Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

VICTORY LINER V GAMMAD

G.R. No. 159636. NOVEMBER 25, 2004


Facts:Marie Grace Pagulayan-Gammad
was on board an air-conditioned
Victory
Liner
bus
bound
for
Tuguegarao, Cagayan from Manila. At
about 3:00 a.m., the bus while running
at a high speed fell on a ravine which
resulted in the death of Marie Grace
and
physical
injuries
to
other
passengers. On May 14, 1996,
respondent heirs of the deceased filed
a complaint for damages arising from
culpa contractual against petitioner. in
its answer, the petitioner claimed that
the incident was purely accidental and
that
it
has
always
exercised
extraordinary diligence in its 50 years
of operation.
Issue:Whether petitioner should be
held liable for breach of contract of
carriage.
Ruling:Petitioner was correctly found
liable for breach of contract of
carriage. A common carrier is bound to
carry its passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide,
using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with due regard to
all the circumstances. In a contract of
carriage, it is presumed that the
common carrier was at fault or was
negligent when a passenger dies or is
injured. Unless the presumption is
rebutted, the court need not even
make an express finding of fault or
negligence on the part of the common
carrier. This statutory presumption
may only be overcome by evidence
that
the
carrier
exercised
extraordinary diligence.

In the instant case, there is no


evidence to rebut the statutory
presumption that the proximate cause
of Marie Graces death was the
negligence of petitioner. Hence, the
courts below correctly ruled that
petitioner was guilty of breach of
contract of carriage.
QUIRANTE VS IAC
Lessons Applicable: Attorney's Fees
(Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
Dr. Indalecio Casasola had a contract
with a building contractor named
Norman Guerrero
Philippine American General Insurance
Co.
Inc.
(Philamgen)
acted
as
bondsman for Guerrero. In view of
Guerrero's failure to perform his part
of the contract within the period
specified, Dr. Casasola, thru his
counsel, Atty. John Quirante, sued both
Guerrero and Philamgen
Philamgen filed a cross-claim against
Guerrero for indemnification
RTC: in favor of Dr. Indalecio Casasola
by rescinding the contract ordering
Guerrero and Philamgen to pay actual
damages of P129,430, moral damages
of P50,000, exemplary damages of
P40,000 and attorney's fees of
P30,000 ordering Guerrero alone to
pay liquidated damages of P300/day
from December 15, 1978 to July 16,
1979 and ordering Philamgen to pay
Dr. Casasola the amount of the surety
bond equivalent to P120,000.

Petition to quash the writ of execution


and to compel the trial court to give
due course to the appeal was
dismissed

rests on the assumption that the court


trying the case is to a certain degree
already familiar with the nature and
extent of the lawyer's services

In the mean time, Dr. Casasola died


leaving his widow and several children
as survivors

The rule against multiplicity of suits


will in effect be served

Quirante filed a motion in the trial


court for the confirmation of his
attorney's fees
According to him, there was an oral
agreement between him and the late
Dr. Casasola that in case of recovery
of the surety bond - P30K and in case
of damages excess of the surety bond,
divided equally bet. the heirs, Atty.
Quirante and Atty. Cruz.
RTC:
granted
confirmation

the

motion

for

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Quirante can claim


attorney's fees
HELD: NO. present recourse is hereby
AFFIRMED
attorney's fees may be asserted either
in:
the very action in which the services
in question have been rendered -as in
this case
the Court may pass upon said claim,
even if its amount were less than the
minimum prescribed by law for the
jurisdiction of said court, upon the
theory that the right to recover
attorney's fees is but an incident of
the case in which the services of
counsel have been rendered

a separate action
2 Kinds of Attorney's fees
1. item of damages provided for under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code wherein
the award is made in favor of the
litigant, not of his counsel, and the
litigant, not his counsel, is the
judgment creditor who may enforce
the judgment for attorney's fees by
execution
2. claims are based on the contract for
professional
services,
with
the
attorney as the creditors and the
clients as the debtors
It is further observed that the
supposed
contract
alleged
by
petitioners as the basis for their fees
provides that the recovery of the
amounts claimed is subject to certain
contingencies
We are of the considered view that the
orderly
administration
of
justice
dictates that such issue be likewise
determined by the court a quo
inasmuch as it also necessarily
involves the same contingencies in
determining
the
propriety
and
assessing the extent of recovery of
attorney's fees by both petitioners
herein. The court below will be in a
better position, after the entire case
shall have been adjudicated

We, therefore, take exception to and


reject that portion of the decision of
the respondent court which holds that
the alleged confirmation to attorney's
fees should not adversely affect the
non-signatories thereto, since it is also
premised on the eventual grant of
damages to the Casasola family,
hence
the
same
objection
of
prematurity obtains and such a
holding may be pre-emptive of factual
and evidentiary matters that may be
presented for consideration by the
trial court.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi