Aboitiz vs CA179 SCRA 95F: A farmer boarded a boat owned by Aboitiz at Mindoro bound for Manila.!en t!e vessel arrived" #ioneer Stevedorin$ too% over&ontrol of t!e&ar$oesloadedat t!evessel and'la&edits&ranealon$sidet!evessel.(ne !our after !e disembar%ed" !e went ba&% to $et !is &ar$o but t!e &rane!it !im and !e died.)eld:Aboitiz is still liable for !is deat! under t!e &ontra&t of &arria$e.*!e relationof &arrier and 'assen$er &ontinues until t!e 'assen$er !as been landed at t!e 'ortof destination and !as left t!e vessel owner+s do&%. Once created the relationshipwill not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has safely alighted fromthecarrier's conveyance or had reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises.All 'ersons w!o remain on t!e 'remises a reasonable time after leavin$ t!e&onveyan&earetobedeemed'assen$ersandw!at isreasonabletimeistobedetermined from all &ir&umstan&es and in&ludes a reasonable time to see after !isba$$a$eand're'arefor !is de'arture. *!eCC,'assen$er relations!i'is notterminated merely by t!e fa&t t!at t!e 'erson trans'orted !as been &arried to !isdestination if t!e 'erson remains in t!e 'remises to &laim !is ba$$a$e.The test is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of thepassenger near the vessel.ACCisboundto&arryits'assen$ersasfar as!uman&areandforesi$!t &an'rovide" usin$ t!e utmost dili$en&e of a very &autious 'erson wit! due re$ard for all&ir&umstan&es.#A- vs CA"..R. /0119"Se't. 1992F: #edro 3a'atos was amon$ 01 'assen$ers on a #A-4i$!t fromCebuto(zamis. *!e4i$!t was Cebu(zamis,Cotabato. Fifteenminutes before landin$ in (zamis" t!e 'ilot re&eived a messa$e t!at t!e air'ort was&losed dueto!eavy rainsand in&lementweat!er andt!at!es!ould'ro&eed toCotabato City. 5n Cotabato" #A- informed t!e 'assen$ers of t!eir o'tions and t!atdue to limited number of seats in t!e ot!er 4i$!ts" t!e basis for 'riority would be t!e&!e&%,in se6uen&e at Cebu. 3a'atos &!ose to return to Cebu but was nota&&ommodated be&ause !e &!e&%ed in as 'assen$er no. 9. )owever" !is 'ersonalbelon$in$s in&ludin$ a &amera from 7a'an were still on board t!e 4i$!t to Manila.)e tried to sto' t!e de'arture but !is 'lea fellon deaf ears. )e was $iven a freeti&%et to 5li$an City w!i&! !e re&eived under 'rotest.)e was left at t!e air'ort. #A-neit!er 'rovided !im wit! trans'ortation from t!e air'ort to t!e &ity 'ro'er nor foodanda&&ommodationfor!isstayinCotabatoCity. *!ene8tday" !e'ur&!asedati&%et to 5li$an City. )e informed #A- t!at !e would not use t!e free ti&%et be&ause!e was 9lin$ a &ase a$ainst #A-. )is 'ersonal belon$in$s were never re&overed.#A- denied t!at it un:usti9ably refused to a&&ommodate 3a'atos. 5t alle$ed t!att!ere was sim'ly no more seat for !im on Fli$!t 51; to Manila< and t!at t!ere wasforce majeure w!i&! was a valid :usti9&ation for t!e 'ilot to by'ass (zamis City and'ro&eed dire&tly to Cotabato City. #A- &ontended t!at it did not un:usti9ably deny !isdemand for 'riority over &on9rmed 'assen$ers w!i&! t!ey &ould not satisfy in viewof t!e limited seats.