REYNALDA GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.; G.R. No. L-56487 October 21, 1991

FACTS:

1. July 11,1973: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded Thames" mini bus at Aringay, La Union bound for Bauang, of the same province.  The bus bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch.

2. Gatchalian got injured with physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead. (specific: acerated wound, forehead; abrasion, elbow, left; abrasion, knee, left; abrasion, lateral surface, leg, left.)

3. Mrs. Adela Delim, wife of respondent, visited the passenger and later paid for their hospitalization and medical expenses.  She also gave transportation expense of P12 in going home from the hospital and they were made to sign a Joint Affidavit on 14 July 1973 stating that they are waiving their right to file a complaint, criminal or civil, against the said driver and owner of the said Thames.

4. Gatchalian filed in the CFI an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages stating that the 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 as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friend's scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment

5. Delim averred that it was a fortuitous event or force majeure and the Joint Affidavit had already been signed by Gatchalian.

6. CFI: dismissed because of the Joint Affidavit

7. CA: reversed that there had been a valid waiver but affirmed the dismissal by not granting Gatchilian claims for damages.

ISSUE:

W/N Gatchalian is entitled to actual or compensatory and moral damages.

RULING:

YES. CA, CFI REVERSED and SET ASIDE

1) P15,000 actual or compensatory damages to cover the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on petitioner's forehead; 2) P30,000 moral damages; and 3) P1,000 attorney's fees, the aggregate amount to bear interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum counting from the promulgation of this decision until full payment thereof

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. 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

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. 

To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid.

The driver did not stop to check if anything had gone wrong with the bus after the snapping sound and nonchalantly dismissed it indicates that the sound had been previously heard before. Dismissal of the cry of alarm from one of the passengers, constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers, and hence gross negligence on the part of respondent and his driver

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. 

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. If the scar is relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may be expected to be correspondingly modest. 

In view of the testimony, and the fact that a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the mishap in 1973 which may be expected to increase not only the cost but also very probably the difficulty of removing the scar, SC consider that the amount of P15,000.00 to cover the cost of such plastic surgery is not unreasonable  moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL INFO:

Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines "caso fortuito" as 'an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robber. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO:

(1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will;

(2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the "caso fortuito", or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;

(3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and 

(4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting the safety of its passengers is imposed upon a common carrier. 

In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently "unless it proves that it [had] observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755."