THE SAN PEDRO BUS LINE, PAULINO DE LA CRUZ, AND TEODOLO LACDAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF “THE SAN PEDRO BUS LINE,” PETITIONERS, VS. NICOLAS NAVARRO, AND THE HON. ASSOCIA…

Nicolas Navarro filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal against the San Pedro Bus Line, Paulino de la Cruz and Teodulo
Lacdan, doing business in the name of the San Pedro Bus Line, alleging
that the plaintiff, on April 21, 1949, rode as a passenger in Manila
bound bus No. TPU-7654 owned and operated by the defendants ; that
while on its way the bus collided with another vehicle, causing serious
physical injuries to the plaintiff, with subsequent post-traumatic
psychosis which might incapacitate him for life; that as a result
thereof the plaintiff suffered damages, for actual medical and hospital
expenses and loss of earning power, in the total sum of P4,500 which
the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendants. In their answer
the defendants admitted the occurrence of the accident and the injuries
received by the plaintiff, but disclaimed responsibility for the
accident. After, trial, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground
that there was “no proof whatsoever of the relation of the defendants
San Pedro Bus Line and Paulino de la Cruz with the damages claimed by
the plaintiff.” The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which,
on September 29, 1952, rendered a decision the dispositive part of
which reads as follows: “WHEREFORE, it appearing that the trial court
erred as charged, and that the facts and the law fully warrant a
recovery by the appellant, the judgment appealed from is reversed and
another one is entered, holding the appellees liable, jointly and
severally, to said appellant in the total sum of P9,500, with interests
thereon from the date this action was commenced. Costs are charged
against the appellees.” The defendants have elevated the case by way of
a petition for certiorari.

It is contended for the herein petitioners that they cannot be held
civilly liable to respondent Nicolas Navarro, for the reason that the
Court of First Instance of Rizal had dismissed the criminal charge
against petitioner Paulino de la Cruz, driver of the bus involved in
the accident, citing the case of Martinez vs. Barredo,^[*]
45 Off. Gaz., 4922. In answer to this contention, it is enough to
advert to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals—which is correct—that
the action was not based on tort or quasi delict, but was one for
breach of a carrier’s contract, there being a clear distinction between
culpa as a source and creator of obligations (aquiliana) and culpa in the performance of an already existing obligation (contractual). As already held in the case of Castro vs. Aero Taxicab Co.^[*]
46 Off. Gaz., 2023, “para que prosperase la accion del cjemandante
pidiendo indemnizacion de danos y perjuicios bastaba que probase la
existencia del contrato de pasaje esto es, que tomo el taxi para ser
conducido, y el hechd del choqiie que causo lesiones y daiios en el
pasajero. De acuerdo con la doctrina enunciada, para el exito de la
accion de daiios no era necesario que se probase la culpa, descuido o
negligencia del chofer que guiaba el taximetro No. 962.” The case of
Martinez vs. Barredo is not controlling, since it referred to an action based on criminal negligence.

The other contention of the petitioners is that it was erroneous for
the Court of Appeals to award in favor of respondent Navarro damages in
the amount of P9,500, his claim in the complaint being only for P4,500,
It appears, however, that the complaint prayed for “such further relief
as may be deemed just and equitable,” and this of course warranted the
granting of a judgment in excess of that expressly sought in the
complaint. Indeed, under section 9, Rule 35, of the Rules of Court,
“the judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor
it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such
relief in his pleadings.”

It is also urged by counsel for the petitioners that the finding of
the Court of Appeals that respondent Navarro is insane, is not
supported by any evidence, and that on the other hand, in the motion
for new trial filed by the petitioners, accompanied by the affidavits
of Marcelo Legaspi and Ceferino Terello, respondent Navarro is shown
not to be insane, with the result that there is no basis for awarding
the additional amount of P5,000, However, apart from the fact that the
finding of the Court of Appeals is factual and therefore conclusive,
the said sum was granted by the Court of Appeals, not only for the
resulting insanity of respondent Navarro but for his pain and suffering
in general; and we are not prepared to hold that the award is excessive
as compensation for moral damages.

Wherefore, the decision complained of is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against petitioners.

Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 81 Phil., 1.

^[*] 82 Phil., 359