GR L 13328 29; (September,1961) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-13328-29 and L-13358; September 29, 1961
GONZALO MERCADO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. RAMON LIRA and JUANA C. DE LIRA, respondents. / NITA LIRA, petitioner, vs. GONZALO MERCADO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Gonzalo Mercado and others owned and operated the Laguna Transportation Company. On April 21, 1951, their passenger bus, due to a blown-out tire and overspeeding, swerved off the highway in Calamba, Laguna, and fell into a ravine. The accident resulted in fatalities, including Ramon Lira, Jr., and injuries to passenger Nita Lira. Separate actions for damages were filed by the parents of the deceased (Civil Case No. 104) and by Nita Lira (Civil Case No. 107). The trial court awarded damages in both cases. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the awards, reducing some items but initially granting moral damages to Nita Lira. Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals eliminated the P5,000 moral damages awarded to Nita Lira while maintaining the award of moral damages to the parents of Ramon Lira, Jr. for mental anguish. This prompted petitions for certiorari: one by the Mercados challenging the awards in the death case, and another by Nita Lira contesting the elimination of her moral damages.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether the award of moral damages to the parents of the deceased under Article 2206 of the Civil Code was proper and in the correct amount; and (2) Whether Nita Lira, who suffered physical injuries from the breach of contract of carriage, is entitled to moral damages absent proof of bad faith or fraud on the carrier’s part.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolution. Regarding the death case (G.R. Nos. L-13328-29), the Court held that Article 2206 expressly mandates at least P3,000 as indemnity for death, which is separate from and in addition to damages for loss of earning capacity. Furthermore, paragraph 3 of the same article explicitly allows the deceased’s ascendants to “demand moral damages for mental anguish.” The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that such moral damages should be merely nominal when other substantial damages are awarded, stating that the law grants this right independently. The award of P4,000 as moral damages to the parents was thus sustained.
For the injury case (G.R. No. L-13358), the Court ruled that Nita Lira is not entitled to moral damages. The claim arose from a breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual). Under Article 2220, moral damages in contractual breaches are recoverable only if the defendant acted in bad faith or with fraud or malice. Mere negligence, even if gross, does not automatically equate to the bad faith required by law. The cause of the accident was a blown-out tire coupled with overspeeding, constituting negligence but not the deliberate or wanton wrongdoing necessary to justify moral damages under the contract. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly eliminated the moral damages awarded to her. The decision was affirmed in all respects.