LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. JULIETA CORNISTA, THRU HER PARENTS, GIL CORNISTA AND MANUELA BELSONTA CORNISTA RESPONDENTS.

DIZON, J.:

Julieta Cornista, through her parents, sued petitioner in the Court of First
Instance of Leyte (Civil Case No. 2298) for damages arising from breach of
contract of carriage, her claim being that, while a passenger of one of
petitioner’s buses, she sustained physical injuries through the negligence of
petitioner and its driver. Petitioner’s principal defense was that Julieta’s own
negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. After trial, the Court
rendered judgment for the plaintiff awarding her the amount of P6,000 as moral
damages, plus the amount of P300, for medical attendance, and P1,000 as
attorney’s fees, with costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the moral
damages to P3,000, and affirmed the appealed decision in all other respects.

Petitioner now seeks a review of the last mentioned decision for the purpose
of having it set aside, or to have the award of moral damages eliminated.

The principal facts, as found by the trial Court, are as follows:

“The court, in considering the evidence presented in support of the main
issue, is satisfied that the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by
plaintiff Julieta Cornista, as shown by Exhibit ‘A’ was the negligence of both
the defendant and its driver of bus No. 284 who, at the time of the incident at
bar, unmindful of the warning given him by his passengers, recklessly operated
and drove said bus at high speed even on sharp curves of the road. A look at
Exhs. ‘7’ and ‘7-A’ will readily show that bus No. 284, wherein on November 9,
1957, plaintiff Julieta Cornista was a passenger and from where she fell when
said bus was running at a high speed on a curve, the right side of said bus is
not covered nor protected by any bar to safeguard passengers Sitting at the
extreme ends of the scats on the right side from falling therefrom.”

Upon the above facts—which must be deemed final-petitioner’s liability for
damages cannot be doubted. The decision in Lara vs. Valencia, 55 Off.
Gaz., 4438, does not apply to the present for the reason that, as found by the
trial Court, Julieta Cornista was not guilty of negligence. While the Court of
Appeals found her chargeable with contributory negligence because, instead of
holding the hand of her friend Myrna Cruz, who was seated beside her, she should
have held tenaciously on to the bus itself, We believe with said Court that
while such circumstance justifies the reduction of the moral damages awarded by
the Court of origin, it does not justify the exemption from liability of
petitioner herein.

Regarding petitioner’s contention that no award of moral damages should have
been made in favor of the injured passenger, it must be borne in mind that the
Court of origin not only round petitioner’s driver guilty of reckless driving,
but also found petitioner itself guilty of negligence because “the right side of
said bus is not covered nor protected by any bar to safeguard passengers sitting
at the extreme ends of the seats on the right side from falling therefrom.”

Under the provisions of Art. 2220 of the New Civil Code, in cases of breach
of contract (including one of transportation or carriage), either fraud or bad
faith, that is, wanton and deliberately injurious conduct on the part of the
carrier is necessary to justify an award of moral damages. Petitioner’s
negligence consisting in its failure to cover the right side of the bus in
question with a bar or some other contrivance to safeguard or protect passengers
falls within this category of misconduct.

Wherefore, petition under consideration is dismissed for lack of merit.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.