#A- also asserted t!at it s!ould not be &!ar$ed wit! t!e tas% ofloo%in$ after t!e 'assen$ers+ &omfort and &onvenien&e be&ause t!e diversion of t!e4i$!t was due to a fortuitous event" and t!at if made liable" an added burden is$iven to #A- w!i&! is over and beyond its duties under t!e &ontra&t of &arria$e.5tar$ued t!at $rantin$ t!ere was ne$li$en&e" #A- &annot be liable in dama$es in t!eabsen&e of fraud or bad fait!. *!e R*C !eld in favor of 'lainti=. *!e CA a>rmed.)eld: *!e 'assen$er+s &om'laint tou&!ed on #A-+s indi=eren&e and inattention to !is'redi&ament and not on #A-+s refusal to &om'ly wit! !is demand for 'riority over t!eot!er 'assen$ers. )e &laimed t!at !e was e8'osed to t!e 'eril of Muslim rebels andt!at !esu=eredmental an$uis!" mental torture" so&ial !umiliation" besmir&!edre'utation and wounded feelin$.)e referred to #A-+s a'at!y.*!e &ontra&t of air &arria$e is a 'e&uliar one. ?ein$ imbued wit! 'ubli& interest" t!elaw re6uires &ommon &arriers to &arry t!e 'assen$ers safely as far as !uman &areand foresi$!t &an 'rovide" usin$ t!e utmost dili$en&e of very &autious 'ersons" wit!due re$ard for all t!e &ir&umstan&es.5nAir Fran&e vs Carras&oso" t!e SC !eld t!att!e &ontra&t to trans'ort 'assen$ers is 6uite di=erent from any &ontra&tual relationint!at it invites'eo'letoavail of t!e&omfortsandadvanta$esit o=ers. *!ediversionof t!e4i$!t was duetoafortuitous event. )owever" su&!didnotterminate #A-+s &ontra&t wit! its 'assen$ers.?ein$ in t!e business of air &arria$e"#A- is deemed e6ui''ed to deal wit! situations li%e t!e &ase at bar.*!e relation of&arrier and'assen$er &ontinuesuntil t!elatter !asbeenlandedat t!e'ort ofdestination and !as left t!e CC+s 'remises.)en&e" #A- ne&essarily would still !avetoe8er&isee8traordinarydili$en&einsafe$uardin$t!e&omfort" &onvenien&eandsafety of t!e stranded 'assen$ers untilt!ey !ave rea&!ed t!eir 9naldestination.#A- was t!erefore remiss in its duty of e8tendin$ utmost &are to 3a'atos w!ile bein$stranded in Cotabato City.*!e CA !eld : @!ile t!e failure of 3a'atos to rea&! !is destination 888 ina&&ordan&e wit! t!e &ontra&t of &arria$e was due to t!e &losure of t!e air'ort ona&&ount of rain and in&lement weat!er 888 it be&omes t!e duty of #A- to 'rovide allmeans of &omfort and &onvenien&e to its 'assen$ers w!en t!ey would !ave to beleft in a stran$e 'la&e in &ase of su&! by,'assin$. 5f t!e &ause of non,ful9llment oft!e &ontra&t is due to a fortuitous event" it !as to be t!e sole and only &ause.Sin&e'art of t!e failure to &om'ly wit! t!e obli$ation to deliver its 'assen$ers safely tot!eir destinationlayin#A-+s failureto'rovide&omfort and&onvenien&etoitsstranded 'assen$ers usin$ e8traordinary dili$en&e" t!e &ause of nonful9llment is notsolely and e8&lusively due to fortuitous event" but due to somet!in$ t!at #A- &ould!ave 'revented" #A- be&omes liable to t!e 'assen$er.@ )owever t!e SC found t!atalt!ou$! #A- was remiss in its duty of e8tendin$ utmost &are to 3a'atos w!ile bein$stranded in Cotabato City" t!ere was no su>&ient basis to &on&lude t!at #A- failed toinform !im about !is ot!er o'tions.2. #resum'tion of ne$li$en&eArt. 1756.In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriersare presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unlesstheyprovethat theyobservedextraordinarydiligenceasprescribedinarticles 17 and 1755.A A$bayani:!resumption of negligence.""CCs are 'resumed to !ave been at fault or to !avea&ted ne$li$ently in &aseof deat! or in:uries to 'assen$ers. *!is dis'utable'resum'tionmayonlybeover&omebysu'erior eviden&et!at !e!adobservede8traordinary dili$en&e 'res&ribed in 1722" 1755" 1751!ere deat! or in:ury results to t!e 'assen$er be&ause of t!e ne$li$en&e of t!e CC+sBs" t!e CC is liable" notwit!standin$ t!e fa&t t!at !e !ad e8er&ised all t!e dili$en&eof a $ood fat!er of a family" in t!e sele&tion and su'ervision of !is BBs 888Conse6uently" in ana&tionfordama$es" t!e issueisnot(C t!e'artysee%in$dama$es!asaddu&edsu>&ient eviden&etos!owt!ene$li$en&eof t!eCCbut(Ct!e&arrier !as'resentedt!ere6uired6uantumof 'roof toover&omet!e'resum'tion t!at it !as been at fault or t!at it a&ted ne$li$ently in t!e 'erforman&eof its duty.5nt!ee8er&iseof e8traordinarydili$en&e" t!eCCmust $iveduere$ardfor all&ir&umstan&es in &onne&tion wit! t!e trans'ort of 'assen$ers#o$ presumption of negligence overcome.""