Your honors, for my part, I will be discussing:

1. Who is a real party-in-interest

2. The award for damages, as well as the award for attorneys fees are proper.
Your honors, the court properly ruled that Charmaine is a valid substitute for Anna Mendoza in this
case for damages arising from negligence under Art. 1170.
CHARMAINE IS A REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
A. Complaint for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage survives the death of the party
Rule 3, Section 20 of the Rules of Court provides:
Action and contractual money claims. When the action is for recovery of money
arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death,
it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of
final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be
enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person.
34.

According to the case of Miranda v. Court of Appeals citing Bonilla v. Barcena,

The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the
action and the damage sued for (Iron Gate Bank vs. Brady, 184 U.S. 665, 22 SCT, 46
L.ed 739). In the cause of action which survive, the wrong complained affects
primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being
merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury
complained of is to the person, the property end rights of property effected being
incidental.1
35.
The nature of the action in this case is a complaint for damages arising from breach of
contract due to quasi-delict. It is an action for recovery of damages arising from the contract of
carriage and therefore the action survives the death of the party litigant.
B. CHARMAINE is the proper substitute of MENDOZA
Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof,
and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure
of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
This provision applies when either parties dies and the action survives.
1 G.R. No. 116909 (25 Feb 1999).

While the case for damages was pending, MENDOZA died and was properly substituted by her
daughter CHARMAINE. The law clearly provides that the heirs of the deceased may substitute for
the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator.
39.
According to the case of Sumaljag v. Literato, the substitutes should be those who are
authorized by law, namely, the legal heirs, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator, the administrator, the executor or the guardian.2 In this case, her daughter substituted
MENDOZA, the plaintiff.
REYES AND SANTOS ARE LIABLE FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES, MORAL DAMAGES,
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND COST OF SUIT.
A. Actual Damages
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that actual or compensatory damages are awarded to a
person for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Therefore, an award of actual
damages can be done only if the plaintiff can present proof of pecuniary loss. To seek recovery
for actual damages, it is essential that the injured party proves the actual amount of loss with
reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
available.

In this case, MENDOZA was able to present proof through documentary evidence, such as
medical bills, the hospital expenses that she incurred in her treatment. There is thus factual
basis for an award of actual damages. MENDOZAs expenses which amounted to One
Million Seven Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine Pesos and Eighty
centavos (Php 1,755,669.80) was proven by clear evidence.

B. Moral Damages
41.
Article 2217 of the Civil Code provides that moral damages are awarded to a person for
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
42.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages
predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219 of the
Civil Code. However, there are two exceptions to such rule: (1) where it is proved that the
carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith; and (2) where a passenger dies as a result of the
accident.
43.
Moral damages may be recovered in culpa contractual where the defendant acts in
bad faith or with malice in the breach of contract. Malice or bad faith implies moral obliquity or a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose. However, a conscious
or intentional design need not always be present since negligence may occasionally be so gross as
to amount to malice or bad faith. Thus, the Supreme Court, as in the case of Bankard, Inc. v.
Feliciano, held that moral damages may be awarded in culpa contractual or breach of contract

2 G.R. No. 149787 (18 Jun 2008).

when the defendant acts fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence amounting
to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations.3
44.
Nonetheless, even assuming that there was no bad faith or gross negligence on the part of
REYES, moral damages are still recoverable since MENDOZA died as a result of the accident.
Article 1764 of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages if the mishap results in the
death of a passenger. It is not disputed in this case that MENDOZA initially became a paraplegic as
an immediate consequence of the accident but she eventually succumbed to her injuries. An award
for moral damages is therefore proper by clear provision of law.
C. Attorneys Fees and Expenses of Litigation
45.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation
are recoverable where the court deems it just and equitable to award such. This means that the
grant of attorneys fees is subject to the discretion of the trial court and such award cannot be
disturbed absent abuse of discretion.
46.
According to the case of Ching Sen Ben v. CA, the award of attorneys fees as part of
damages is considered just and equitable when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses
to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party. 4 In this case,
MENDOZA had to invoke the aid of the courts due to REYES refusal to shoulder her medical
expenses. An award for costs of the case is thus proper because MENDOZA would not have incurred
expenses for litigation had REYES indemnified her for her injuries without resort to court action.
Four things, Your Honors:
1. The legal heir of a plaintiff can validly substitute for such plaintiff even without the courts
approval so long as the case is in the nature of a money claim, which survives the plaintiff.
2. The award for actual damages is proper as this was duly proven by competent evidence such as the
hospital bills.
3. Moral damages should also be awarded because Anna Mendoza died as a result of the collision.
4. Finally, the award for Attorneys fees is proper because Charmaine would not have instituted the
action were it not for the refusal of the appellant to help them when they asked for it.
If there are no further questions your Honors, I shall now cede the podium for the rebuttals of the
other party.
Thank you.

3 G.R. No. 141761 (28 Jul 2006).

4 G.R. No. 124355 (21 Sept 1999).