Sanico v. Colipano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Colipano was a paying passenger in a jeepney operated by petitioner Sanico and driven by petitioner Castro. While on an uphill incline, the jeepney slid backward. Colipano, who was seated at the rear entrance/exit on an empty beer case with her sleeping child on her lap, tried to prevent herself and her child from being thrown out. Her foot slipped on the wet step board, got crushed between the step board and a coconut tree, resulting in the amputation of her leg. Procedural History: Colipano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against Sanico and Castro. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sanico and Castro liable for breach of contract of carriage and awarded actual damages and compensatory damages for loss of income. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, reducing the compensatory damages. Sanico and Castro appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners Sanico and Castro assailed the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in finding them liable for breach of contract of carriage, in not giving effect to an Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim, and in the amount of damages awarded.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in finding that Sanico and Castro breached the contract of carriage with Colipano; Whether the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim is binding on Colipano; Whether the CA erred in the amount of damages awarded.
Ruling
The Court partly granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the CA decision as to petitioner Vicente Castro, dismissing the complaint against him for lack of cause of action. As to petitioner Jose Sanico, the CA decision was affirmed with modifications. Sanico was ordered to pay Colipano actual damages, compensatory damages for loss of income, and legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Sanico and Castro breached the contract of carriage: The Court ruled that only Sanico breached the contract of carriage. As the operator and owner of the common carrier, Sanico had a direct contractual relationship with Colipano. Castro, as the driver, was merely an employee and not a party to the contract of carriage, thus, Colipano had no cause of action against him. Sanico, as a common carrier, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in safely transporting passengers, as mandated by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The presumption of fault or negligence arose when Colipano was injured, and Sanico failed to rebut this presumption. The act of making Colipano sit on an empty beer case at the rear entrance/exit, with a child on her lap, exposed her to greater peril, constituting a breach of the contract and contravening the tenor of his obligation under Article 1170 of the Civil Code. The defense of engine failure was also seen as aggravating Sanico's negligence, indicating a lack of regular maintenance. On the binding effect of the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim: The Court held that the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim was void and not binding on Colipano. For a waiver to be valid, it must be clear and unequivocal, and not contrary to law, public policy, morals, good customs, or prejudicial to a third person. The RTC and CA found that Colipano did not understand the English document and that its contents and effects were not explained to her. This factual finding, affirmed by the CA, is entitled to great weight. Upholding such a waiver would dilute the standard of extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, making it offensive to public policy as established in cases like Gatchalian v. Delim. The waiver was therefore void under Article 1409(1) of the Civil Code. On the amount of damages awarded: The Court affirmed the award of actual damages but modified the award for compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity. While the RTC awarded P360,000.00 and the CA reduced it to P200,000.00, the Supreme Court recalculated it. The Court reiterated that testimonial evidence on income is admissible, especially when subjected to cross-examination and believed by the lower courts, citing Heirs of Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano v. Heirs of Irene B. Bien. The Court also noted exceptions to the general rule requiring documentary evidence for loss of earning capacity. However, the CA erred in using Colipano's age at the time of the testimony instead of her age at the time of the injury. Recalculating using Colipano's age of approximately 27 years at the time of the injury (December 25, 1993), the net earning capacity was determined to be P212,000.00. The Court also awarded legal interest on the damages.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is liable for breach of contract of carriage for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence in safely transporting passengers. An affidavit of desistance and release of claim executed by an injured passenger is void if not clearly understood by the passenger and if it contravenes public policy by diluting the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers. The computation for loss of earning capacity must use the age of the injured party at the time of the injury.