*o over&ome su&! 'resum'tion" itmust be s!own t!at t!e CC !ad observed t!e re6uired e8traordinary dili$en&e ort!at t!ea&&ident was&ausedbyfortuituosevent. 5norder to&onstitutecasofortuito t!at would e8em't a 'erson from res'onsibility" it is ne&essary t!at :1. *!e event must be inde'endent of !uman will& or ve!i&ulara&&ident but was an in&ident very mu&! beyond t!e &ontrol of t!e CC< t!at t!e CCwas not a 'arty to t!e in&ident as it was an a&t of a t!ird 'arty w!o is not in any way&onne&ted wit! t!e CC and of w!i&! t!ey !ave no &ontrol and su'ervision. *!e CCar$ued t!at t!e in&ident+s 'ro8imate &ause was t!e a&t of t!e 'assen$er w!o ranamu&% and w!i&! tri$$ered o= t!e &ommotion and 'ani&. *!e *C dismissed t!e &om'laint. *!e CA reversed and ordered t!e CC" t!e ownerand driver solidarily liable to t!e !eirs of t!e de&eased.)eld : *!e CC is liable for t!e deat! of t!e 'assen$ers.?a&!elor B8'ress as a CC is bound to &arry its 'assen$ers safely as far as !uman&are and foresi$!t &an 'rovide usin$ t!e utmost dili$en&e of very &autious 'erson"wit! due re$ard for all t!e &ir&umstan&es. 5n t!is &ase w!ere 'assen$ers su=eredin:uries w!i&! &aused t!eir deat!" under 1751" t!e CC is 'resumed to !ave a&tedne$li$ently unless it &an 'rove t!at it !ad observed e8traordinary dili$en&e. *!e CCraisedt!edefenseofcasofortuito. Art. 117A'rovidest!at no'ersons!all beres'onsible for t!ose events w!i&! &ould not be foreseen or w!i&! t!ou$! foreseenwere inevitable.5n -asam vs Smit!" t!e SC !eld t!at a caso fortuito must !ave t!efollowin$ elements: F1G The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrencemust be independent of the human will< F0G It must be impossible to foresee theevent< F2G The occurrence must be so as to render it impossible for the debtor tofulfll his obligation in a normal manner< and FAGThe obligor must be free from anyparticipation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.*!e runnin$amu&% of t!e 'assen$er was t!e 'ro8imate &ause of t!e in&ident and is wit!in t!e&onte8t of force majeure.)owever" in order t!at a CC may be absolved from liability in &ase of force majeure"it is not enou$! t!at t!e a&&ident was &aused by force majeure.*!e CC must still'rove t!at it was not ne$li$ent in &ausin$ t!e in:uries resultin$ from su&! a&&ident. 5tmust 'rove t!at t!ere was no ne$li$en&e or la&% of &are and dili$en&e on t!e 'art oft!e CC. *!e *C and t!e CA !ad &on4i&tin$ 9ndin$s of fa&t. *!e SC u'!eld t!e 9ndin$s of t!eCA,, t!e driver did not immediately sto' t!e bus at t!e !ei$!t of t!e &ommotion< t!ebus was s'eedin$ from a full sto'< t!e vi&tims fell from t!e bus door w!en it waso'ened or $ave way w!ile t!e bus was stillrunnin$< t!e &ondu&tor 'ani&%ed andblew !is w!istle after 'eo'le !ad already fallen o= t!e bus< t!e bus was not 'ro'erlye6ui''ed wit! doors in a&&ordan&e wit! law. 5t is t!erefore &lear t!at t!e 'etitioners!ave failed to over&ome t!e 'resum'tion of fault and ne$li$en&e found in t!e law$overnin$ CCs.*!e CC+s ar$ument t!at it is not an insurer of its 'assen$ers deserves no merit inview of t!e failure oft!e CC to 'rovet!att!e deat!s oft!e0'assen$ersweree8&lusively due to for&e ma:eure and not to t!e failure of t!e CC to observe e8tra,ordinarydili$en&eintrans'ortin$safelyt!e'assen$erstot!eir destinationsaswarranted by law.5. -imitation of liability< validity of sti'ulationsArt. 1757. +heresponsibilityof thecommoncarrier for thesafetyofpassengers as re,uired in Arts. 17 and 1755 cannot be dispensed $ithorlessenedbystipulation, bythepostingofnotices, bystatementsontic(ets, or other$ise.Art. 175-..hen a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limitingthe common carrier*s liability for negligence is valid, but not for $illfulacts or gross negligence.+he reduction of fare does not justify any limitationof the commoncarrier*s liability.+ic(et given to a passenger is a $ritten contract.""*i&%et $iven to 'assen$eris a written &ontra&t wit! t!e =. elements:F1G t!e consent of t!e &ontra&tin$ 'artiesmanifested by t!e fa&t t!at t!e 'assen$er boards t!e s!i' and t!e s!i''er &onsentsor a&&e'ts !im in t!e s!i' for trans'ortation< F0G cause or consideration w!i&! is t!efare 'aidby t!e'assen$er as statedin t!eti&%et< F2Gobject" w!i&! is t!etrans'ortation of t!e 'assen$er fromt!e 'la&e of de'arture to t!e 'la&e ofdestination w!i&! are stated in t!e ti&%et.!assenger boundnot$ithstandinghis failureto signtic(et containingstipulation limiting liability."" Bven if t!e 'assen$er failed to si$n t!e ti&%et" !eisnevert!elessboundby t!e'rovisionst!ereof.Su&! 'rovisions are 'art oft!e&ontra&t of &arria$e" re$ardless of t!e 'assen$er+s la&% of %nowled$e or assent tot!e re$ulation. 5t is w!at is %nown as a &ontra&t of ad!esion w!i&! is not entirely'ro!ibited by law.The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject itentirely; if headheres hegiveshisconsent. A&&ordin$ly" w!eret!eCCin&urreddelay" it is liable only for t!e amount 'rinted in t!e ti&%et t!e 'assen$er not !avin$de&lared a !i$!er value for !is lu$$a$e nor 'aid addtl. &!ar$es. /ispensing $ith or limiting liability."".eneral rule: Inder 1757" t!ee8traordinary dili$en&e re6uired under 1722 and 1755 for t!e &arria$e of 'assen$ers&annot bedis'ensedwit!or lessenedF1G bysti'ulation" F0G byt!e'ostin$ofnoti&es" F2G by statements on ti&%ets" or FAG ot!erwise!at &annot be sti'ulated in a &arria$e of 'assen$ers : F1G absolutely e8em'tin$ t!e CC from liability from t!e 'assen$er+s deat! or in:uries68 @ominal>698 +emperate or moderate>658 'i,uidated>668 0xemplary or corrective.0. A&tual or &om'ensatoryArt. 5122. 0xcept as provided by la$ or by stipulation, one is entitled toan ade,uate compensation only for such pecuniary loss su1ered by him ashe has duly proved. :uch compensation referred to as actual orcompensatory damages.Art. 5531. Incontractsand,uasicontracts, thedamagesfor$hichtheobligor $ho acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are natural andprobableconse,uencesof thebreachof theobligation, and$hichtheparties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time theobligation $as constituted.In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or $anton attitude, theobligorshall be responsible for all damages $hich may be reasonably attributed tothe non"performance of the obligation.Art. 553. +he party su1ering loss or injury must exercise diligence of agood father of a family to minimiAe the damages resulting from the act oromission in ,uestion.Art. 1769. /amages in cases comprised in this :ection shall be a$arded$ith the title ;&ient to:ustifyt!eassum'tion t!at !e &ould !ave 9nis!ed !is &ourse and would !ave 'assed t!e boarde8ams in due time.As re$ards t!e in&ome t!at !e &ould 'ossibly earn as a do&tor" #2;;Fa&&d$. to-*?Cwitness" Hr. HoriaG &ouldeasilybee8'e&tedas minimummont!ly in&ome of Bd C. !ad !e 9nis!ed !is studies. Com'ensatory dama$es s!ouldbe in&reased to # 05";;;.