JOSE SON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CEBU AUTOBUS COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The plaintiff, Jose Son, instituted in the Court of First Instance
of Cebu an action seeking to recover from the defendant, Cebu Autobus
Company, damages in the total sum of P2,660, alleged to have been
suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the fact that the defendant’s
TPTJ truck No. 312 fell into a canal in the barrio of Macaas,
municipality of Catmon, Cebu, on September 18, 1948, due to a defect of
its engine or to the negligence of its driver, the plaintiff (then a
passenger of the vehicle) having received serious injuries and two of
his hogs (loaded therein) having been killed. The defense set up by the
defendant is that the accident was caused by events which were
unforeseen or, even if foreseen, were inevitable. After trial the court
rendered a decision, sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff
the sum of P2,000 as moral damages, and the sum of P286.80 as
plaintiff’s actual expenses, together with his loss and unrealized
profit in connection with the seven hogs loaded by the plaintiff in
defendant’s truck. From this decision the defendant has appealed.

As the defendant has elevated the case directly to this Court on
questions of law, we are bound by the findings of fact contained in the
appealed decision. We quote hereunder the conclusions pertinent to and
decisive of the present appeal:

“The evidence adduced conclusively shows that
TPU-Truck No. 312 of the defendant Cebu Autobus Company left Cebu City
on September 17, 1948, at about 10:00 a.m. bound for Maya, municipality
of Daan Bantayan, Cebu Province, arriving in the latter place at about
5:00 p.m. of the same day. It passed the night in Maya. It left Maya,
Daan Bantayan, Oebu, on its return trip to Cebu City at about 4:00
a.m., September 18, 1948, without having been inspected or examined by
the mechanic. The plaintiff boarded defendant’s truck in barrio Maya,
Daan Bantayan, Cebu, and loaded seven hogs for his home at Yati,
Liloan, Cebu, paying the usual fare and freight. The plaintiff did not
reach his destination safely, because the truck of the defendant fell
into a canal at kilometer No. 56, barrio of Macaas, municipality of
Catmon, Cebu. He was pinned down or pressed by the truck on September
18, 1948, and, as a consequence, he suffered complete fractures on his
pelvic bone. Because of the shock and pain he lost his consciousness
for sometime. He was brought to his house at Yati, municipality of
Liloan, Cebu, unconscious on board another truck. Later, on the same
day, he was brought in a special wagon to the City of Cebu, and was
confined in the Velez Clinic for fourteen days, from September 18,
1948, to October 2, 1948. On October 2, 1948, the plaintiff went out of
the Velez Clinic, but according to Dr. Jacinto Velez, physician and
proprietor of the Velez Clinic, “the plaintiff needed 60 days more of
treatment and rest before he could resume his former habitual work,
inasmuch as he suffered complete fractures on his pelvic bone.

“The
evidence further shows that two hogs of the plaintiff loaded on TPU
Truck No. 312 of the defendant on September 18, 1948 died when the said
truck fell into a canal at Macaas, Catmon, Cebu.

* * * * * * *

“The theory of the defendant is that the accident
was unforeseen, or even if foreseen, was inevitable. This theory cannot
be sustained. Whether the accident was caused by the defect of the
engine of the truck of the defendant, or by the negligence of the
driver, or by the breakage of the drag-link spring, the defendant is
civilly liable to the plaintiff for the damages suffered by him. The
evidence shows that the drag-link spring of the truck in question was
not inspected or examined when it left Maya, Daan Bantayan, Cebu, on
September 1, 1948, for Cebu City. If it were inspected or examined, the
accident might have been avoided. The plaintiff had no means of
avoiding the danger or escaping the injury. When he boarded at dawn of
September 18, 1948, in Maya, Daan Bantayan, Cebu, defendant’s TPU Truck
No. 312, bound for his home at Yati Liloan, Cebu, and loaded on said
truck seven hogs, he had every right to presume the truck perfectly in
good condition which could transport him safely and securely to his
destination. He paid the regular fare and the freight of the seven
hogs.”

The plaintiff is suing the defendant upon its contract of carriage
which the latter had failed to perform by virtue of its failure to
safely carry the plaintiff to his destination at the barrio of Yati,
Liloan, Cebu, as distinguished from an action based on culpa acquiliana
under which it is necessary, in order to recover damages, to prove
fault or negligence on the part of the carrier. The distinction is
clearly set out in the case of Castro vs. Aero Taxicab Co.,^[*]
46 Off. Gaz., 2023, as follows: “La culpa aquiliana determina y
engendra la responsabilidad y por eso es sustantiva, independiente;
mientras que la culpa contractual presupone la preexistencia de una
obligacion, por tanto es solo incidental—es decir, la infraccion o
incumplimiento de esa obligacion es lo que genera la culpa contractual.
Una implicacion o consecuencia caracteristica de la diferencia entre
ambos conceptos juridicos es que, tratandose de la culpa
extracontractual o aquiliana, el demandante que reclame indemnizacion
de danos y perjuicios tiene que probar, como requisite indispensable
para que prospere su accion, la culpa o negligencia del demandado,
mientras que, tratandose de la culpa contractual, es bastante que se
pruebe la existencia del contrato y que la obligacion resultante del
mismo se ha infringido o no se ha cumplido, siguiendose danos de esta
infraccion e incumplimento.”

The trial court based its decision in favor of the plaintiff upon
the finding that the defendant had defaulted in its contract of
carriage due to the accident, regardless of whether it was caused by a
defect of the engine of the defendant’s truck, by the negligence of its
driver, or by the breakage of the drag-link spring; the evidence
showing that the said drag-link spring was not inspected or examined
when the vehicle left Maya, Daan Bantayan, Cebu, for Cebu City. In
other words, the trial court overruled the defense interposed by the
defendant that the accident was due to an event (unexpected breakage of
the drag-link spring) which could not be foreseen or which, even if
foreseen, was inevitable. In our opinion, the trial court was correct.
Its express finding as to the cause of the accident in effect blames
the defendant for it and logically rejects the defendant’s theory that
the cause emanated from an unforeseen or inevitable event. In essence,
the trial court held that the drag-link spring of the truck in question
was defective. In the case of Lazam vs. Smith, 45 Phil., 660, it was
already held that an accident cause either by defects in the automobile
or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito.

The conclusion of the trial court with respect to the amount of
damages sustained by and award in favor of the plaintiff, is being
factual, conclusive herein, since, as hereinbefore noted, the defendant
has appealed directly to this Court solely on questions of law.

Upon the other hand, plaintiff’s claim that the amount of moral
damages awarded to him by the trial court should be raised to P300,
cannot be sustained, because no appeal was taken by him from the
decision a quo.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed and it is so ordered with costs7 against the defendant-appellant.

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

---

^[*] 82 Phil., 359