FABRE vs. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: 1. Engracio Fabre, Jr.

and his wife are the owners of the minibus. 2. Porfirio J. Cabil is the driver hired by the Fabre couple in 1981 after trying him out for two weeks. His job was to take school children to and from the St. Scholastica's College in Malate, Manila. 3. November 2, 1984 : Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back for the amount of P3,000.00. 4. The group was scheduled to leave at 5PM of November 2, 1984. 5. The group had to take a detour because bridge at Carmen was under repair. 6. At 11:30 that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway, running on a south to east direction, which he described as "siete." Since it was raining thus the road was slippery,the bus which was running at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour, skidded to the left road shoulder hitting the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts. The bus came to rest off the road. Several passengers were injured. One of the passengers, Amyline Antonio was thrown on the floor of the bus and pinned down by a wooden seat which came off after being unscrewed. It took three persons to safely remove her from this position. 7. Police investigated the incident the next day. And filed a criminal complaint against the driver, Porfirio Cabil. The case was later filed with the Lingayen Regional Trial Court. 8. Petitioners Fabre paid Jesus Escano P1,500.00 for the damage to the latter's fence. On the basis of Escano's affidavit of desistance the case against petitioners Fabre was dismissed. 9. Amyline Antonio, who is now suffering from paraplegia and is permanently paralyzed from the waist down, brought this case in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila. 10. The trial court rendered judgment against defendants Mr. & Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr. and Porfirio Cabil y Jamil pursuant to articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and said defendants are ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs. 11. The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's finding that petitioner Cabil failed to exercise due care and precaution in the operation of his vehicle considering the time and the place of the accident. The Court of Appeals held that the Fabres were themselves presumptively negligent. The Court of Appeals modified damages. Issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE NEGLIGENT.

II. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. III. WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AND IN THE POSITIVE, UP TO WHAT EXTENT. IV. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS MAY BE MADE TO RESPOND TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY Held: I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE NEGLIGENT. Yes. Cabil: Considering the fact that it was raining and the road was slippery, that it was dark, that he drove his bus at 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal speed was only 20 kilometers an hour, and that he was unfamiliar with the terrain, Cabil was grossly negligent and should be held liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio.

Fabres: Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code Cabil's negligence gave rise to the presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee. II. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. Yes. This case involves a contract of carriage. The Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them. Civil Code Art. 1759 :Carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. III. WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AND IN THE POSITIVE, UP TO WHAT EXTENT. Yes, On the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage: the award of moral damages is authorized by Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2220, since Cabil's gross negligence amounted to bad faith. Owing to Amyline Antonio's testimony as well as the testimonies of her father and co-passengers which fully establish the physical suffering and mental anguish she endured as a result of the injuries caused by petitioners' negligence an award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees is warranted. IV. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS MAY BE MADE TO RESPOND TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY Yes. The court used several precedents to explain... 1. In Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, - facts similar to those in this case - the bus company and the driver jointly and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger. 2. In Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals - a driver found negligent in failing to stop the bus in order to let off passengers when a fellow passenger ran amuck, as a result of which the passengers jumped out of the speeding bus and suffered injuries - driver jointly and severally liable with the bus company to the injured passengers. 3. The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an accident. Cases cited: Anuran v. Buo, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals - bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or the latter's heirs. The basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan v. Court of Appeals, thus: Nor should it make any difference that the liability of petitioner [bus owner] springs from contract while that of respondents [owner and driver of other vehicle] arises from quasi-delict. As early as 1913, we already ruled in Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict.

4. In the case of BLTB - private respondents and her co-plaintiffs did not stake out their claim against the carrier and the driver exclusively on one theory, -alleged alternative causes of action and join as many parties as may be liable on such causes of action so long as private respondent and her co-plaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury. -the carrier and the driver were jointly and severally liable because their separate and distinct acts concurred to produce the same injury. 5. In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals SC -exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and their families -the owners of the jeepney jointly and severally liable, but that is because that case was expressly tried and decided exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual. -As this Court there explained: The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo [the driver] and spouses Mangune and Carreon [the jeepney owners] were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742) .