants invoke the provisions of Sections 1 and 2of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which provide:"Section1.Institutionofcriminalandcivilaction.Whenacriminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionforrecoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromtheoffensechargedisimpliedlyinstitutedwith the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waivesthe civil_______________1 Appellant's Brief, pp. 20-21.1728/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 6 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDBermudez, Sr. vs. Melencio-Herreraaction or reserves his right to institute it separately."Section 2.Independent civil action.In the cases provided forinArticles31,32,33,34and2177oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,anindependentcivilactionentirelyseparateanddistinctfromthecriminalaction,maybebroughtbytheinjuredparty during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right isreserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action shallproceedindependentlyofthecriminalprosecution,andshallrequire only a preponderance of evidence."Article2177oftheCivilCode,citedinSection2,ofRule111, provides that"Article2177.ResponsibilityforfaultornegligenceundertheprecedingarticleisentirelyseparateanddistinctfromthecivilliabilityarisingfromnegligenceunderthePenalCode.Buttheplaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omissionof the defendant."TheappellantpreciselymadeareservationtofileanindependentcivilactioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection2ofRule111,RulesofCourt.Infact,evenwithoutsuchareservation,wehaveallowedtheinjuredparty in the criminal case which resulted in the acquittal oftheaccusedtorecoverdamagesbasedonquasi-delict.InPeople vs. Ligon, G.R. No. 74041, we held:"However,itdoesnotfollowthatapersonwhoisnotcriminallyliableisalsofreefromcivilliability.Whiletheguiltoftheaccusedinacriminalprosecutionmustbeestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil actionfordamages(Article29,CivilCode).Thejudgmentofacquittalextinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes adeclarationthatthefactsfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedid not exist (Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 559).WHEREFORE,wegrantthepetitionandannulandsetasidetheappealedordersofthetrialcourt,datedMarch10, 1970 and May 7, 1970, and remand the case for furtherproceedings. No costs.SO ORDERED.8/8/15, 6:34 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158Page 7 of 7 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4c0b9a852e1993000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ649/?username=Guest Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. Melencio-Herrera, J., took no part173VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 173Republic vs. BelmontePetition granted, Orders set aside.Note.Righttofileaseparatecivilactionisnotforeclosedbyfactthataccusedonarraignmententeredapleaofguiltyandsentencedtopayafinewhereprivateprosecutorwasnotaffordedchancetopresentevidenceormake a reservation. (Reyes vs. Lempio-Dy, 141 SCRA 208.)o0o Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 1 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestVOL. 23, JUNE 27, 1968 1117Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine IslandsNo. L-24837. June 27, 1968.JULIANC.SINGSONandRAMONADELCASTILLO,plaintiffs, vs. BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDSandSANTIAGOFREIXAS,inhiscapacityasPresidentofthesaid Bank, defendants.Civillaw;Tort;Damages;Existenceofacontractbetweentheparties is not a bar to the commission of a, tort by the one against theother.It has been repeatedly held: that the existence of a contractbetween the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the oneagainst the other and the consequent recovery 01 damages therefor(Cangcov.ManilaRailroad,38Phil.768;Yamadav.ManilaRailroad,33Phil.8;Vasquezv.Borja,74Phil.560).Indeed,thisviewhasbeen,ineffect,reiteratedinacomparativelyrecentcase.Thus,inAirFrancevs.Carrascoso,L-21438,Sept.28,1966,involvinganairplanepassengerwho,despitehisfirst-classticket,hadbeenillegallyoustedfromhisfirst-classaccomodationandcompelledtotakeaseatinthetouristcompartment,washeldentitled to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground oftortonthelatterspart,for,althoughtherelationbetweenapassengerandacarrieriscontractualbothinoriginandnaturethe act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ofManila. Montesa, J.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Gil B. Galang for plaintiffs. Aviado & Aranda for defendants.CONCEPCION, C.J.:8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 2 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestAppealbyplaintiffs,JulianSingsonandhiswife,RamonadelCastillo,fromadecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof Manila dismissing their complaint against de-11181118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSingson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islandsfendantsherein,theBankofthePhilippineIslandsandSantiago Freixas.ItappearsthatSingson,wasoneofthedefendantsinCivil Case No. 23906 of the Court of First Instance, Manila,inwhichjudgmenthadbeenrenderedsentencinghimandhisco-defendantstherein,namely,CelsoLobregatandVilla-Abrille&Co.,topaythesumofP105,539.56totheplaintifftherein,PhilippineMillingCo.SingsonandLobregat had seasonably appealed from said judgment, butnotVilla-Abrille&Co.,asagainstwhichsaidjudgment,accordingly,becamefinalandexecutory.Induecourse,awritofgarnishmentwassubsequentlyservedupontheBank of the Philippine Islandsin which the Singsons hada current accountinsofar as Villa-Abrilles credits againstthe Bank were concerned. What happened thereafter is setforth in the decision appealed from, from which we quote:UponreceiptofthesaidWritofGarnishment,aclerkofthebankin charge of all matters of execution and garnishment, upon readingthenameoftheplaintiffhereininthetitleoftheWritofGarnishmentasapartydefendant,withoutfurtherreadingthebodyofthesaidgarnishmentandinforminghimselfthatsaidgarnishmentwasmerelyintendedforthedepositsofdefendantVilla-Abrille & Co., Valentin Teus, Fernando F. de Villa-Abrille andJoaquin Bona, prepared a letter for the signature of the President oftheBankinformingtheplaintiffJulianC.Singsonofthegarnishmentofhisdepositsbytheplaintiffinthatcase.AnotherletterwasalsopreparedandsignedbythesaidPresidentoftheBank for the Special Sheriff dated April 17, 1963.Subsequently,twochecksissuedbytheplaintiffJulianC.Singson, one for the amount of P383 in favor of B.M. Glass ServicedatedApril16,1963andbearingNo.C-424852,andcheckNo.C-394996fortheamountofP100infavoroftheLegaCorporation,8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 3 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestanddrawnagainstthesaidBank,weredepositedbythesaiddraweeswiththesaidbank.BelievingthattheplaintiffSingson,the drawer of the check, had no more control over the balance of hisdepositsinthesaidbank,thechecksweredishonoredandwererefusedpaymentbythesaidbank.AfterthefirstcheckwasreturnedbythebanktotheB.M.GlassService,thelatterwroteplaintiffJulianC.Singsonaletter,datedApril19,1963,advisinghimthathischeckforP383.00bearingNo.C-424852wasnothonoredbythebankforthereasonthathisaccountthereinhadalready been garnished. The said B.M. Glass Service further statedin the1119VOL. 23, JUNE 27, 1968 1119Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islandssaidletterthattheywereconstrainedtoclosehiscreditaccountwiththem.Inviewthereof,plaintiffJulianC.SingsonwrotethedefendantbankaletteronApril19,1963,claimingthathisnamewasnotincludedintheWritofExecutionandNoticeofGarnishment,whichwasserveduponthebank.ThedefendantPresident Santiago Freixas of the said bank took steps to verify thisinformation and after having confirmed the same, apologized to theplaintiffJulianC.SingsonandwrotehimaletterdatedApril22,1963, requesting him to disregard their letter of April 17, 1963, andthattheactionofgarnishmentfromhisaccounthadalreadybeenremoved. A similar letter was written by the said official of the bankon April 22, 1963 to the Special Sheriff informing him that his letterdatedApril17,1963tothesaidSpecialSheriffwasconsideredcancelledandthattheyhadalreadyremovedtheNoticeofGarnishment from plaintiff Singsons account. Thus, the defendantslostnotimetorectifythemistakethathadbeeninadvertentlycommitted, resulting in the temporary