Baliwag Transit, Inc., vs. CA

G.R. No. 80447

January 31, 1989

FACTS:

On April 10, 1985, a Complaint for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage was filed by private respondents, the Spouses Sotero Cailipan, Jr. and Zenaida Lopez, and their son George, of legal age, against Baliwag Transit. The Complaint alleged that George, who was a paying passenger on a Baliwag bus on December 17, 1984, suffered multiple serious physical injuries when he was thrown off said bus driven in a careless & negligent manner by Leonardo Cruz, the authorized bus driver. As a result, he was confined in the hospital for treatment, incurring medical expenses, which were borne by his parents in the sum of about P200,000.00 plus other incidental expenses of about P10,000.00.

On February 5, 1986, Baliwag filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer, which was granted by the RTC. The Amended Answer incorporated the affirmative defense that on May 16 1985, George bad been paid all his claims for damages arising from the incident subject matter of the complaint when he signed the following “Release of Claims”, witnessed by his brother Benjamin L. Cailipan, a licensed engineer:

For and in consideration of the payment to me/us of the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND TWENTY and 50/100 PESOS ONLY (P8,020.50), the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I/we, being of lawful age, do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge Fortune Insurance and/or Baliwag transit, Inc. his/her heirs, executors and assigns, from any and all liability now accrued or hereafter to accrue on account of any and all claims or causes of action which I/we now or may here after have for personal injuries, damage to property, loss of services, medical expenses, losses or damages of any and every kind or nature whatsoever, now known or what may hereafter develop by me/us sustained or received on or about 17th day of December, 1984 through Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Physical Injuries, and I/we hereby declare that I/we fully understand the terms of this settlement and voluntarily accept said sum for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of the injuries and damages, expenses and inconvenience above mentioned. (Rollo, p. 11)

Opposing to petitioner’s affirmative defense, Sotero Cailipan, Jr. testified that be is the father of George, who at the time of the incident was a student, living with his parents & totally dependent on them for their support; that they (the parents) shouldered the expenses for his hospitalization; and that they had not signed the “Release of Claims.”

In an Order dated 29 August 1986, the RTC of Bulacan, Branch 20, ruled that since the contract of carriage is between Baliwag and George L. Cailipan, the latter, who is of legal age, had the exclusive right to execute the Release of Claims despite the fact that he is still a student & dependent on his parents for support. Consequently, the execution by George of the Release of Claims discharges Baliwag and Fortune Insurance.

The Spouses appealed to the CA. The CA rendered a Decision on October 22, 1987 setting aside the appealed Order and holding that the “Release of Claims” cannot operate as a valid ground for the dismissal of the case because it does not have the conformity of all the parties, particularly George’s parents, who have a substantial interest in the case as they stand to be prejudiced by the judgment because they spent a sizeable amount for the medical bills of their son; that the Release of Claims was secured by Fortune Insurance for the consideration of P8,020.50 as the full and final settlement of its liability under the insurance policy and not for the purpose of releasing Baliwag from its liability as a carrier in this suit for breach of contract. The Appellate Court also ordered the remand of the case to the lower Court for trial on the merits and for George to return the amount of P8,020.50 to Fortune Insurance.

ISSUES:

What is the legal effect of the Release of Claims executed by George during the pendency of this case?

HELD:

Since the suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, the Release of Claims executed by him, as the injured party, discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any and all liability is valid. He was then of legal age, a graduating student of Agricultural Engineering, and had the capacity to do acts with legal effect (Article 37 in relation to Article 402, Civil Code). Thus, he could sue and be sued even without the assistance of his parents.

The contract of carriage was actually between George, as the paying passenger, and Baliwag, as the common carrier. As such carrier, Baliwag was bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, and is liable for injuries to them through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees (Articles 1755 and 1759, Civil Code). Thus, George had the right to be safely brought to his destination and Baliwag had the correlative obligation to do so. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said contract (Marimperio Compania Naviera, S.A. vs. CA, No. L-40234, December 14, 1987, 156 SCRA 368).

A real party-in-interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party-in-interest-defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act/omission violates the legal right of the former (Lee vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. 60973, May 28, 1988). In the absence of any contract of carriage between Baliwag and George’s parents, the latter are not real parties-in-interest in an action for breach of that contract.

The general rule of the common law is that every action must be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed. 15 Enc. P1. & Pr. p. 484. “For the immediate wrong and damage the person injured is the only one who can maintain the action.” Id. p. 578. The person who sustains an injury is the person to bring an action for the injury against the wrongdoer.” Dicey parties to Actions, 347. (Cited in Green v. Shoemaker, 73 A 688, 23 L.R.A., N.S. 667).

There is no question regarding the genuineness & due execution of the Release of Claims. It is a duly notarized public document. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control (Article 1370, Civil Code). The phraseology “any and all claims or causes of action” is broad enough to include all damages that may accrue to the injured party arising from the unfortunate accident.

The Release of Claims had the effect of a compromise agreement since it was entered into for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment & settlement of the cause of action involved. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced (Article 2028, Civil Code).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s