FACTS:

On July 11, 1973, petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian boarded respondent's "Thames" mini-bus as a paying passenger. While the bus was running along the highway in Barrio Payocpoc, Bauang, La Union, it suddenly made a snapping sound and later bumped a cement flower pot, causing the vehicle to go off the road, turn turtle, and fall into a ditch. Gatchalian and several other passengers were injured and were taken to Bethany Hospital for medical treatment. Gatchalian sustained physical injuries on her leg, arm, and forehead. On July 14, 1973, while the injured passengers were still confined in the hospital, the wife of the respondent visited them, paid for their hospitalization and medical expenses, and had them sign a Joint Affidavit stating that they were no longer interested in filing any complaint or action against the driver and owner of the mini-bus. Despite signing the Joint Affidavit, Gatchalian filed a complaint to recover compensatory and moral damages for her injuries. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the signed Joint Affidavit, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conclusion on the validity of the waiver and affirmed the dismissal of the case. Gatchalian filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Joint Affidavit does not constitute a valid waiver of her cause of action.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there was an enforceable waiver of the right of action by the petitioner.

2. Whether the respondent has successfully proven that he exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the mishap.

3. Whether the defense of force majeure is applicable in this case.

4. Whether there is evidence of fault or negligence on the part of the respondent common carrier.

5. Whether petitioner Gatchalian lost her employment after the accident.

6. Whether petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to damages for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on her forehead.

7. Whether petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to moral damages.

8. Whether petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to attorney fees.

9. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on his forehead;

10. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be awarded moral damages; and

11. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be awarded attorney's fees.

RULING:

1. The Court held that there was no enforceable waiver of the right of action by the petitioner.

2. The Court found that the respondent failed to prove that he exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the mishap.

3. The defense of force majeure is not applicable in this case because the respondent failed to clearly show that the casualty was entirely independent of the human will and that it was impossible to avoid.

4. The Court found affirmative evidence of fault or negligence on the part of the respondent common carrier.

5. Petitioner Gatchalian did not lose her employment after the accident. The Court of Appeals found that she was no longer employed in a public school at the time of the accident since she had been laid off as a casual employee. The Court upheld this factual finding, as it was entitled to due respect, and found no basis to overturn it.

6. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to damages for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on her forehead. The Court recognized that a scar, especially one on the face, resulting from an injury is a violation of bodily integrity and gives rise to a legitimate claim for restoration to the condition before the injury. The Court cited a previous case where actual or compensatory damages were awarded for the surgical removal of a scar on the face of a young boy injured in a vehicular collision. Considering the necessity and cost of corrective measures, as well as the pain and feelings of inferiority suffered by petitioner, the Court deemed the amount of P15,000.00 as reasonable for the cost of plastic surgery.

7. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to moral damages. The Court held that moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. Since the respondent common carrier and his driver were found to be grossly negligent in connection with the bus mishap, and considering the extent of pain and anxiety suffered by petitioner as a result of her physical injuries and permanent scar, the Court deemed the amount of P30,000.00 as a reasonable award for moral damages.

8. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to attorney fees. The Court considered her claim for attorney fees as modest and granted the amount of P1,000.00.

9. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on his forehead.

10. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded moral damages.

11. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded attorney's fees.

PRINCIPLES:

• A common carrier has a duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting the safety of its passengers.

• In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault or negligent, which can only be overcome by showing that extraordinary diligence was observed.

• A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all the circumstances.

• To be exempted from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers on the ground of force majeure, the carrier must show that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the human will and that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury defeats the defense of force majeure.

• Failure to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the vehicle and negligence in responding to warning signs of potential problems constitute wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers and gross negligence on the part of the common carrier.

• Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are entitled to due respect and may only be overturned if there is a basis to do so. Speculation or conjecture cannot form the basis for awarding damages.

• A scar, especially one on the face resulting from an injury, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving rise to a legitimate claim for restoration to the condition before the injury.

• Actual or compensatory damages may be awarded for the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of a scar resulting from an injury. The amount awarded should be reasonable, taking into account the necessity and cost of corrective measures, as well as the pain and feelings of inferiority suffered by the injured party.

• Moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown.

• Attorney fees may be awarded if the claimant's action is based on a written contract, or when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the claimant to litigate to protect their interests.

• The court may award actual or compensatory damages for such pecuniary loss or monetary injury that has been suffered.

• Moral damages may be awarded in cases of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation, physical injuries, and mental anguish.

• Attorney's fees may be granted when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights and interest due to the unjustified act of the other party.