freezing of the account of theplaintiff with the said bank for a short time. xxxxOnMay8,1963,theSingsonscommencedthepresentactionagainsttheBankanditspresident,SantiagoFreixas,fordamages1inconsequenceofsaidillegalfreezing of plaintiffs account.Afterappropriateproceedings,theCourtofFirst8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 4 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=GuestInstanceofManilarenderedjudgmentdismissingthecomplaintuponthegroundthatplaintiffscannotrecoverfromthedefendantsuponthebasisofaquasi-delict,becausetherelationbetweenthepartiesiscontractualinnature; because this case does not fall under Article 2219 ofourCivilCode,uponwhichplaintiffsrely;andbecauseplaintiffshavenotestablishedtheamountofdamagesallegedly sustained by them.Thelowercourtheldthatplaintiffsclaimfordamagescannotbebaseduponatortorquasi-delict,theirrelationwiththedefendantsbeingcontractualinnature.Wehaverepeatedlyheld,however,thattheexistenceofacontractbetweenthepartiesdoesnotbarthecommissionofatortby the one against the order and the consequent recovery____________________1P100,000asmoraldamages,P20,000asexemplarydamages,P20,000asnominaldamages,andP10,000forattorneysfeesandexpenses of litigation, plus the costs.11201120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSingson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islandsofdamagestherefor.2Indeed,thisviewhasbeen,ineffect,reiteratedinacomparativelyrecentcase.Thus,inAirFrancevs.Carrascoso,3involvinganairplanepassengerwho, despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally oustedfrom his first-class accommodation and compelled to take aseatinthetouristcompartment,washeldentitledtorecoverdamagesfromtheair-carrier,uponthegroundoftort on the latters part, for, although the relation betweena passenger and a carrier is contractual both in origin andnature x x x the act that breaks the contract may also be atort.Inview,however,ofthefactsobtaininginthecaseatbar,andconsidering,particularly,thecircumstancethatthewrongdonetotheplaintiffswasremediedassoonasthePresidentofthebankrealizedthemistakeheandhissubordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 5 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=Guestanawardofnominaldamagestheamountofwhichneednotbeproven4inthesumofP1,000,inadditiontoattorneysfeesinthesumofP500,wouldsufficetovindicate plaintiff s rights.5WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyreversed,andanotheroneshallbeenteredsentencingthedefendantBankofthePhilippineIslandstopaytotheplaintiffssaidsumsofP1,000,asnominaldamages,andP500,asattorneysfees,apartfromthecosts.Itissoordered. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur. Fernando, J., took no part.Judgment reversed.Notes.TheprincipleintheSingsoncase,supra,thatthe existence of a contract between the parties does not barthecommissionofatortbytheoneagainsttheotherandthe consequent recovery of damages therefor modifies in______________2 Cangco v. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768; Yamada v. Manila Railroad,33 Phil. 8; Vasquez v. Borja, 74 Phil. 560.3 L-21438, Sept. 28, 1966.4 Ventanilla v. Centeno, L-14333, January 28, 1961.5 Articles 2208 and 2221 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.1121VOL. 23, JUNE 27, 1968 1121Domingo vs. De la Cruzeffect the rule that liability for quasi-delict arises if no pre-existingcontractualrelationbetweenthepartiesexists(Floresv.Miranda,L-12163,March4,1959;Art.2176,N.C.C.).Noteworthytostatehereistherulingthatthedefinitionofquasi-delictinArticle2176ofthenewCivilCodeexpresslyexcludesthecaseswherethereisapre-existingcontractualrelationshipbetweentheparties8/8/15, 6:35 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 023Page 6 of 6 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4d9483bd9b0bd7000a0094004f00ee/p/AMA473/?username=Guest(Verzosav.Baytan,etal,L-14092,April29,1960).Cf.Annotation entitled Recovery of Damages Based on Quasi-delict, 22 SCRA 567!577.______________ Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 1 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestVOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 155Air France vs. CarrascosoNo. L-21438. September 28, 1966.AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs.. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO andthe HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.Commoncarriers;Contracts;Firstclasstickets.Awrittendocumentspeaksauniformlanguage;thespokenwordcouldbenotoriouslyunreliable.Ifonlytoachievestabilityintherelationsbetweenpassengerandaircarrier,adherencetothetermsofaticket is desirable.Same; Damages; Moral damages; Trial; Badfaithinbreachofcontractofcarriage.Whereatthestartofthetrial,respondent'scounselplacedpetitioneronguardthatheintendedtoprovethat,whilesittingintheplaneinBangkok,therespondentwasousted.bypetitioner'smanager,whogavehisseattoawhiteman,andevidenceofbadfaithinthefulfillmentofthecontractwaspresentedwithoutobjectiononthepartofthepetitioner,itisthereforeunnecessarytoinquireastowhetherornotthereissufficientavermentinthecomplainttojustifyanawardformoraldamages.Deficiencyinthecomplaint,ifany,wascuredbytheevidence.Same;Exemplarydamages.TheNewCivilCodegivesthecourtamplepowertograntexemplarydamagesincontractsandquasi-contracts.Theonlyconditionisthatdefendantshouldhaveactedinawanton,fraudulent,reckless,oppressive,ormalevolentmanner.ThemannerofejectmentofrespondentCarrascosofromhis first class seat fits into this legal precept.Same;Attorney'sfees.Therighttoattorney'sfeesisfullyestablished.Thegrantofexemplarydamagesjustifiesasimilarjudgmentforattorney'sfees.Theleastthatcanbesaidisthatthecourts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys fees8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 2 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestbegiven.Wedonotintendtobreaktraditionthatdiscretionwellexercisedas it was hereshould not be disturbed.156156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. CarrascosoPETITIONforreviewbycertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili for petitioner.Bengzon,Villegas&ZarragaforrespondentR.Carrascoso.SANCHEZ, J.:The Court of First Instance of Manila1 sentenced petitionerto' pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way ofmoraldamages;P10,000.00asexemplarydamages;P393.20representingthedifferenceinfarebetweenfirstclassandtouristclassfortheportionofthetripBangkok-Rome,thesevariousamountswithinterestatthelegalrate, from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid;plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit.Onappeal,2theCourtofAppealsslightlyreducedtheamountofrefundonCarrascoso'splaneticketfromP393.20toP383.10,andvotedtoaffirmtheappealeddecision"inallotherrespects'',withcostsagainstpetitioner.The case is now before us for review on certiorari.ThefactsdeclaredbytheCourtofAppealsas"fullysupported by the evidence of record", are:"Plaintiff,acivilengineer,wasamemberofagroupof48Filipinopilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958:OnMarch28,1958,thedefendant,AirFrance,throughitsauthorizedagent,PhilippineAirLines,Inc.,issuedtoplaintiffa'firstclass'roundtripairplaneticketfromManilatoRome.FromManilatoBangkok,plaintifftravelledin'firstclass',butatBangkok,theManagerofthedefendantairlineforcedplaintifftovacatethe'firstclass'seatthathewasoccupyingbecause,inthe8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 3 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestwordsofthewitnessErnestoG.Cuento,therewasa'whiteman',who,theManageralleged,hada'betterright'totheseat.Whenaskedtovacatehis'firstclass'seat,theplaintiff,aswastobeexpected, refused, and_______________1CivilCaseNo.38810,"RafaelCarrascoso,plaintiff,vs.AirFrance,defendant," R.A., pp. 79-80.2C.A.