EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.]
EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL. , plaintiffs-appellees, vs .
GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL., defendants. GUILLERMO
CRESENCIA , appellant.
Bernardo A. Bunyi for appellant.
Gunlao & Herrera for appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. FRANCHISE; SALE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, EFFECT OF. — The sale of franchise, or any privilege pertaining thereto,
without the approval of the Public Service Commission, is not binding against the public
or the Service Commission; and in contemplation of law, the grantee of record
continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to
the public.
2. CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; "CULPA CONTRACTUAL"; NATURE OF
LIABILITY OF CARRIER. — Where there is a breach of the carrier's contractual obligation
to carry his passengers safely to their destination (culpa contractual), the liability of the
carrier is not merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and immediate (Article 1755,
1756, and 1759, New Civil Code).
3. DAMAGES; NOMINAL DAMAGES; WHEN AWARD IMPROPER. — Where the
court has already awarded compensatory and exemplary damages that are in
themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiffs' right was violated, the award of nominal
damages is unnecessary and improper. Nominal damages can not co-exist with
compensatory damages.
DECISION
REYES , J.B.L. , J : p
Appeal by defendant Guillermo Cresencia from the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Manila in its civil case No. 19890, sentencing appellant, jointly and severally
with his co-defendant Brigido Avorque, to pay plaintiffs Emerencia M. Vda. de Medina
and her minor children damages in the total amount of P56,000, P5,000 attorneys' fees,
and costs.
It appears that on May 31, 1953, passenger jeepney bearing plate No. TPU-2232
(Manila), driven by Brigido Avorque, smashed into a Meralco post on Azcarraga Street,
resulting in the death of Vicente Medina, one of its passengers. A criminal case for
homicide through reckless imprudence was led against Avorque (criminal case No.
22775 of the Court of First Instance of Manila), to which he pleaded guilty on
September 9, 1953. The heirs of the deceased, however, reserved their right to le a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
separate action for damages, and on June 16, 1953, brought suit against the driver
Brigido Avorque and appellant Guillermo Cresencia, the registered owner and operator
of the jeepney in question. Defendant Brigido Avorque did not le any answer; while
defendant Cresencia answered, disclaiming liability on the ground that he had sold the
jeepney in question on October 14, 1950 to one Maria A. Cudiamat; that the jeepney had
been repeatedly sold by one buyer after another, until the vehicle was purchased on
January 29, 1953 by Rosario Avorque, the absolute owner thereof at the time of the
accident. In view of Cresencia's answer, plaintiffs led leave, and was allowed, to
amend their complaint making Rosario Avorque a co-defendant; and the latter, by way
of answer, admitted having purchased the aforesaid jeepney on May 31, 1953, but
alleged in defense that she was never the public utility operator thereof. The case then
proceeded to trial, during which, after the plaintiffs had presented their evidence,
defendants Guillermo Cresencia and Rosario Avorque made manifestations admitting
that the former was still the registered operator of the jeepney in question in the
records of the Motor Vehicles O ce and the Public Service Commission, while the
latter was the owner thereof at the time of the accident; and submitted the case for the
decision on the question of who, as between the two, should be held liable to plaintiffs
for damages. The lower court, by Judge Jose Zulueta, held that as far as the public is
concerned, defendant Cresencia, in the eyes of the law, continued to be the legal owner
of the jeepney in question; and rendered judgment against him, jointly and severally with
the driver Brigido Avorque, for P6,000 compensatory damages, P30,000 moral
damages, P10,000 exemplary damages, P10,000 nominal damages, P5,000 attorneys
fees, and costs, while defendant Rosario Avorque was absolved from liability. From this
judgment, defendant Cresencia appealed.
We have already held in the case of Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182 (December
29, 1953), which the court below cited, that the law (section 20 [g], C. A. No. 146 as
amended) requires the approval of the Public Service Commission in order that a
franchise, or any privilege pertaining thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing
the certi cate issued to the grantee; and that if property covered by the franchise is
transferred or leased without this requisite approval, the transfer is not binding against
the public or the Service Commission; and in contemplation of law, the grantee of
record continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission
and to the public. There we gave the reason for this rule to be as follows:
". . . Since a franchise is personal in nature any transfer or lease thereof
should be noti ed to the Public Service Commission so that the latter may take
proper safeguards to protect the interest of the public. In fact, the law requires
that, before the approval is granted, there should be a public hearing, with notice
to all interested parties, in order that the Commission may determine if there are
good and reasonable grounds justifying the transfer or lease of the property
covered by the franchise, or if the sale or lease is detrimental to public interest. . .
."
The above ruling was later reiterated in the cases of Timbol vs. Osias, L-7547, April 30,
1955 and Roque vs. Malibay Transit Inc., L- 8561, November 18, 1955.
As the sale of the jeepney here in question was admittedly without the approval
of the Public Service Commission, appellant herein, Guillermo Cresencia, who is the
registered owner and operator thereof, continued to be liable to the Commission and
the public for the consequences incident to its operation. Wherefore, the lower court
did not err in holding him, and not the buyer Rosario Avorque, responsible for the
damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of the death of Vicente Medina resulting from
the reckless negligence of the jeepney's driver, Brigido Avorque.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Appellant also argues that the basis of plaintiffs' action being the employer's
subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code for damages arising from his
employee's criminal acts, it is defendant Rosario Avorque who should answer
subsidiarily for the damages sustained by plaintiffs, since she admits that she, and not
appellant, is the employer of the negligent driver Brigido Avorque. The argument is
untenable, because plaintiffs' action for damages is independent of the criminal case
led against Brigido Avorque, and based, not on the employer's subsidiary liability
under the Revised Penal Code, but on a breach of the carrier's contractual obligation to
carry his passengers safely to their destination (culpa contractual). And it is also for
this reason that there is no need of rst proving the insolvency of the driver Brigido
Avorque before damages can be recovered from the carrier, for in culpa contractual, the
liability of the carrier is not merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and immediate
(Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759, New Civil Code).
The propriety of the damages awarded has not been questioned, Nevertheless, it
is patent upon the record that the award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages is
untenable as a matter of law, since nominal damages can not co-exist with
compensatory damages. The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize
a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereon; "and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him" (Articles 2221,
2223, new Civil Code.) Since the court below has already awarded compensatory and
exemplary damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiff's right
was violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper. Anyway, ten
thousand pesos can not, in common sense, be deemed "nominal".
With the modi cation that the award of P10,000 nominal damages" be
eliminated, the decision appealed from is a rmed. Costs against appellant. So
ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com