*!e &laim for moral dama$es &ould not be $ranted be&ause Art. 0019 enumeratest!e instan&es w!en moral dama$es may be re&overed and t!e 'resent &ase doesnot fallunder any of t!em" even 'ar. F0G t!ereof be&ause t!is &ase is not one of6uasideli&t and &ould not be &onsidered as su&! be&ause of a 're,e8istin$&ontra&tual relation between Bd C. and -*?C.Ceit!er &ould -*?C be liable under Art.000; be&ause it did not a&t fraudulently or in bad fait!. Attorney+s fees &ould alsonot be $ranted be&ause t!is &ase does not fall under Art. 00;/.*!e &laim by t!e 'arents for a&tual and &om'ensatory dama$es is also wit!out meritbe&ause t!e 'resent a&tion is based u'on a brea&! of &ontra&t of &arria$e and t!e'arents were not a 'arty t!ereto" and were not t!emselves in:ured as a result of t!e&ollision.#an Am vs 5AC"11A SCRA 01/F: su'ra.?a$$a$e &ontainin$ 'romotional and advertisin$ materials for 9lms to bee8!ibited in t!e IS" &lut&! ba$s" baron$ ta$alo$s and 'ersonal belon$in$s was lost.#AC AM sou$!t to limit its liability to t!e amount s'e&i9ed in t!e ti&%et absent ade&laration of !i$!er valuation and t!e 'ayment of addtl. &!ar$es.)eld:(n t!e basis of sti'ulations 'rinted at t!e ba&% of t!e ti&%et" #an Am &ontendst!at its liability for t!e lost ba$$a$e of #an$an is limited to M 1;;.;; FM0; 8 2; %ilosGas t!e latter did not de&lare a !i$!er value for !is ba$$a$e and 'ay t!e&orres'ondin$ &!ar$es.*!e SC a''lied t!erulin$ inMendoza vs #A-: ?efore defendant&ould be !eld tos'e&ialdama$es" su&! as alle$ed loss of 'ro9ts on a&&ount of delay or failure ofdelivery" it must !ave a''eared t!at !e !ad noti&e at t!e time of delivery to !im oft!e 'arti&ular &ir&umstan&es attendin$ t!e s!i'ment" and w!i&! 'robably would leadtosu&!s'e&ial lossif !edefaulted.Inordertoimposeonthedefaultingpartyfurther liability than for damages naturally and directly i.e. in the ordinary course ofthings arising from a breach of contract such unusualor extraordinary damagesmust have been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probableresult of the breach at the time ofor prior to contracting. 5n t!e absen&e of 'rooft!at #an Am+s attention was &alled to t!e s'e&ial&ir&umstan&es re6uirin$ 'rom'tdelivery of #an$an+s lu$$a$es" 'etitioner &annot be !eld liable for t!e &an&ellation of#an$an+s &ontra&ts as it &ould not !ave reasonably foreseen su&! eventuality w!enit a&&e'ted t!e lu$$a$e for transit.#an Am was not 'rivy to t!e &ontra&ts of #an$annor was its attention &alled to t!e &ondition t!erein re6uirin$ delivery of t!e'romotional and advertisin$ materials on or before a &ertain date.Co attorney+s fees &ould be awarded sin&e t!ere was no un:usti9ed refusal by #anAm to satisfy t!e 'assen$er+s :ust and valid &laim.Jilla Rey *ransit vs CA" 21 SCRA 511F: #oli&ronio Nuintos boarded a Jilla Rey *ransit bus at -in$ayen" #an$asinan forManila and was seated on t!e 9rst seat ri$!t side. !en t!ey rea&!ed t!e national!i$!way in #am'an$a" t!e bus frontally !it t!e rear side of a bull &art 9lled wit! !ay.