-G.R.No.26522-R,"RafaelCarrascoso,plaintiff-appellee,vs.AirFrance, defendant-appellant."157VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 157Air France vs. Carrascosotolddefendant'sManagerthathisseatwouldbetakenoverhisdeadbody;acommotionensued,and,accordingtosaidErnestoG,Cuento, 'many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the touristclass;whentheyfoundoutthatMr.Carrascosowashavingahotdiscussionwiththewhiteman[manager],theycameallacrosstoMr.CarrascosoandpacifiedMr.Carrascosotogivehisseattothewhiteman'(Transcript,p.12,HearingofMay26,1959);andplaintiff reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat. in the plane."31.Thetrustofthereliefpetitionernowseeksisthatwereview"allthefindings"4ofrespondentCourtofAppeals.Petitionerchargesthatrespondentcourtfailedtomakecompletefindingsoffactonalltheissuesproperlylaidbeforeit.Weareaskedtoconsider-factsfavorabletopetitioner,andthen,tooverturntheappellatecourt'sdecision.Comingintofocusistheconstitutionalmandatethat"Nodecisionshallberenderedbyanycourtofrecordwithoutexpressingthereinclearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthelawonwhichitisbased".5Thisisechoedinthestatutory demand that a judgment determining the meritsofthecaseshallstate"clearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthe law on which it is based" ;6 and that "Every decision ofthe Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of facton all issues properly raised before it".7Adecisionwithabsolutelynothingtosupportitisa8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 4 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestnullity. It is open to direct attack.8 The law, however, solelyinsiststhatadecisionstatethe"essentialultimatefacts"uponwhichthecourt'sconclusionisdrawn,9Acourtofjusticeisnothideboundtowriteinitsdecisioneverybitand piece of evidence10 presented by one party________________3 Appendix A, petitioner's brief, pp. 146-147. See also R.A., pp. 66-67.4 Petitioner's brief, p. 142.5 Section 12, Article VIII, Constitution.6Section1,Rule36,RulesofCourt.SeealsoSection2,Rule120,inreference to judgments in criminal cases.7 Sec. 4, Rule 51; Sec. 33(2), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.8Edwardsvs.McCoy,22Phil.598,601;Yangcovs.CourtofFirstInstance of Manila, et al., 29 Phil. 183, 191.9 Braga vs. Millora, 3) Phil. 458, 465.10 Id.158158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoandtheotherupontheissuesraised.Neitherisittobeburdened with the obligation "to specify in the sentence thefacts" whichaparty"consideredasproved".11 This is but apart of the mental process from which the Court draws theessentialultimatefacts.Adecisionisnottobesocloggedwithdetailssuchthatprolixity,ifnotconfusion,mayresult.SolongasthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealscontains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it isno error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific -findingoffactswithrespecttotheevidenceforthedefense". Because, as this Court well observed, "There is nolaw that so requires".12 Indeed, "the mere failure to specify(inthedecision)thecontentionsoftheappellantandthereasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to holdthe same contrary to the requirements of the provisions oflawandtheConstitution".Itisinthissetting.thatinManigque, it was held that the mere fact that the findings8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 5 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest"werebasedentirelyontheevidencefortheprosecutionwithouttakingintoconsiderationorevenmentioningtheappellant'ssideinthecontroversyasshownbyhisowntestimony",wouldnotvitiatethejudgment.13Ifthecourtdid not recite in the decision the testimony of each witnessfor,oreachitemofevidencepresentedby,thedefeatedparty, it does not mean that the court has overlooked suchtestimony or such item of evidence.14 At any rate, the legalpresumptionsarethatofficialdutyhasbeenregularlyperformed,andthatallthematterswithinanissueinacase were laid before the court and passed upon by it.15Findings of fact, which the Court of Appeals is requiredtomake,maybe*definedas"thewrittenstatementoftheultimate facts as found by the court 'x 'x 'x and essential tosupport the decision and judgment rendered_______________11 Aringo vs. Arena, 14 Phil. 263, 266; emphasis supplied.12 Reyes vs. People, 71 Phil. 598, 600.13 People vs. Manigque, 35 O.G., No. 94, pp. 1682, 1683, citing Section133oftheCodeofCivilProcedureandSection12,Art.VIII,Constitution, supra.14 Badger, et al. vs. Boyd, 65 S.W. (2d), pp. 601, 610.15 Section 5, (m) and (o), Rule 131, Rules of Court*Editor's Note: Should read may be.159VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 159Air France vs. Carrascosothereon".16Theyconsistofthecourt's"conclusions"withrespecttothedeterminativefactsinissue".17Aquestionoflaw, upon the other hand. has been declared as "one whichdoesnotcallforanexaminationoftheprobativevalueofthe evidence presented by the parties."182.Bystatute,"onlyquestionsoflawmayberaised"inanappealbycertiorarifromajudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.19 That judgment is conclusive as to the facts. It isnotappropriatelythebusinessofthisCourttoalterthefacts or to review the questions of fact.208/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 6 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestWiththeseguideposts,wenowfacetheproblemofwhether the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supportits judgment.3.WasCarrascosoentitledtothefirstclassseatheclaims?It is conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 hepaid to and received from petitioner a first class ticket. Butpetitionerassertsthatsaidticketdidnotrepresentthetrue and complete intent and agreement of the parties; thatsaidrespondentknewthathedidnothaveconfirmedreservationsforfirstclassonanyspecificflight,althoughhehadtouristclassprotection;that,accordingly,theissuanceofafirstclassticketwasnoguaranteethathewouldhaveafirstclassride,butthatsuchwoulddependupon the availability of first class seats.ThesearematterswhichpetitionerhasthoroughlypresentedanddiscussedinitsbriefbeforetheCourtofAppealsunderitsthirdassignmentoferror,whichreads:"Thetrialcourterredinfindingthatplaintiffhadconfirmedreservationsfor,andarightto,firstclassseatson the 'definite' segments of his journey, particularly_______________16 In re Good's Estate, 266 P. (2d), pp. 719, 729.17 Badger, et al. vs. Boyd, supra.18 Goduco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17647, February 28, 1964,19 Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court, formerly Section 2, Rule 46 of theRules of Court.20Medel,etal.vs.Calasanz,etal.,L-14835,August31,1960;Astraquillo, et al. vs. Javier, et al., L-20034, January 30, 1965.160160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosothat from Saigon to Beirut".21And,theCourtofAppealsdisposedofthiscontentionthus:"Defendant seems to capitalize on the argument that the issuance of8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 7 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestafirst-classticketwasnoguaranteethatthepassengertowhomthe same had been issued, would be accommodated in the first-classcompartment,forasinthecaseofplaintiffhehadyettomakearrangementsuponarrivalateverystationforthenecessaryfirst-classreservation.Wearenotimpressedbysuchareasoning.Wecannotunderstandhowareputablefirmlikedefendantairplanecompanycouldhavetheindiscretiontogiveoutticketsitnevermeanttohonoratall.Itreceivedthecorrespondingamountinpayment of first-class tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to beatthemercyofitsemployees.Itismoreinkeepingwiththeordinary course of business that the company should know whetheror not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not."22NotthattheCourtofAppealsisalone.Thetrialcourtsimilarly disposed of petitioner's contention, thus:"Onthefactthatplaintiffpaidfor,andwasissueda'First class' ticket, there can be no question. Apart from histestimony,seeplaintiff'sExhibits'A,'A-1','B','B-1','B-2','C' and 'C-1', and defendant's own witness. Rafael Altonaga,confirmed plaintiff's testimony and testified as follows:Q. In these tickets there are marks 'O.K.' From what youknow, what does this O.K. mean?A. That the space is confirmed.Q. Confirmed for first class?A, Yes, 'first class'. (Transcript, p. 169)xxxx"Defendant tried to prove by the testimony of its witnessesLuisZaldariagaandRafaelAltonagathatalthoughplaintiffpaidfor,andwasissueda'firstclass'airplaneticket, the ticket was subject to confirmation in Hongkong.Thecourtcannotgivecredittothetestimonyofsaidwitnesses.Oralevidencecannotprevailoverwrittenevidence.andplaintiffsExhibits'A','A-1','B','B-1''C'and'C-1' belie the testimony of said witnesses, and clearly showthattheplaintiffwasissued,andpaidfor,afirstclassticket without any reservation whatever.Furthermore,ashereinaboveshown,defendant'sownwit-8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 8 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest_______________21 Petitioner's brief in the Court of Appeals, pp, 82-98.22 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Appendix A, petitioner's brief, pp.148-149,161VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 161Air France vs. CarrascosonessRafaelAltonagatestifiedthatthereservationfora'firstclass'accommodationfortheplaintiffwasconfirmed.Thecourtcannotbelievethataftersuchconfirmationdefendanthadaverbalunderstandingwithplaintiffthatthe 'first class' ticket issued to him by defendant wouild besubject to confirmation in Hongkong."23We have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for aslightdifferenceofafewpesosintheamountrefundedonCarrascoso'sticket,thedecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstance was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in all otherrespects.Weholdtheviewthatsuchajudgmentofaffirmancehasmergedthejudgmentofthelowercourt.24Implicit in that affirmance is a determination by the CourtofAppealsthattheproceedingintheCourtofFirtsInstance was free from prejudicial error and "all questionsraisedbytheassignmentsoferrorandallquestionsthatmighthavebeenraisedaretoberegardedasfinallyadjudicatedagainsttheappellant".Soalso,thejudgmentaffirmed"mustberegardedasfreefromallerror".25Wereachedthispolicyconstructionbecausenothinginthedecision of the Court of Appeals on this point would suggestthat its findings of fact are in any way at war with those ofthetrialcourt.NorwassaidaffirmancebytheCourtofAppealsuponagroundorgroundsdifferentfromthosewhichweremadethebasisoftheconclusionsofthetrialcourt.26If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder isnotentitledtoafirstclassset,nothwithstandingthefactthatseatavailabilityinapecificflightsisthereinconfirmed, then an air passenger is placed in the hollow ofthe hands of an airline. What security then can a passenger8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 9 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guesthave? it will always be an easy matter for an airline aidedbyitsemployees,tostrikeouttheverystipulationsintheticket,andsaythattherewasaverbalagreementtothecontrary. What if the passenger hada a_______________23 R.A., pp. 67, 7324 5 B C.J.S., p. 295 ; 3 Am. Jur. 678.25 3 Am. Jur., pp. 677-678.26 See Garcia Valdez vs. Seteraa Tuason, 40 Phil. 943, 951.162162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascososcheduletofulfill?Wehavelonglearnedthat,asarule,awrittendocumentspeaksauniformlanguage;thatspokenwordcouldbenotoriouslyunreliable.Ifonlytoachievestability in the relations between passenger and air carrier,adherencetotheticketsoissuedisdesirable.Suchisthecasehere.Thelowercourtsrefusedtobelievetheoralevidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket.TheforegoingaretheconsiderationswhichpointtotheconclusionthattherearefactsuponwhichtheCourtofAppeals predicated the finding that respondent Carrascosohad a first class ticket and was entitled to a first class seatat Bangkok, which is a stopover in the Saigon to Beirut legoftheflight.27Weperceiveno"welterofdistortionsbytheCourtofAppealsofpetitioner'sstatementofItsposition",aschargedbypetitioner.28Nordowesubscribetopetitioner'saccusationthatrespondentCarrascoso"surreptitiouslytookafirstclassseattoprovokeanissue".29Andthisbecause,aspetitionerstates,CarrascosowenttoseetheManagerathisofficeinBangkok"toconfirm my seat and because from Saigon I) was told againto see the Manager".30 Why, then, was he allowed to take afirst class seat in the plane at Bangkok, if he had no seat?Or, if another had a better right to the seat?4.Petitionerassailsrespondentcourt'sawardofmoraldamages.Petitioner'strenchantclaimisthatCarrascoso's8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 10 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest"3.4.action is planted upon breach of contract; that to authorizean award for moral damages there must be______________27 Carrascosos ticket, according to petitioner (brief, pp. 7-8), shows: Segment or leg Carrier Flight No. Date of Departure1. Manila to Hongkong PAL 300A March 302. Hongkong to Saigon VN(Air Vietnam) 693 March 313. Saigon to Beirut AF (Air France) 245 March 3128 Petitioner's brief, p. 50; see also id., pp. 37 and 46.29 Id., p. 103.30 Ibid., p. 102.163VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 163Air France vs. Carrascosoan averment of fraud or bad 'f aith ;31 and that the decisionof the Court of Appeals fails to make a finding of bad faith.Thepivotalallegationsinthecomplaintbearingonthisissue are:ThatxxxplaintiffenteredintoacontractofaircarriagewiththePhilippineAirLinesforavaluableconsideration,thelatteractingasgeneralagentsforandinbehalfofthedefendant,underwhichsaidcontract,plaintiffwasentitledto,asdefendantagreedtofurnishplaintiff,FirstClasspassageondefendant'splaneduringtheentiredurationofplaintiff'stourofEuropewithHongkongasstartingpointuptoanduntilplaintiffs return trip to Manila, x x x.That,duringthefirsttwolegsofthetripfromHongkongtoSaigonandfromSaigontoBangkok,defendantfurnishedtotheplaintiffFirstClassaccommodationbutonlyafterprotestations,argumentsand/orinsistenceweremadebytheplaintiff with defendant's employees.8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 11 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest5.6.2.That finally, defendant failed to provide First Classpassage, but instead furnished plaintiff only TouristClassaccommodationsfromBangkoktoTeheranand/orCasablanca,xxxtheplaintiffhasbeencompelledbydefendant'semployeestoleavetheFirst Class accommodation berths at Bangkok afterhe was already seated.Thatconsequently,theplaintiff,desiringnorepetitionoftheinconvenienceandembarrassmentsbroughtbydefendant'sbreachofcontractwasforcedtotakeaPanAmericanWorldAirwaysplaneonhisreturntripfromMadridtoManila.32 xxxxxxxxxThatlikewise,asaresultofdefendant'sfailuretofurnishFirstClassaccommodationsaforesaid.plaintiffsufferedinconveniences,embarrassments,andhumiliations,therebycausingplaintiffmentalanguish,seriousanxiety,woundedfeelings,socialhumiliation,andthelikeinjury,resultinginmoraldamages in the amount of P30,000.00."33xxxxTheforegoing,inouropinion,substantiallyaver:First,That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first_______________31 Article 2220, Civil Code reads: "Willful injury to property may be alegalgroundforawardingmoraldamagesifthecourtshouldfindthat,underthecircumstances,suchdamagesarejustlydue.Thesameruleappliestobreachesofcontractwherethedefendantacted'fraudulentlyor in bad faith."32 R.A., p. 2-4; italics supplied.33 R.A., p. 5; second cause of action.164164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascoso8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 12 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestclasspassagecovering,amongstothers,theBangkokTeheranleg;Second,Thatsaidcontractwasbreachedwhenpetitionerfailedtofurnishfirstclasstransportation at Bangkok; and Third, That there was badfaithwhenpetitioner'semployeecompelledCarrascosotoleavehisfirstclassaccommodationberth"afterhewasalreadyseated"andtotakeaseatinthetouristclass,byreasonofwhichhesufferedinconvenience,embarrassmentsandhumiliations,therebycausinghimmentalanguish,seriousanxiety,woundedfeelingsandsocialhumiliation,resultinginmoraldamages.Itistruethatthereisnospecificmentionofthetermbadfaithinthecomplaint.But,theinferenceofbadfaithisthere,itmaybedrawnfromthefactsandcircumstancessetforththerein.34 The contract was averred to establish the relationbetweentheparties.Butthestressoftheactionisputonwrongf ul expulsion.Quiteapartfromtheforegoingisthat(a)rightatthestart of the trial, respondent's counsel placed petitioner onguardonwhatCarrascosointendedtoprove:ThatwhilesittingintheplaneinBangkok,Carrascosowasousted bypetitioner'smanagerwhogavehisseattoawhiteman; 35and(b)evidenceofbadfaith'inthefulfillmentofthecontract was presented without objection on the part of thepetitioner.Itis,therefore,unnecessarytoinquireastowhetherornotthereissufficientavermentinthecomplainttojustifyanawardformoraldamages.Deficiencyinthecomplaint,ifany,wascuredbytheevidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidenceis not even required.36 On the question of bad_______________34 Copeland vs, Dunehoo, et al., 138 S.E., 267, 270. See also 25 C.J.S.,pp. 758-759; 15 Am. Jur., pp. 766-767.35StatementofAttorneyVillegasforrespondentCarrascosoinopencourt, Respondent's brief, p. 33.36Section5,Rule10,RulesofCourt,inpartreads:''SEC.5.Amendmenttoconformtoorauthorizepresentationofevidence.Whenissues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespects,asiftheyhadbeenraisedinthepleadings.Suchamendmentofthepleadingsasmaybe8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 