ROSITO BACARRO, WILLIAM SEVILLA, and FELARIO MONTEFALCON,

petitioners
vs.
GERUNDIO CASTANO, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents
G.R. No. L-34597, November 5, 1982

FACTS:
The case stems from a vehicular accident which involved a passenger
jeepney and a cargo truck (truck). Respondent (Gerundo Castano) was a
passenger of the jeepney and he suffered an injury (to his right leg, his right
leg was 1 and inches shorter after the operation, he can no longer squat,
kneel, and even sit for a long time because he will have cramps) due to the
accident.
The accident was caused by both the truck and the jeepney when the
former overtook the latter. The truck wanted overtake the jeepney, it did so
by honking its horn, signaling the jeepney of its intention to overtake. In
response, the jeepney veered to its right to give way to the truck but did not
slow down, hence, the truck and the jeepney were side-by-side for around 20
meters. Ahead of both vehicles was a bridge that could only allow 1 vehicle
to pass at a time. The truck (travelling faster than the jeepney) was able to
overtake it, unfortunately, when the jeepney tried to return to its lane, it was
sideswiped by the truck causing it to traverse diagonally towards a canal.
The jeepney fell and injured herein respondent.
Respondent filed an action against the driver, Felario Montefalcon, to
claim for the expenses incurred for the medical expenses of the operation
caused by the accident and for damages. Herein Appellant (Felario
Montefalcon) averred that he is not at fault because it was the truck who
sideswiped his vehicle and that the incident was a fortuitous event thus he
should not be held liable. In addition, appellant posits that the driver of the
truck has no license to drive. The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in favor
of the respondent, the case appealed to the Court of Appeals who affirmed
the decision of the CFI ruling that the actions of the appellant were
contributory to the accident, hence this case.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the appellant was liable for damages considering the
degree of diligence applied; and
2. Whether or not the incident was a fortuitous event; and

RULING:
1. The appellant is liable for damages. The case shows that despite the
fault of the truck driver, the appellant was also negligent. Since the
level of diligence required of a common carrier is extraordinary
diligence, the appellant should have used utmost diligence of a very
cautious person, with due regard for all circumstances (Art. 1755).
The case showed that the jeepney did not slow down when the truck

was overtaking it. In fact, both vehicles traveled side-by-side for 20

more meters before the truck was able to completely overtake the
jeepney, this is despite the knowledge of both drivers that there is a
bridge ahead that could only accommodate 1 vehicle at a time. Should
the jeepney driver slowed down when it was being overtaken, no
accident would have happened. In addition, the Court said Once a
passenger in the course of travel is injured, or does not reach his
destination safely, the carrier and driver are presumed to be at fault.
2. The incident was not a fortuitous event, according to the Court: the
sideswiping of the jeepney by the cargo truck, was something which
could have been avoided considering the narrowness of the Bridge
which was not wide enough to admit two vehicles. As found by the
Court of Appeals, Montefalcon contributed to the occurrence of the
mishap.

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD, petitioner

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS L. ALCANTARA, respondent
G.R. No. 60501, March 5, 1993

FACTS:
The case began when the luggage of a first class passenger, herein
respondent, was not delivered to him at the time and place designated.
During a flight to attend a conference at Jakarta, respondent found out that
his luggage was left at one of the stop overs of the petitioner (at Hong Kong).
Respondent reported the matter to the petitioners employee where the
latter respondent in a rude and uncourteous manner. Aggrieved, respondent
filed a case against petitioner at the Court of First Instance (CFI). CFI ruled in
favor of herein respondent. Herein petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals. In in its appeal, herein petitioner asserted two things: (1) that the
moral and exemplary damages awarded to the respondent has no basis
because there was fraudulent act or no bad faith involved when the luggage
was not delivered on time and (2) that the CFI failed to apply the Warsaw
Convention when it ruled on the damages. The CA still affirmed the CFIs
decision, hence, this case.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner is liable for moral and exemplary damages;
and
2. What is application of the Warsaw Convention in the Philippines.

RULING:
1. The petitioner is liable for moral and exemplary damages. The Court
said, where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline
is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for
damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the

breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have

reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include moral
and exemplary damages. Conversely, if the defendant airline is shown
to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and
exemplary damages is proper. In this case, the discourteous manner of
how the employees of the petitioner warranted the grant of moral and
exemplary damages. While the mere failure of CATHAY to deliver
respondent's luggage at the agreed place and time did not ipso facto
amount to willful misconduct since the luggage was eventually
delivered to private respondent, albeit belatedly, 6 We are persuaded
that the employees of CATHAY acted in bad faith. We refer to the
deposition of Romulo Palma, Commercial Attache of the Philippine
Embassy at Jakarta, who was with respondent Alcantara when the
latter sought assistance from the employees of CATHAY. This deposition
was the basis of the findings of the lower courts when both awarded
moral damages to private respondent.
2. According to the Court, the Warsaw Convention has the force and
effect of law in this country, being a treaty commitment assumed by
the Philippine government, however, the enumeration of the instances
for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability IS NOT EXLCUSIVE.