*!e end of t!e bamboo 'ole tied to t!e &art !it t!e winds!ield and landed on t!efa&e of Nuintos w!o was seated in front. )e died of &erebral in:uries.)is sisters andsurvivin$ !eirs brou$!t an a&tion a$ainst t!e bus &o. *!e *C and CA !eld Jilla Reyliable for # 12"75;.;;.)eld:*!e determination of dama$es due is de'endent on 0 fa&tors : F1G on t!e no.of years on t!e basis of w!i&! dama$es s!all be &om'uted Flife e8'e&tan&yG< and F0Grate at w!i&! t!e losses sustained s!ould be 98ed.CA determined life e8'e&tan&y a&&d$. to t!e Ameri&an B8'e&tan&y *able ofMortality< and sin&e Nuintos was around 2; years old at t!e time of !is deat! : 0K2 8D/; , 2;E O 22 1K2 years. *!e bus &o. wanted to use t!e A year basis ado'ted inAl&antara vs Surro but t!e &ourt !eld t!at t!e &ase is not &ontrollin$ as it did not laydown any rule on t!e len$t! of time to be used in t!e &om'utation of dama$es.5nfa&t" it de&lared t!at t!ere is no 98ed basis for determination of indemnity and mu&!is left to t!e dis&retion of t!e &ourt &onsiderin$ t!e material dama$es involved andt!at t!ere &an be no e8a&t or uniform rule for measurin$ t!e value of !uman life andt!e measure of dama$es &annot be arrived at by 're&ise mat!emati&al &al&ulations.Jilla Rey im'u$ns t!e de&ision on t!e $round t!at dama$es will!ave to be 'aidC( w!ere most of t!ose sou$!t to be indemni9ed will be su=ered years later.*!isar$ument if o=set by t!e fa&t t!at 'ayment of t!e award will ta%e 'la&e u'on t!e9nality of t!e de&ision" 98ed at t!e rate of # 0"1/A 'er year and did not anymore&om'ute t!e 'otentiality and &a'a&ity of Nuintos to in&rease !is future in&ome" u'on&on&lusion of !is trainin$" w!en !e would be 'romoted and re&eive a !i$!er salary.5n determinin$ t!e losses sustained by t!e de'endents and !eirs of Nuintos. t!ey&onsist C(* of t!e full amount of !is earnin$s but of t!esu''ort t!ey would !avere&eivedfrom!im!ad!enot died. 5n98in$saidamount" t!ene&essarylivin$e8'enses s!ould t!erefore be dedu&ted from !is earnin$s.*!e amount re&overablewould t!erefore be t!e CB* earnin$s" w!i&! is t!e 'ortion w!i&! t!e bene9&iarieswould !ave re&eived.*o t!is sum must be added #10";;; 'ursuant to Art. 1;A and1;7 of t!e R#C" in relation to Art. 00;1" CCC and # 1"707.95 for t!e amount a&tuallys'ent by t!e sisters for !is medi&al and burial e8'enses and# 0" 5;; attorney+s fees.#A- vs CA"1/5 SCRA 11;F: 5n 191;" Ci&anor #adilla boarded t!e #A- 4i$!t from 5loilo to Manila. *!e 'lane&ras!ed on Mt. ?a&o" Mindoro.*!e 'lane" a #5,C122" was manufa&tured in 19A0 andwas a&6uired by #A- in 19A/. 5t !ad been &erti9ed airwort!y by t!e Civil Aeronauti&s Administration. Asaresultof!erson+s deat!" Mrs. #adilla demanded # 1;;";;; as a&tual and &om'ensatory dama$es 'lus e8em'larydama$es and # 1;";;; attorney+s fees.#rior to !is deat!" Ci&anor #adilla was 09 years old" #resident and .eneral Mana$erof #adilla S!i''in$ Co. at 5loilo City" and a le$al assistant of t!e #adilla -aw (>&e.I'onlearnin$of t!edeat!of !er son" s!esu=ereds!o&%andmental an$uis!"be&ause !er son w!o was still sin$le was livin$ wit! !er.Ci&anor !ad life insuran&eof # 0;";;;" t!e 'ro&eeds of w!i&! were 'aid to !is sister. Bduardo Mate of t!e Allied(verseas *radin$ Co. testi9ed t!at t!e de&eased was one of t!e in&or'orators of t!e&o. and also its J# wit! a mont!ly salary of # A55. 5saa& Reyes" auditor of #adillaS!i''in$ Co." de&lared t!at t!e de&eased was #resident and .eneral Mana$er andre&eived a salary of # 1"5;; 'er mont!.