13 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestnecessarytocausethemtoconformtotheevidenceandtoraisetheseissuesmaybemadeuponmotionofanypartyatanytime,evenafterjudgment; but failure so to amend does not affect165VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 165Air France vs. Carrascosofaith, the Court of Appeals declared:"ThattheplaintiffwasforcedoutofhisseatinthefirstclasscompartmentoftheplanebelongingtothedefendantAirFrancewhile at Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not onlywithouthisconsentbutagainsthiswill,hasbeensufficientlyestablishedbyplaintiffinhistestimonybeforethecourt,corroboratedbythecorrespondingentrymadebythepurseroftheplane in his notebook which notation reads as follows:'First-classpassengerwasforcedtogotothetouristclassagainsthiswill, and that the captain refused to intervene',and by the testimony of an eye-witness, Ernesto G. Cuento, whowas a co-passenger. The captain of the plane who was asked by themanagerofdefendantcompanyatBangkoktointerveneevenrefused to do so. It is noteworthy that no one on behalf of defendantevercontradictedordeniedthisevidencefortheplaintiff.Itcouldhave been easy for defendant to present its manager at Bangkok totestifyatthetrialofthecase,oryettosecurehisdisposition;butdefendant did neither.37The Court of Appeals further stated"Neitheristhereevidenceastowhetherornotapriorreservationwasmadebythewhiteman.Hence,iftheemployeesofthedefendantatBangkoksoldafirst-classtickettohimwhenalltheseatshadalreadybeentaken,surelytheplaintiffshouldnothavebeenpickedoutastheonetosuffertheconsequencesandtobesubjected to the humiliation and indignity of being ejected from hisseatinthepresenceofothers.Insteadofexplainingtothewhitemantheimprovidencecommittedbydefendant'semployees,themanager adopted the more drastic step of ousting the plaintiff whowasthensafelyensconscedinhisrightfulseat.Weare8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 14 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Gueststrengthenedinourbeliefthatthisprobablywaswhathappenedthere, by the testimony of defendant's witness Rafael Altonaga who,whenaskedtoexplainthemeaningoftheletters'O.K.'appearingon the tickets of plaintiff, said 'that the space is confirmed' for firstclass.Likewise,ZenaidaFaustino,anotherwitnessfordefendant,whowasthechiefoftheReservationOfficeofdefendant,testifiedas follows:'Q. How does the person in the ticket-issuing office_______________the result of the trial of these issues. 'x x x"; Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, etc., et al.,75 Phil. 672, 679; J.M. Tuason ,& Co., Inc., etc. vs. Bolaos, 95 Phil. 106, 110.37 Decision, Court of Appeals, Appendix A of petitioner's brief, pp, 147-148.166166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoknow what reservation the passenger has arranged with you ?A.Theycallusupbyphoneandaskfortheconfirmation.'(t.s.n.,p.247, June 19, 1959)Inthisconnection,wequotewithapprovalwhatthetrialJudge has said on this point:'Why did the, using the .words of witness Ernesto G. Cuento, 'whiteman'havea'betterright'totheseatoccupiedbyMr.Carrascoso?The record is silent. The defendant airline did not prove 'any better',nay, any right on the part of the 'white man' to the 'First class' seatthattheplaintiffwasoccupyingandforwhichhepaidandwasissued a corresponding 'first class' ticket.'lftherewasajustifiedreasonfortheactionofthedefendant'sManagerinBangkok,thedefendantcouldhaveeasilyprovenitbyhaving taken the testimony of the said Manager by deposition, butdefendantdidnotdoso;thepresumptionisthatevidencewillfullysuppressedwouldbeadverseifproduced[Sec.69,par(e),RulesofCourt];and,underthecircumstances,theCourtisconstrainedtofind,asitdoesfind.thattheManagerofthedefendantairlineinBangkok not merely asked but threatened the plaintiff to throw himout of the plane if he did not give up his 'first class seat because the8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 15 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestsaidManagerwantedtoaccommodate,usingthewordsofthewitness Ernesto G. Cuento, the 'white man'."38ItisreallycorrecttosaythattheCourtofAppealsinthequotedportionfirsttranscribeddidnotusetheterm"badfaith". But can it be doubted that the recital of facts thereinpointstobadfaith?ThemanagernotonlypreventedCarrascosofromenjoyinghisrighttoafirstclassseat;worse, he imposed his arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected himfrom his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having togotothetouristclasscompartmentjusttogivewaytoanotherpassengerwhoserighttheretohasnotbeenestablished.Certainly,thisisbadfaith.Unless,ofcourse,badfaithhasassumedameaningdifferentfromwhatisunderstood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state ofmindaffirmativelyoperatingwithfurtivedesignorwithsome motive of self-_______________38DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,AppendixAofpetitioner'sbrief,pp. 147-151.167VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 167Air France vs. Carrascosointerest or ill will or for ulterior purpose, "39And if the foregoing were not yet sufficient, there is theexpress finding of bad faith in the judgment of the Court ofFirst Instance, thus:"Theevidenceshowsthatdefendantviolateditscontractoftransportationwithplaintiffinbadfaith,withtheaggravatingcircumstancesthatdefendant'sManagerinBangkokwenttotheextentofthreateningtheplaintiffinthepresenceofmanypassengers to have him thrown out of the airplane to give the 'firstclass'seatthathewasoccupyingto,againusingthewordsofthewitnessErnestoG.Cuento,a'whiteman'whomhe(defendant'sManager)wishedtoaccommodate,andthedefendanthasnotproventhatthis'whiteman'hadany'betterright'tooccupythe8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 16 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guest'first class' seat that the plaintiff was occupying, duly paid for, andforwhichthecorresponding'firstclass'ticketwasissuedbythedefendant to him."405.Theresponsibilityofanemployerforthetortiousactofits employees need not be essayed. It is well settled in law.41Forthewillfulmalevolentactofpetitioner'smanager,petitioner,hisemployer,mustanswer.Article21oftheCivil Code says:"ART.21.Anypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherinamannerthatiscontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicy shall compensate the latter for the damage."Inparallelcircumstances,weappliedtheforegoinglegalprecept;and,weheldthatupontheprovisionsofArticle2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable.426. A contract to transport passengers is quite different inkind and degree from any other contractual relation.43 Andthis,becauseoftherelationwhichanair-carriersustainswiththepublic.Itsbusinessismainlywiththetravellingpublic.Itinvitespeopletoavailofthecomfortsandadvantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore,generates a relation attended with_______________39 Words ,& Phrases, Perm. Ed., Vol. 5, p. 13, citing Warfield NaturalGas Co. vs. Allen, 59 S.W. (2d) 534, 538.40 R.A., p. 74; italics supplied.41 Article 2180, Civil Code.42PhilippineRefiningCo.vs.Garcia,etal.,L-21871andL-21962,September 27, 1966.43 See Section 4, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Civil Code.168168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascosoapublicduty.Neglectormalfeasanceofthecarrier'semployees,naturally,couldgivegroundforanactionfordamages.8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 17 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestPassengersdonotcontractmerelyfortransportation.Theyhavearighttobetreatedbythecarriersemployeeswithkindness,respect,courtesyanddueconsideration.Theyareentitledtobeprotectedagainstpersonalmisconduct,injuriouslanguage,indignitiesandabusesfrom such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteousconduct on the part of employees towards a passenger givesthe latter an action for damages against the carrier.44Thus,"Whereasteamshipcompany45hadacceptedapassenger'scheck,itwasabreachofcontractandatort,giving a right of action for its agent in the presence of thirdpersonstofalselynotifyherthatthecheckwasworthlessanddemandpaymentunderthreatofejection,thoughthelanguage used was not insulting and she was not ejected."46Andthis,because,althotherelationofpassengerandcarrieris"contractualbothinoriginandnature"nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be alsoatort".47Andinanothercase,"Whereapassengeronarailroadtrain,whentheconductorcametocollecthisfaretenderedhimthecashfaretoapointwherethetrainwasschedulednottostop,andtoldhimthatassoonasthetrainreachedsuchpointhewouldpaythecashfarefromthat point to destination, there was nothing in the conductofthepassengerwhichjustifiedtheconductorinusinginsultinglanguagetohim,asbycallinghimalunatic."48andtheSupremeCourtofSouthCarolinathereheldthecarrier liable for the mental suffering of said passenger.Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended_______________44 4. R.C.L., pp. 1174-1175.45 An air carrier is a common carrier; and air transportation is similaroranalogoustolandandwatertransportation.Mendozavs.PhilippineAir Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 841-842.46 Austro-American S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 F. 231.47 Id., p. 233.48 Lipman vs. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 93 S.E. 714, 716.169VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 28, 1966 1698/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 18 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestAir France vs. Carrascosowithpublicduty.ThestressofCarrascoso'sactionaswehave said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is aviolation of public duty by the petitioner air carriera caseof quasi-delict. Damages are proper.7.PetitionerdrawsourattentiontorespondentCarrascoso's testimony, thus"Q. You mentioned about an attendant. Who is thatattendant and purser?A. When we left alreadythat was already in the tripIcould not help it. So one of the flight attendantsapproached me and requested 'f rom me my ticket andI said, What for? and she said, "We will note that youtransferred to the tourist class'. I said, 'Nothing ofthat kind. That is tantamount to acc epting mytransfer.' And I also said, 'You are not going to noteanything there because I am protesting to thistransfer'.Q. Was she able to note it?A. No, because I) did not give my ticket.Q. About that purser ?A. Well, the seats there are so close that you feeluncomfortable and you don't have enough leg room, Istood up and I went to the pantry that was next to meand the purser was there. He told me, 'I have recordedthe incident in my notebook.' He read it andtranslated it to mebecause it was recorded inFrench'First class passenger was forced to go to thetourist class against his will, and that the captainrefused to intervene.'Mr. VALTE'I move to strike out the last part of the testimony ofthe witness because the best evidence would be thenotes. Your Honor.COURT'I will allow that as part of his testimony."49Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of Appeals8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 19 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestthatthepursermadeanentryinhisnotebookreading"Firstclasspassengerwasforcedtogotothetouristclassagainst his will, and that the captain ref used to interveneis predicated upon evidence [Carrascoso's testimony above]which is incompetent. We do not think_______________49 Petitioner's brief, pp. 104-105.170170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAir France vs. Carrascososo.Thesubjectofinquiryisnottheentry,buttheousterincident.Testimonyontheentrydoesnotcomewithintheproscriptionofthebestevidencerule.Suchtestimonyisadmissible.49aBesides,fromareadingofthetranscriptjustquoted,whenthedialoguehappened,theimpactofthestartlingoccurrencewasstillfreshandcontinuedtobefelt.Theexcitementhadnotasyetdieddown,Statementsthen,inthis environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae.50For,theygrow"outofthenervousexcitementandmentaland physical condition of the declarant".51 The utterance ofthepurserregardinghisentryinthenotebookwasspontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ousterincident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed.52 It thusescapestheoperationofthehearsayrule.Itformspartofthe res gestae.Atallevents,theentrywasmadeoutsidethePhilippines.And,byanemployeeofpetitioner.ItwouldhavebeenaneasymatterforpetitionertohavecontradictedCarrascoso'stestimony.Ifitwerereallytruethatnosuchentrywasmade,thedepositionofthepursercould have cleared up the matter.We,therefore,holdthatthetranscribedtestimonyofCarrascoso is admissible in evidence.8. Exemplary damages are well awarded. The Civil Codegivesthecourtamplepowertograntexemplarydamages.incontractsandquasi-contracts.Theonlyconditionis8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 20 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=Guestthat defendant should have "acted in a wanton, fraudulent,reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner".53ThemannerofejectmentofrespondentCarrascosofromhisfirstclassseatfitsintothislegalprecept.Andthis,inadditiontomoral damages.549. The right to attorney's fees is fully established. The_______________49a V Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 ed., p. 76.50 Section 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court.51 IV Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines/ 1963 ed., 324.52 Ibid.53 Article 2232, Civil Code.54 Article 2229, Civil Code.171VOL. 18, SEPTEMBER 29, 1966 171Mercy's Inc. vs. Verdegrantofexemplarydamagesjustifiesasimilarjudgmentforattorneys'fees.Theleastthatcanbesaidisthatthecourtsbelowfeltthatitisbutjustandequitablethatattorneys'feesbegiven.55Wedonotintendtobreakfaithwith the tradition that discretion well exercisedas it washereshould not be disturbed.10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed byboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals,thus:P25,000.00asmoraldamages;P10,000.00,bywayofexemplarydamages,andP3,000.00asattorneys'fees.Thetaskoffixingtheseamountsisprimarilywiththetrialcourt.56TheCourtofAppealsdidnotinterferewiththesame.Thedictatesofgoodsensesuggestthatwegiveourimprimaturthereto.Because,thefactsandcircumstancespoint to the reasonableness thereof.57Onbalance,wesaythatthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsdoesnotsufferfromreversibleerror.Weaccordinglyvotetoaffirmthesame.Costsagainstpetitioner. So ordered,Concepcion,C.J.,Reyes,J.B.L.,Barrera,Dizon,8/8/15, 6:36 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018Page 21 of 21 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4e7adf314410dd000a0094004f00ee/p/AMG863/?username=GuestRegala. Makalintal, Zaldivar and Castro. JJ. concur. Bengzon, J.P., J., did not take part.Decision affirmed.Note.See Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Cuenca, L-22424,Aug.31,1965andtheannotationunderLopezvs.PanAmericanWorldAirways,L-22415,March30,1966,16Supreme Court Reports Annotated 431, 445.______________ Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 1 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeopleG.R. No. 129029. April 3, 2000.*RAFAELREYESTRUCKINGCORPORATION, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ROSARIO P. DY(forherselfandonbehalfoftheminorsMariaLuisa,FrancisEdward,FrancisMarkandFrancisRafael,allsurnamed Dy), respondents.Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; Innegligencecases,thesameactoromissioncancreatetwokindsofliabilityonthepartoftheoffender,thatis,civilliabilityexdelicto,andcivilliabilityquasidelictobuttheoffendedpartycannotrecoverdamagesunderbothtypes of liability.In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has thechoicebetween(1)anactiontoenforcecivilliabilityarisingfromcrimeunderArticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode;and(2)aseparate action for quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil CodeofthePhilippines.Oncethechoiceismade,theinjuredpartycannotavailhimselfofanyotherremedybecausehemaynotrecoverdamagestwiceforthesamenegligentactoromissionoftheaccused.Thisistheruleagainstdoublerecovery.Inotherwords,thesameactoromissioncancreatetwokindsofliabilityonthepartoftheoffender,thatis,civilliabilityexdelicto,andcivilliability quasi delicto either of which may be enforced against theculprit,subjecttothecaveatunderArticle2177oftheCivilCodethattheoffendedpartycannotrecoverdamagesunderbothtypesof liability._______________* EN BANC.8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 2 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest601VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 601Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeopleSame;Same;Same;Vicariousliabilityoftheemployeeisfounded in Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Codeand on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code; Under Article 2176 theliability of the employer for the negligent conduct of the subordinateisdirectandprimary,subjecttothedefenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheemployee;Enforcementofthejudgmentagainsttheemployerdoesnotrequiretheemployeetobeinsolvent since the nature of the liability of the employer with that ofthe employee, the two being statutorily considered joint tortfeasors, issolidary.PrivaterespondentssuedpetitionerRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,astheemployeroftheaccused,tobevicariously liable for the fault or negligence of the latter. Under thelaw,thisvicariousliabilityoftheemployerisfoundedonatleasttwo specific provisions of law. The first is expressed in Article 2176inrelationtoArticle2180oftheCivilCode,whichwouldallowanactionpredicatedonquasi-delicttobeinstitutedbytheinjuredpartyagainsttheemployerforanactoromissionoftheemployeeandwouldnecessitateonlyapreponderanceofevidencetoprevail.Here,theliabilityoftheemployerforthenegligentconductofthesubordinateisdirectandprimary,subjecttothedefenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheemployee.Theenforcementofthejudgmentagainsttheemployerinanactionbased on Article 2176 does not require the employee to be insolventsincethenatureoftheliabilityoftheemployerwiththatoftheemployee,thetwobeingstatutorilyconsideredjointtortfeasors,issolidary. The second, predicated on Article 103 of the Revised PenalCode,providesthatanemployermaybeheldsubsidiarilycivillyliable for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of hisduty.Thisliabilityattacheswhentheemployeeisconvictedofacrimedoneintheperformanceofhisworkandisfoundtobeinsolventthatrendershimunabletoproperlyrespondtothecivilliability adjudged.Same; Same; Same; Reservation of the right to file the separatecivilactionwaivesotheravailablecivilactionspredicatedonthe8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 3 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestsameactoromissionoftheaccused-driver.PursuanttotheprovisionofRule111,Section1,paragraph3ofthe1985RulesonCriminal Procedure, when private respondents, as complainants inthecriminalaction,reservedtherighttofiletheseparatecivilaction,theywaivedotheravailablecivilactionspredicatedonthesameactoromissionoftheaccused-driver.SuchcivilactionincludestherecoveryofindemnityundertheRevisedPenalCode,and damages under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code of thePhilippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.602602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeopleSame; Same; Same; Award of damages in the criminal case wasimproperbecausethecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilitywaswaivedinthecriminalactionbythefilingofaseparatecivilactionagainsttheemployer.Withregardtothesecondissue,theawardofdamagesinthecriminalcasewasimproperbecausethecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilitywaswaivedinthecriminalactionbythefilingofaseparatecivilactionagainsttheemployer.AsenunciatedinRamosvs.Gonong,civilindemnityisnotpartofthepenaltyforthecrimecommitted.TheonlyissuebroughtbeforethetrialcourtinthecriminalactioniswhetheraccusedRomeoDuncaydeTumolisguiltyofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicideanddamagetoproperty.Theactionforrecoveryofcivilliabilityisnotincludedtherein,butiscoveredbytheseparatecivilactionfiledagainstthepetitionerasemployerofthe accused truckdriver.CriminalLaw;Information;Penalty;NooffenseofDoubleHomicide Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the MotorVehicleLawundertheRevisedPenalCode;Inrecklessimprudencecases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation totheindividualwillfulcrimeorcrimescommitted,butissetinrelationtoawholeclass,orseriesofcrimes.Parenthetically,thetrial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecrimeofDoubleHomicideThroughRecklessImprudencewithviolation of the Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136). There is nosuchnomenclatureofanoffenseundertheRevisedPenalCode.8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 4 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=GuestThus,thetrialcourtwasmisledtosentencetheaccusedtosuffertwo (2) indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one (1) day ofarresto mayor,asminimum,tothree(3)years,six(6)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Thisiserroneous because in reckless imprudence cases, the actual penaltyforcriminalnegligencebearsnorelationtotheindividualwillfulcrime or crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole class, orseries of crimes.VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:CivilLaw;Negligence;Damages;NotwithstandingtheindependentnatureofcivilactionsfallingunderArticles32,33,34and 2176 of the Civil Code, the right to institute the action must stillhavetobereserved.IntherecentlydecidedcaseofSanIldefonsoLines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the Supreme Court has ruledthat, notwithstanding the independent nature of civil actions falling603VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 603Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeopleunderArticles32,33,34and2176oftheCivilCode,therighttoinstitutetheactionmuststillhavetobereserved.InthesternwordsoftheCourt:Thepastpronouncementsthatviewthereservationrequirementasanunauthorizedamendmenttosubstantivelaw,i.e.,theCivilCode,shouldnolongerbecontrolling.Same;Same;Same;Therequirementofreservationisnotincompatiblewiththedistinctandseparatecharacterofindependentcivilactions.InManiagovs.CourtofAppeals,theCourthassaidthattherequirementofreservationisnotincompatiblewiththedistinctandseparatecharacterofindependent civil actions. Indeed, there is no incongruence betweenallowingthetrialofcivilactionstoproceedindependentlyofthecriminalprosecutionandmandatingthat,beforesoproceeding,areservation to do so should first be made.Same;Same;Same;Reservationshouldbemadeatthe8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 5 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestinstitutionofthecriminalcase.Thecivilactionisdeemedinstitutedtogetherwiththecriminalcaseexceptwhenthecivilactionisreserved.Thereservationshouldbemadeattheinstitutionofthecriminalcase.Inindependentcivilactions,notbeingdependentopthecriminalcase,suchreservationwouldberequired not for preserving the cause of action but in order to allowthecivilactiontoproceedseparatelyfromthecriminalcaseininterestofgoodorderandprocedure.Indeed,independentcivilactionsalreadyfiledandpendingmaystillbesoughttobeconsolidated in the criminal case before final judgment is renderedinthelattercase.Whennocriminalproceedingsareinstituted,aseparatecivilactionmaybebroughttodemandthecivilliability,and a preponderance of evidence is sufficient to warrant a favorablejudgment therefor. The same rule applies if the information were tobe dismissed upon motion of the fiscal.MENDOZA, J., Dissenting Opinion:Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; The reservation of the right tofile a separate civil action ex delicto against the driver was a waiverof the offended parties right to institute a civil action based on quasidelict against petitioner.Following Rule 111, 1, the reservation ofthe right to file a separate civil action ex deliotoagainstthedriverwas a waiver of the offended parties right to institute a civil actionbased on quasi delict against petitioner. The filing of Civil Case No.Br. 19-424 against petitioner was, therefore, without basis, and its604604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. Peopledismissal by the trial court in its decision was in order. On the otherhand,astheoffendedpartieshadwithdrawntheirreservationoftherighttofileaseparatecivilactionagainstthedriversothattheycanpursuetheiractioninthecriminalcase,thetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedpetitionerssubsidiarycivilliabilityforitsdrivers negligence in the criminal case.Same;Same;Same;Theawardofdamagesbythetrialcourt8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 6 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guestsimplyconstitutesanerrorofjudgment.Evenassumingthattheright of the offended parties to recover damages ex delicto had beenwaived,theawardofsuchdamagesbythetrialcourtsimplyconstitutesanerrorofjudgment.Hence,theawardofdamagesexdelictototheoffendedpartiesisnotvoidandisnowfinal.TheCourt has not only set aside a final disposition by declaring it void;ithaslikewiseorderedthereopeningofacasealreadydismissedwith finality on the simplistic reasoning that rules of procedure mayberelaxedinordertopromotetheirobjectivesandassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,speedy,andinexpensivedeterminationofevery action or proceedings. There is no reason for doing so in thiscasesince,asalreadystated,allthepartieshereinhadbeendulyheard before the trial court rendered its decision.PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Perpetuo G. Paner for petitioner. Law Firm of Reyes, Martinez & Associates for privaterespondents.PARDO, J.:Thecaseisanappealviacertiorarifromtheamendeddecision1oftheCourtofAppeals2affirmingthedecisionand supplemental decision of the trial court,3 as follows:_________________1 In CA-G.R. CR No. 14448, promulgated on January 6, 1997.2Ibay-Somera,J.,ponente,Lipana-ReyesandVasquez,JJ.,concurring.3DatedJune6,1992,andOctober26,1992,respectively,inConsolidated Criminal Case No. Br. 19-311 and Civil Case No. Br.605VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 605Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeopleINVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,judgmentisherebyrendereddismissingtheappealsinterposedbybothaccusedandReyes8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 7 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=GuestTrucking Corporation and affirming the Decision and SupplementalDecision dated June 6, 1992 and October 26, 1992 respectively.SO ORDERED.4The facts are as follows:OnOctober10,1989,ProvincialProsecutorPatricioT.DurianofIsabelafiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Isabela,Branch19,CauayananamendedinformationchargingRomeoDuncaydeTumolwithrecklessimprudenceresultingindoublehomicideanddamagetoproperty, reading as follows:That on or about the 20th day of June, 1989, in the Municipality ofCauayan,ProvinceofIsabela,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccusedbeingthedriver and person-in-charge of a Trailer Truck Tractor bearing PlateNo.N2A-867registeredinthenameofRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,withaloadof2,000casesofemptybottlesofbeergrande, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drove and operated thesamewhilealongtheNationalHighwayofBarangayTagaran,insaidMunicipality,inanegligent,carelessandimprudentmanner,withoutdueregardtotrafficlaws,rulesandordinancesandwithouttakingthenecessaryprecautionstopreventinjuriestopersonsanddamagetoproperty,causingbysuchnegligence,carelessness and imprudence the said trailer truck to hit and bumpaNissanPick-upbearingPlateNo.BBG-957drivenbyFelicianoBalcita and Francisco Dy, Jr., @ Pacquing, due to irreversible shock,internalandexternalhemorrhageandmultipleinjuries,openwounds,abrasions,andfurthercausingdamagestotheheirsofFeliciano Balcita in the amount of P100,000.00 and to the death ofFranciscoDy,Jr.;@PacquinganddamagestohisNissanPick-Upbearing Plate No. BBG-957 in the total amount of P2,000,000.00.CONTRARY TO LAW.Cauayan, Isabela, October 10, 1989._____________19-424,RegionalTrialCourt,Cauayan,Isabela,JudgeArtemioR.Alivia, presiding.4 Rollo, pp. 35-43.6068/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 8 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. People(Sgd.) FAUSTO C. CABANTACThird Assistant Provincial ProsecutorUponarraignmentonOctober23,1989,theaccusedenteredapleaofnotguilty.Onthesameoccasion,theoffendedparties(RosarioP.DyandminorchildrenandAngelinaM.BalcitaandminorsonPaolo)madeareservationtofileaseparatecivilactionagainsttheaccusedarisingfromtheoffencecharged.5OnNovember29,1989,theoffendedpartiesactuallyfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Isabela,Branch19,CauayanacomplaintagainstpetitionerRafaelReyesTruckingCorporation,asemployerofdriverRomeoDuncaydeTumol,basedonquasidelict.ThepetitionersettledtheclaimoftheheirsofFelicianoBalcita(thedriveroftheothervehicleinvolvedintheaccident).Theprivaterespondents opted to pursue the criminal action but did notwithdrawthecivilcasequasiexdelictotheyfiledagainstpetitioner.OnDecember15,1989,privaterespondentswithdrewthereservationtofileaseparatecivilactionagainsttheaccusedandmanifestedthattheywouldprosecute the civil aspect ex delicto in the criminal action.6However,theydidnotwithdrawtheseparatecivilactionbased on quasi delict against petitioner as employer arisingfrom the same act or omission of the accused driver.7Uponagreementoftheparties,thetrialcourtconsolidated both criminal and civil cases and conducted ajoint trial of the same.The facts, as found by the trial court, which appear to beundisputed, are as follows:ThedefendantRafaelReyesTruckingCorporationisadomesticcorporationengagedinthebusinessoftransportingbeerproductsfortheSanMiguelCorporation(SMCforshort)fromthelattersSanFernando,PampangaplanttoitsvarioussalesoutletsinLuzon. Among its fleets of vehicles for hire is the white truck trailerde-_______________8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 9 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest5 See Manifestation, Rollo, p. 55.6 Ibid., pp. 55-56.7 Civil Case No. Br. 19-424.607VOL. 329, APRIL 3, 2000 607Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. PeoplescribedabovedrivenbyRomeoDuncayTumol,adulylicenseddriver. Aside from the Corporations memorandum to all its driversandhelperstophysicallyinspecttheirvehiclesbeforeeachtrip(Exh.15,pars.4&5),theSMCsTrafficInvestigator-InspectorcertifiedtheroadworthinessofthisWhiteTrucktrailerpriortoJune20,1989(Exh.17).Inadditiontoaprofessionaldriverslicense, it also conducts a rigid examination of all driver applicantsbefore they are hired.IntheearlymorningofJune20,1989,theWhiteTruckdrivenbyDuncaleftTuguegarao,CagayanboundtoSanFernando,Pampanga loaded with 2,000 cases of empty beer Grande bottles.SeatedatthefrontrightseatbesidehimwasFerdinandDomingo,histruckhelper(pahinanteinPilipino).Ataround4:00oclockthatsamemorningwhilethetruckwasdescendingataslightdowngrade along the national road at Tagaran, Cauayan, Isabela, itapproached a damaged portion of the road covering the full width ofthetrucksrightlanegoingsouthandaboutsixmetersinlength.Thesemadethesurfaceoftheroadunevenbecausethepotholeswereaboutfivetosixinchesdeep.Theleftlaneparalleltothisdamagedportionissmooth.AsnarratedbyFerdinandDomingo,before approaching the potholes, he and Dunca saw the Nissan withitsheadlightsoncomingfromtheoppositedirection.Theyusedtoevadethisdamagedroadbytakingtheleftlancebutatthatparticular moment, because of the incoming vehicle, they had to runover it. This caused the truck to bounce wildly. Dunca lost control ofthewheelsandthetruckswervedtotheleftinvadingthelaneoftheNissan.Asaresult,DuncasvehiclerammedtheincomingNissandraggingittotheleftshoulderoftheroadandclimbedaridge above said shoulder where it finally stopped, (see Exh. A-5, p.8,record).TheNissanwasseverelydamaged(Exhs.A-7,A-8,A-9andA-14,pp.9-11,record),anditstwopassengers,namely:FelicianoBalcitaandFranciscoDy,Jr.diedinstantly(Exh.A-19)from external and internal hemorrhage and multiple fractures (pp.8/8/15, 6:37 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 329Page 10 of 43 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a4f461d3dcaaea4000a0094004f00ee/p/ALB773/?username=Guest15 and 16, record).ForthefuneralexpensesofFranciscoDy,Jr.herwidowspentP651,360.00 (Exh. 1-3). At the time of his death he was 45 years old.HewasthePresidentandChairmanoftheBoardoftheDynamicWoodProductsandDevelopmentCorporation(DWPC),awoodprocessing establishment, from which he was receiving an income ofP10,000.00 a month (Exh. D). In the Articles of Incorporation of theDWPC, the spouses Francisco Dy, Jr. and Rosario Perez Dy appeartobestockholdersof10,000shareseachwithparvalueofP100.00per share out of its outstanding and subscribed capital stock of608608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDRafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. People60,000sharesvaluedatP6,000,000.00(Exhs.K-1&10-B).Underits 1988 Income Tax Returns (Exh. J) the DWPC had a taxable netincomeofP78,499.30(Exh.J).FranciscoDy,Jr.wasaLaSalleUniversitygraduateinBusinessAdministration,pastpresidentofthePasayJaycees,NationalTreasurerandPresidentofthePhilippineJayceesin1971and1976,respectively,andWorldVicePresidentofJayceesInternationalin1979.Hewas