G.R. No.

L-56487 October 21, 1991

REYNALDA GATCHALIAN, petitioner,

vs.
ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

At noon time on 11 July 1973, petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian boarded, as a paying passenger, respondent's "Thames" mini bus at a
point in San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union, bound for Bauang On the way, while the bus was running along the highway in Barrio
Payocpoc, Bauang, Union, "a snapping sound" was suddenly heard at one part of the bus and, shortly thereafter, the vehicle bumped a
cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch.

Several passengers, including petitioner Gatchalian, were injured. 1The passengers were confined in the hospital, and their bills were
paid by respondent’s spouse, Mrs. Delim on July 14. She also gave petitioner P12.00 with which to pay her transportation expense in
going home from the hospital.

Before Mrs. Delim left, she had the injured passengers sign an already prepared affidavit waiving their claims against respondents.
Petitioner was among those who signed.

Notwithstanding the said document, petitioner filed a claim to recover actual and moral damages. She alleged in the complaint that her
injuries sustained from the vehicular mishap had left her with a conspicuous white scar measuring 1 by 1/2 inches on the forehead,
generating mental suffering and an inferiority complex on her part; and that as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away
from her friends. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. She
prayed for an award of: P10,000.00 for loss of employment and other opportunities; P10,000.00 for the cost of plastic surgery for
removal of the scar on her forehead; P30,000.00 for moral damages; and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees.

In defense, Respondents raised in defense force majeure and the waiver signed by petitioner.

The trial court upheld the validity of the waiver and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court ruled that the waiver was invalid, but
also that the petitioner is not entitled to damages.
.

(1) Whether there was a valid waiver

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to actual and moral damages

Held:

(1) We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeals who held that no valid waiver of her cause of action had been made by
petitioner. A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt
as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. A waiver may not casually be attributed to a
person when the terms thereof do not explicitly and clearly evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such person.

The circumstances under which the Joint Affidavit was signed by petitioner Gatchalian need to be considered. Petitioner testified that
she was still reeling from the effects of the vehicular accident when the purported waiver in the form of the Joint Affidavit was
presented to her for signing; that while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but that, seeing the other passengers who had also
suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its entirety. Considering these
circumstances, there appears substantial doubt whether petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit (prepared by or at
the instance of private respondent) she signed and whether she actually intended thereby to waive any right of action against private
respondent.

Finally, because what is involved here is the liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in respect of whose
safety a common carrier must exercise extraordinary diligence, we must construe any such purported waiver most strictly against the
common carrier. To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like those
exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers
and hence to render that standard unenforceable. We believe such a purported waiver is offensive to public policy.

(2)Petitioner maintains that on the day that the mini-bus went off the road, she was supposed to confer with the district supervisor of
public schools for a substitute teacher's job, a job which she had held off and on as a "casual employee."

The Court of Appeals, however, found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public school since, being a
casual employee and not a Civil Service eligible, she had been laid off. Her employment as a substitute teacher was occasional and
episodic, contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers. In view of her employment status as such, the Court of
Appeals held that she could not be said to have in fact lost any employment after and by reason of the accident. 13 Such was the factual
finding of the Court of Appeals, a finding entitled to due respect from this Court. Petitioner Gatchalian has not submitted any basis for
overturning this finding of fact, and she may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation or conjecture. 14

Petitioner's claim for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her forehead, is another matter. A person is entitled to the
physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or
compensatory damages are due and assessable. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that
she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a
violation of bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante.

Moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. Considering the extent of pain
and anxiety which petitioner must have suffered as a result of her physical injuries including the permanent scar on her forehead, we
believe that the amount of P30,000.00 would be a reasonable award. Petitioner's claim for P1,000.00 as attorney's fees is in fact even
more modest.
ROSENDO C. CARTICIANO and ZACARIAS A. CARTICIANO, petitioners, vs. MARIO NUVAL, respondent.

FACTS:

"On September 3, 1992 at about 9:30 in the evening, plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano was on his way home to Imus, Cavite. Plaintiff
Zacarias was driving his fathers (plaintiff Rosendo Carticiano) Ford Laser car, traversing the coastal roads of Longos, Bacoor, Cavite.

On the same date and time, defendant Nuvals owner-type Jeep, then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the opposite
direction going to Paraaque.

When the two cars were about to pass one another, defendant Darwin veered his vehicle to his left going to the center island of the
highway and occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing.

As a result thereof, plaintiff Zacarias Ford Laser collided head-on with defendant Nuvals Jeep. Defendant Darwin immediately fled
from the scene.

Plaintiff Zacarias was taken out [of] the car by residents of the area and was brought to the hospital by Eduard Tangan, a Narcom
agent who happened to pass by the place. Plaintiff Zacarias suffered multiple fracture on his left leg and other injuries in his
body. Plaintiff Zacarias underwent a leg operation and physical therapy to repair the damaged leg.

Defendant Nuval offered P100,000.00 as compensation for the injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to accept the amount.

On this account, plaintiffs filed a criminal suit against defendant Darwin. Plaintiffs also filed this present civil suit against defendants
for damages.

Plaintiffs alleged that the proximate cause of the accident is defendants Darwin recklessness in driving defendant Nuvals jeep; that on
account of said recklessness of defendant Darwin, plaintiff suffered damages; that defendant Darwin was an employee of defendant
Nuval at the time of accident; that defendant Nuval did not exercise due diligence in the supervision of his employee; that defendants
should he held liable for damages.

Defendant Nuval on the other hand insisted that he cannot be held answerable for the acts of defendant Darwin; that defendant Darwin
was not an employee of defendant Nuval at the time of the accident; that defendant Darwin was hired only as casual and has worked
with defendant Nuvals company only for five days; that at the time of the accident, defendant Darwin was no longer connected with
defendant Nuvals company; that defendant Darwin was not authorized to drive the vehicle of defendant Nuval; that defendant Nuval
tried to locate defendant Darwin but the latter could no longer be found; that defendant Nuval cannot be held liable for damages.

Issues

1. Whether or not respondent must be held liable for the damages and injuries suffered by appellees;

YES. TO ACTUAL/MORAL/EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

Article 2199 of the Civil Code allows the aggrieved party to recover the pecuniary loss that he has suffered.

ART. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

Based on the above, Petitioner Zacarias is entitled to indemnification for actual damages caused by the negligence of Darwin, for
which the latters employer, Respondent Nuval, is solidarily liable. And as found by the trial court, petitioner is entitled to P160,715.19
for his medical treatment, as testified to by Dr. Eduardo Arandia. In the same vein, both petitioners are also entitled to P173,788,
which represents the costs incurred for the repair of the damaged vehicle. [16]
The Civil Code allows indemnification for lost profit or income, [17] but petitioners failed to adduce sufficient proof of such loss.
However, moral damages are in order, based on Articles 2217 and 2219 of the Civil Code which respectively provide:
ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.

ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

xxxxxxxxx

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries x x x

As a direct result of the collision, petitioner suffered physically. It is also true that he experienced and will continue to experience
social humiliation and ridicule for having his left leg shorter than the right which causes him to limp when walking. For the above, we
agree with the trial court that Petitioner Zacarias is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Exemplary damages and attorneys fees are likewise authorized by the following provisions of the Civil Code:

ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

ART. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated
damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the
liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.

ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded x x x. [18]

As held by the trial court, respondents refusal to answer adequately for the damages forced petitioners to litigate and incur
expenses. And to serve as an example for the public good, exemplary damages are affirmed, since Petitioner Zacarias has already
shown that he is entitled to compensatory and moral damages in accordance with Article 2234 of the Civil Code.