Week 2 Case 4 G.R. No. 145804 Flashcards
Moral: physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s
wrongful act for omission. (Article 2217, Civil Code).
They are awarded only to enable
the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusement that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of
the defendant’s culpable action.
Its aim is the restoration within the limits of
the possible the spiritual status quo ante.
Exemplary or Corrective: The Commission further explained
that exemplary damages are required by public policy to suppress
wanton acts. They are antidotes so that the poison of wickedness may
not run through the body politic. (ibid.).
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example
or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. They are designed to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in
its consequence.
Exemplary
or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton
invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty
of outrageous conduct.
Nominal: The allowance of nominal damages is generally based on the
ground that every injury from its very nature legally imports damage,
or that the injury complained of would in the future be evidence in
favor of the wrongdoer, especially where, if continued for a sufficient
length of time, the invasion of the plaintiff’s rights would ripen into
a prescriptive right in favor of the defendant. (22 Am. Jur. 2d 20).
Temperate or Moderate: Temperate or moderate damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may
be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case,
be provided with certainty.
Actual or Compensatory:
Liquidated: Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to
a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. (Article 2226, Civil
Code). Ordinarily, the court cannot change the amount of liquidated
damages agreed upon by the parties. However, Article 2227 of the
Civil Code provides that liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are
iniquitous or unconscionable. In addition, Article 2228 provides that
when the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not
the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated
damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not
the stipulation.
What are the duties of common carriers carrying passengers?
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault, an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.
What was the foundation of LRTA’s liability?
The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
What is the employer’s liability on the tortious actions of its employee?
The premise for an employer’s liability on the tortious actions of its employee is on the negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown.
What is the liability of a common carrier and an independent contractor of the tortious actions of the employee of the independent contractor?
It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
Was the independent contractor, Prudent, liable?
The Supreme Court concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that “there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x.” This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case.
Did Roman, the LRTA employee (driver), have any culpable liability?
No, Roman has no culpable liability. There is no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, thus he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman.
Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence, not in connection to his duties with LRTA.
What was the comment of the Court as to damages?
The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.