*!e R*C and t!e CA awarded dama$esof# A77";;;asawardfor t!e e8'e&tedin&ome of t!e de&eased" # 1;";;; as moral dama$es< # 1;";;; as attorney+s feesand to 'ay t!e &osts. #A- a''ealed t!e de&ision sin&e a&&d$. to it" t!e &ourt erred in&om'utin$ t!eawardedindemnitybasedont!elifee8'e&tan&yoft!ede&easedrat!er t!an on t!e life e8'e&tan&y of t!e mot!er.A&&d$. to it" t!e life e8'e&tan&y oft!e de&eased or of t!e bene9&iary" w!i&!ever is s!orter" is used in &om'utin$ foramount of dama$es.)eld: Inder Arts. 171A and Arti&le 00;1 F1G" t!e award of dama$es for deat! is&om'utedont!ebasis of t!elifee8'e&tan&yof t!ede&easedandnot of t!ebene9&iary. 5n t!is &ase" t!e lower &ourts determined t!e de&eased $ross annualin&ome to be # 02"1;; less # 9"0;;aslivin$e8'enses"resultin$in a net in&omeof # 12"9;;. *!e lower &ourt allowed t!e de&eased a life e8'e&tan&y of 2; years.Multi'lyin$ !is annual net in&ome by !is life e8'e&tan&y of 2; years" t!e 'rodu&t is #A17";;;" w!i&! is t!e deat! indemnity due to !is mot!er and only for&ed !eir.?e&ause of t!e lon$ delay in t!is &ase" t!e mot!er already died wit!out bein$ able tore&eivet!eindemnitys!edeserved. #A-isorderedto'ay!er !eirst!edeat!indemnity wit! le$al rate of interest of 1L 'er annum.2. MoralArt. 5517. ?oral damagesincludephysical su1ering, mental anguish,fright, seriousanxiety, besmirchedreputation, $oundedfeelings, moralshoc(, social humiliation, and similar injury. +hough incapable ofpecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are theproximate result of the defendant*s $rongful act or omission.Art. 5516. @o proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral,nominal, temperate, li,uidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated.+heassessmentofsuchdamages,exceptli,uidatedones,islefttothediscretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.Art. 5512. ?oral damages may be recovered in the follo$ing analogouscases =618 A criminal o1ense resulting in physical injuries>658 Buasi"delicts causing physical injuries> xxx 6138 Acts and actions referred to in Articles 51, 56, 57, 5-, 52, 3, 5, 9and 5. xxx Art. 5553..illful injury to property may be a legal ground for a$ardingmoral damages if the court should )nd that, under the circumstances, suchdamagesarejustlydue. +hesameruleappliestobreachesofcontract$here the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.Art. 5536.xxx68 +he spouses, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendantsof the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reasonof the death of the deceased.Fores vs Miranda1;5 #!il 011F:supra. !ile t!e :ee'ney was des&endin$ t!e Sta. Mesa brid$e at an e8&essiverate of s'eed" t!e driver lost &ontrol" &ausin$ it to swerve and !it t!e brid$e wall.Fiveof t!e'assen$erswerein:ured" in&ludin$t!eres'ondent. *!eCAawardedmoral dama$es.)eld: Art. 171A ma%es it allt!e more evident t!atwhere the injured passengerdoes not die moral damages are not recoverable unless it is proved that the !! wasguilty of malice or bad faith. 5n t!e &ase at bar" t!ere is no ot!er eviden&e of su&!mali&e to su''ort an award of moral dama$es.*o award moral dama$es for brea&!of &ontra&t" wit!out 'roof of bad fait! or mali&e on t!e 'art of t!e CC" as re6uired byArt. 000;" wouldbeto violatet!e&lear 'rovisions of t!elaw" and&onstituteunwarranted le$islation. A CC+s bad fait! is not to be li$!tly inferred from a mere9ndin$t!at t!e&ontra&t wasbrea&!edt!rou$!ne$li$en&eof t!eCC+sBBs. *!ee8&e'tion is a mis!a' resultin$ to t!e deat! of a 'assen$er in w!i&! &ase Art. 171Ama%es t!e CC sub:e&t to Art. 00;1 Faward of moral dama$esG.