Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a vehicular accident that occurred on November 2, 1984, when a minibus owned by Mr. and Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr., and driven by their employee Porfirio Cabil, skidded off a slippery, unlit, and unfamiliar road in Lingayen, Pangasinan, while transporting members of the Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. The bus overturned, resulting in injuries to several passengers, most notably Amyline Antonio, who sustained paraplegia and permanent paralysis from the waist down. 2. Procedural History: Following the accident, a criminal complaint was filed against the driver, Porfirio Cabil. Separately, Amyline Antonio filed a civil case for damages against the bus owners, Mr. and Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr., and the driver, Porfirio Cabil. The Regional Trial Court of Makati found the petitioners jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding specific amounts for compensatory, actual, loss of earning capacity, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with modifications to the damage awards, leading to the current petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr., and Porfirio Cabil, seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They challenge the findings of negligence and liability, as well as the extent of the damages awarded. Specifically, they question the propriety and amount of compensatory damages, arguing it is unconscionable and speculative given the victim's employment status and earnings. The petition raises issues concerning whether the petitioners were negligent, whether they are liable for the injuries, and the extent to which damages can be awarded.
Issue(s)
Whether or not petitioners were negligent. Whether or not petitioners were liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent. Whether or not damages can be awarded and, if so, to what extent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications as to the award of damages. Petitioners were ordered to pay jointly and severally to private respondent Amyline Antonio actual damages, loss of earning capacity, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The Court held that the finding of negligence on the part of petitioner Cabil was fully supported by the evidence. Cabil admitted that it was raining, the road was slippery, and it was dark. Despite these conditions and his unfamiliarity with the terrain, he drove at 50 kilometers per hour, only slowing down when he was 15 to 30 meters from a sharp curve. Testimony indicated that vehicles on that portion of the road should only run at 20 kilometers per hour. Therefore, Cabil was found to be grossly negligent. Furthermore, the Court found that the employers, the Fabres, were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee, Porfirio Cabil, as they failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family. Their hiring process, which involved a two-week apprenticeship and testing for irrelevant matters like remembering children's names, did not sufficiently qualify Cabil for long-distance travel, especially considering it was his first such trip. On the issue of liability: The Court affirmed the liability of the petitioners, both the driver and the owners, based on either culpa contractual (breach of contract of carriage) or culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict). As common carriers, the Fabres were held to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safe transportation of passengers. This liability is established by Article 1759 of the Civil Code, which states that common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, even if the employees acted beyond their authority or in violation of orders. This liability is not excused by proving diligence in selection and supervision. The Court also noted that the negligence of the driver and the employers' failure to exercise due diligence in selection and supervision gave rise to the presumption of negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, making them jointly and severally liable. On the issue of damages: The Court sustained the award of damages in favor of Amyline Antonio. While the Court of Appeals increased the compensatory damages, the Supreme Court found the original award of P500,000.00 by the RTC to be reasonable, considering the contingent nature of her income and the possibility of future employment. The Court also found the awards for moral damages (P20,000.00), exemplary damages (P20,000.00), and attorney's fees (25% of the recoverable amount) to be supported by evidence, despite the lack of detailed factual and legal bases in the decisions below. The Court reiterated that moral damages are recoverable in cases of quasi delict under Article 2219(2) and in breach of contract of carriage amounting to bad faith under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2220. Exemplary damages and attorney's fees were also deemed properly awarded. The Court modified the CA's increase of compensatory and moral damages and reduction of attorney's fees, reverting to the RTC's awards, as the private respondents did not appeal these modifications.
Main Doctrine
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, and this liability does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. The owners and drivers of buses may be held jointly and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger.