Comm2 Reviewer — Part II-D: Actions and Damages

PART 1 — SYLLABUS

1. Coverage Map

2. Learning Objectives

1. Frame every carrier suit in its source of obligation, naming the contract or the quasi-delict that creates the duty before touching diligence or excuse.
2. State the culpa contractual against culpa aquiliana distinctions cold, covering pre-existing relation with burden of proof with diligence with solidarity with prescription with the measure of damages.
3. Sort concurrent causes among the carrier with its employees with fellow passengers with strangers, and divide the loss under Arts. 1762, 1763, 2179, and 2194.
4. Plead the elements of the cause of action against the carrier, shifting the burden through the presumptions of Arts. 1735 and 1756 once carriage plus loss is shown.
5. Measure recoverable damages by extent, applying foreseeability in contract under Art. 2201 against all natural consequences in quasi-delict under Art. 2202, then naming the kind under Art. 2197.
6. Prove actual damages with receipts and computations, run the death formula of Art. 2206 with loss of earning capacity, and deny double recovery for reimbursed expense.
7. Open the attorney fee door only through Art. 2208 and compute interest under Arts. 2209 to 2213 with the six percent legal rate prevailing since July 1, 2013.
8. Award each non-compensatory kind only on its own ground, giving moral for bad faith or anguish under Arts. 2217 to 2220, nominal to vindicate under Art. 2221, temperate where amount is uncertain under Art. 2224, liquidated as agreed under Art. 2226, and exemplary to correct under Arts. 2229 to 2234.

3. Authority Inventory

A. Cases

B. Laws and Rules

4. Three-Pass Study Plan

Why this order: the examiner grades provision-first answers, so the authority filter comes before doctrine. Then confusion pairs win marks because Part II-D questions punish merged ideas of moral with exemplary, nominal with temperate, and fees with interest.

5. Syllabus Self-Check

1. A passenger hurt by a fellow rider sues the bus line in contract. What must the line prove about prevention. (§1)
2. The same crash also draws a suit against the rock thrower in tort. Why may both stand and what bars double payment. (§1)
3. Two cargo wrongdoers split the fault for one soaked shipment. Are they joint or solidary and under which article. (§1)
4. A shipper sues four years and one month after a voyage loss in an oral booking. Which prescription kills or saves the claim. (§1)
5. A claimant proves the ticket plus the fall plus the bills but names no diligence theory. Has a cause of action been stated. (§2)
6. A carrier in good faith loses goods worth a sum no one could have foreseen at booking. How far does Art. 2201 reach. (§2)
7. The same loss comes from a reckless deviation the line chose. How does bad faith widen the same article. (§2)
8. A reimbursed ticket expense is claimed again as actual damages. Which holding in British Airways answers. (§3)
9. A seaman dies at twenty-eight earning nine hundred dollars a month. Walk the earning-capacity formula to the peso. (§3)
10. A winning shipper asks fees only because it was forced to sue. Which article and which case deny the plea. (§3)
11. A 2010 judgment earns twelve percent from finality while a 2016 award earns six percent from demand. Which decisions explain each rate. (§3)
12. A rightly delivered passenger sues for wounded feelings over a rude conductor remark without bad faith. Does moral lie. (§4)
13. A line cancels confirmed workers flights thrice without notice out of spite. Which damages open and why. (§4)
14. A court grants both actual and nominal damages for one death. Which holding deletes one of them. (§4)
15. A cargo loss is certain but the papers burned with the warehouse. Which kind fills the gap and what bounds it. (§4)
16. A bill pegs delay damages at a laughable peso a day. Which article rescues the shipper and how. (§4)

PART 2 — BOOK + AUTHORITY REVIEWER

0. One-Page Outline

Framing questions for every problem: what source creates the duty (contract, tort, or both). Which provision supplies each element. Who contributed and did the carrier prevent what it could have prevented. What loss was proved peso for peso and what anguish or correction remains unpaid.

Mnemonic for the four sections: Source, Elements, Pesos, Plus (contract or tort first, elements next, pesos proved, plus the correcting kinds). Numbers: 6-4-10 (six kinds in Art. 2197, four-year quasi-delict prescription, ten-year written-contract prescription) with 3-50-6 (three thousand pesos in the Art. 2206 text against fifty thousand pesos case indemnity, six percent legal interest since July 1, 2013).

1. Contract vs Other Sources; Culpa Contractual vs Culpa Aquiliana; Concurrent Causes

“Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” — Art. 1170, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.” — Art. 2176, Civil Code of the Philippines

“The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.” — Art. 2194, Civil Code of the Philippines

Source sorts the suit before diligence is argued. A bus passenger hurt by a hurled rock sues the line in contract and the thrower in tort, and each action keeps its own elements with its own clock. The line defeats the contract claim with utmost-diligence proof, never by pointing at the stranger alone, since Art. 1763 asks what the crew could have prevented. The thrower defeats the tort claim only by disproving fault or causation. Where both helped, as with an open window beside an unguarded stop, solidarity lets the victim collect once from either, and the payer settles accounts with the other afterward.

2018 Bar Q: Ysidro, a paying passenger, was on board Bus No. 904 owned and operated by Yatco Transportation Company (Yatco). He boarded the bus at Munoz, Nueva Ecija with Manila as his final destination. He was seated on the first row, window seat on the left side of the bus. As the bus was negotiating the national highway in front of the public market of Gerona, Tarlac, the bus came to a full stop because of the traffic. The driver of the bus took this opportunity to check on the tires of the bus and to relieve himself. As he was alighting from the bus to do these, an unidentified man standing along the highway hurled a huge rock at the left side of the bus and hit Ysidro between his eyes. He lost consciousness and immediately the driver, with the conductor, drove the bus to bring him to the nearest hospital. He expired before the bus could reach the hospital. Ysidro’s wife and children brought a civil action to collect damages from Yatco, alleging that as a common carrier, it was required to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers. They contended that, in case of injuries and/or death on the part of any of its passengers, the common carrier is presumed to be at fault. In its defense, Yatco alleged that it is not an absolute insurer of its passengers and that Ysidro’s death was not due to any defect in the means of transport or method of transporting passengers, or the negligent acts of its employees. Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger over whom the common carrier had no control, or of which it did not have any prior knowledge to be able to prevent it, the cause of Ysidro’s death should be considered a fortuitous event and not the liability of the common carrier. (a) Is a common carrier presumed to be at fault whenever there is death or injury to its passengers, regardless of the cause of death or injury? (2.5%) (b) What kind of diligence is required of common carriers like Yatco for the protection of its passengers? (2.5%) (c) Will your answer be the same as your answer in (b) above, if the assailant was another paying passenger who boarded the bus and deliberately stabbed Ysidro to death? (2.5%)

A: No to the blanket presumption, yet the diligence stays utmost and the fellow-passenger variant binds the line where prevention was possible. The presumption of Art. 1756 runs where death or injury attends carriage, and the carrier rebuts it only with proof of the extraordinary diligence of Arts. 1733 and 1755, so a stranger act is tested by preventability rather than by insurance logic. A rock from the roadside acquits where the crew could have done nothing with good-family care, since Art. 1763 frees the carrier for stranger harm it could not have prevented or stopped. A stabbing by a co-passenger binds where the crew could have prevented or stopped it with the same care, since the article draws no line between strangers and fellow riders. The heirs therefore face fair adjudication on prevention proof, with the rock case turning on the blind roadside and the knife case turning on what the conductor saw and did.

Q: A stowaway hiding in a bus toilet and a fare-paying rider beside him are both hurt when a stranger smashes a window with a bottle. The line answers the rider but disowns the stowaway. Which answers stand?

A: Both answers stand, since the rider holds a contract claim tested by prevention while the stowaway holds none at all. The rider proves the ticket with the injury and the line must show utmost diligence with nothing preventable left undone under Arts. 1756 and 1763. The stowaway proves no carriage, so no contract presumption ever arises for him and only a tort claim with fault proof could even begin. The line therefore pays or rebuts on the rider while meeting the stowaway purely on fault if sued at all.

2. Elements of Cause of Action; Recoverable Damages

“Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.” — Art. 2197, Civil Code of the Philippines

“In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.” — Art. 2201, Civil Code of the Philippines

“In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.” — Art. 2202, Civil Code of the Philippines

Elements run in order and none is skipped. The ticket proves the tie, the loss proves the breach, and the bills prove the consequence. Then extent decides how far money follows the wrong. A good-faith delay that spoils a foreseeable market pays the spoiled value, while a wanton deviation that invites the same spoilage pays everything reasonably attributed to the wandering. British Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 92288, 1993) shows extent policed at the proof stage, since reimbursed ticket expense recovered nothing though bad faith still drew moral with exemplary awards. Lara v. Valencia (G.R. No. L-9907, 1958) shows the claim dying at breach, since a careful gratuitous host committed no fault for the guest own fall to exploit.

Q: A consignee proves the bill with short delivery of ten crates but brings no purchase invoices, then claims the highest price the goods ever fetched that year. What does the claim still lack?

A: The claim lacks proved value, since carriage plus shortage states liability while pesos still need proof. The bill with the shortage engages the presumption and fixes breach, so the carrier must pay whatever loss the papers prove. The peak price without invoices proves no pecuniary loss actually suffered, so Art. 2199 holds actual damages to adequate compensation only as duly proved. The consignee therefore keeps liability established but recovers only the value its own evidence sustains.

Q: A line in good faith misroutes a crate of ordinary spare parts, while a second line spitefully strands a migrant worker who then loses an abroad job. How does extent differ between the two?

A: Extent differs by state of mind, since good faith pays the foreseeable while spite pays all reasonably attributed loss. The misrouted parts pay the natural and probable value foreseeable at booking under the first rule of Art. 2201. The spiteful stranding pays the lost placement with its consequences once bad faith appears under the second rule of the same article. The worker therefore recovers wider than the parts owner though both sue in contract.

3. Actual/Compensatory Damages; Attorney’s Fees; Interests

“Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.” — Art. 2199, Civil Code of the Philippines

“The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.” — Art. 2206, Civil Code of the Philippines

“In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except in the cases below where the court deems recovery just and equitable and the fees reasonable.” — Art. 2208, Civil Code of the Philippines (abridged enumeration: exemplary awarded, compelled litigation with third persons, malicious prosecution, clearly unfounded suit, gross and evident bad faith, legal support, wage recovery, workmen’s indemnity, separate civil action from crime, double costs, and any other just and equitable case)

“If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.” — Art. 2209, Civil Code of the Philippines

Actual damages count money while the other kinds count vindication, anguish, or correction. The carrier that loses proven crates pays their invoice value with the profits the consignee proves it missed, and the carrier whose breach kills a passenger pays the fixed indemnity with the computed earning capacity on top. Sps. Cruz v. Sun Holidays (G.R. No. 186312, 2010) models the full stack, since a package-tour drowning drew fifty thousand pesos indemnity with eight million three hundred sixteen thousand pesos earning capacity with one hundred thousand pesos moral with one hundred thousand pesos exemplary with ten percent fees, all at twelve percent from finality under the then prevailing rate. Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 194121, 2016) models cargo actuals, since hijacked broker cargo paid seven million two hundred ninety-three thousand three hundred eighty-six pesos and twenty-three centavos with two hundred thousand pesos fees and legal interest to full payment. National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112287, 1997) models the fee denial, since a victorious private carrier that merely defended its charter recovered no fees without bad faith shown.

Case: Sps. Cruz v. Sun Holidays, Inc., G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010

Facts: A couple bought a package honeymoon tour with island boat transfers operated by the resort carrier. The boat capsized on the Palawan crossing and one spouse drowned, leaving the survivor to sue for the contractual breach that killed.

Issue: The question was what death in carrier breach pays across indemnity, earning capacity, moral, exemplary, fees, and interest.

Held: The Court held the carrier liable in full. It awarded fifty thousand pesos death indemnity with eight million three hundred sixteen thousand pesos loss of earning capacity with one hundred thousand pesos moral damages with one hundred thousand pesos exemplary damages with attorney fees at ten percent of the total, all earning twelve percent interest from finality under the rate then prevailing.

Doctrine: Death by carrier breach draws the Art. 2206 package of indemnity with earning capacity with moral damages, adds exemplary where presumed recklessness attended, and prices the total with fees and legal interest.

Q: A shipper claims twenty thousand dollars for ten missing crates but its own manager admits the foreign principal already reimbursed the full invoice value. The bill carries no declared higher value. What survives of the money claim?

A: The actual claim dies while any bad-faith correction could live on separate proof. Reimbursement quenches pecuniary loss, so Art. 2199 leaves nothing more to compensate and British Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 92288, 1993) deletes the award. Without a declared higher value the package limitation would have capped any surviving cargo value in any event. The shipper therefore keeps at most moral with exemplary on fraud or bad-faith proof, never the reimbursed sum again.

Q: A bus line kills a thirty-year-old father earning thirty thousand pesos a month. The heirs prove the payroll with the birth record. Walk the award from indemnity to interest.

A: The award stacks indemnity with capacity with interest, each on its own proof. Death indemnity of fifty thousand pesos goes to the heirs on the death alone under the Art. 2206 package as applied in Sps. Cruz v. Sun Holidays (G.R. No. 186312, 2010). Earning capacity runs two thirds of fifty years times one hundred eighty thousand pesos net yearly, which is thirty-three and one third years times one hundred eighty thousand pesos or six million pesos on full proof. Moral follows for mental anguish under Art. 2206, exemplary follows on presumed recklessness, fees follow on a statutory door, and the total earns six percent legal interest from finality under the present rate.

4. Moral; Nominal; Temperate or Moderate; Liquidated; Exemplary or Corrective Damages

“Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.” — Art. 2217, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.” — Art. 2220, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.” — Art. 2221, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.” — Art. 2224, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.” — Art. 2226, Civil Code of the Philippines

“Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.” — Art. 2229, Civil Code of the Philippines

“In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.” — Art. 2232, Civil Code of the Philippines

“While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.” — Art. 2234, Civil Code of the Philippines (first sentence)

Moral assuages while exemplary corrects, and the two must never be confused. Moral looks backward at the anguish the victim suffered, so bereavement with spiteful breach draws it freely. Exemplary looks forward at the conduct the public needs deterred, so recklessness with oppression draws it even where anguish was modest. British Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 92288, 1993) pairs them properly, since bad-faith cancellations drew both while the reimbursed tickets drew no actual sum. Sps. Pereña v. Sps. Nicolas (G.R. No. 157917, 2012) scales them properly, since cooperative carrier negligence behind a fatal school-van crash drew millions in moral correction with a matching exemplary lesson.

Case: British Airways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92288, February 9, 1993

Facts: An airline thrice cancelled confirmed bookings of contract workers without notice and rebooked them at its convenience. The travel agency that absorbed the complaints sued for the wasted tickets with the injury to its standing.

Issue: The question was whether reimbursed expense could still count as actual damages and whether spiteful cancellations could draw moral with exemplary awards.

Held: The Court held that actual damages failed because the principal had reimbursed the ticket expense in full. It kept twenty thousand pesos moral with ten thousand pesos exemplary damages with fees, since repeated unilateral cancellations proved malice with evident bad faith.

Doctrine: Reimbursement quenches actual loss under Art. 2199, while fraudulent or bad-faith breach draws moral under Art. 2220 with exemplary under Art. 2232.

Case: LRTA v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003

Facts: A paying passenger leapt from a train beset by a coercive crowd of train boys and fell to death under the moving cars. The heirs sued the train operator with its operations manager for the breach that killed.

Issue: The question was what the train death pays and whether the blameless manager answers beside the operator.

Held: The Court held the operator liable for forty-four thousand eight hundred thirty pesos actual with fifty thousand pesos moral with fifty thousand pesos death indemnity with twenty thousand pesos fees. It deleted the fifty thousand pesos nominal award since nominal cannot coexist with compensatory damages, and it absolved the manager for want of personal culpable act.

Doctrine: Train death pays actual with moral with indemnity on presumed fault unrebutted, nominal never doubles compensatory vindication, and contract binds the carrier for employees without making every manager solidary.

Q: A line delays a bride three hours through plain mismanagement, apologizes at once, and refunds the fare in full. She sues for moral damages over ruined photographs. Does she collect?

A: She collects no moral sum, since clean breach without fraud or bad faith draws only actual loss under Art. 2220. The refund quenches the pecuniary part and the prompt apology negates the spite that moral requires. Her ruined photographs, though genuinely painful, sound in unproved consequence rather than in Art. 2217 anguish proximately tied to a wrongful manner. The claim therefore ends with the refunded fare.

Q: A carrier pays the fifty thousand pesos death indemnity but fights the one hundred thousand pesos moral award, arguing no fraud attended the accident. The death came from its own admittedly reckless overloading. What answers the carrier?

A: Recklessness answers the carrier, since presumed fault unrebutted in a death case is wanton enough for both moral and exemplary awards. Art. 2206 gives the spouse with descendants with ascendants moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death alone. Presumed recklessness from unexplained overloading opens exemplary under Art. 2232 as Sps. Cruz v. Sun Holidays (G.R. No. 186312, 2010) holds. The indemnity therefore stands beside moral with exemplary rather than instead of them.

Quick-Recall Tables

Exam Traps

1. Contract needs a tie while quasi-delict needs fault without one, since Art. 2176 draws the line at the pre-existing relation.
2. The contract victim rides presumptions after proving carriage plus loss, while the tort victim proves fault with causation.
3. Carrier diligence is extraordinary and utmost, while ordinary tort diligence is that of a good father of a family.
4. Contract solidarity needs a source under Art. 1207, while tort solidarity is automatic under Art. 2194.
5. The contract clock runs long and the tort clock runs four years, so the pleaded source picks the deadline.
6. Good faith pays the foreseeable while bad faith pays all reasonably attributed loss under Art. 2201.
7. Quasi-delict pays all natural and probable consequences with foreseeability irrelevant under Art. 2202.
8. Carriage plus loss plus injury states the claim, and only diligence proof, statutory excuse, or victim sole fault defeats it.
9. Actual pays pesos duly proved and nothing beyond, since Art. 2199 allows adequate compensation only once.
10. Reimbursement kills actual damages, as reimbursed tickets taught in British Airways.
11. Death in carrier breach stacks indemnity with earning capacity with moral, as Sps. Cruz models at fifty thousand with millions with one hundred thousand.
12. Earning capacity runs two thirds of eighty minus age times net yearly income, never gross times life expectancy.
13. Fees need a stipulation or an Art. 2208 door, and victory alone never opens one as National Steel holds.
14. Interest on breach is discretionary under Art. 2210, and the prevailing legal rate is six percent since July 1, 2013 under Nacar.
15. Contract breach without fraud or bad faith draws no moral sum under Art. 2220.
16. Death anguish draws moral for close kin under Art. 2206 without separate bad-faith proof.
17. Cargo loss without wilful injury draws no moral sum, as the Unsworth package award shows.
18. Nominal vindicates without paying and never doubles compensatory damages for one death, as LRTA deleted it.
19. Temperate needs certain loss with uncertain amount and must stay reasonable.
20. Liquidated follows the agreed figure but iniquitous figures are reduced, and exemplary can never be renounced in advance.
21. Exemplary corrects for the public good and never stands alone without prior entitlement to another kind under Art. 2234.
22. The blameless manager walks free beside the liable carrier, as Roman walked in LRTA.

Key Authorities Cited

Codes: Civil Code Arts. 1144-1146, 1148-1149, 1170, 1172-1174, 1207, 1755-1756, 1759-1764, 2176, 2179-2180, 2194, and 2197-2235 with Code of Commerce bills and charter allocation carried from Parts II-A to II-C.

Special laws and doctrines: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994 with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013 on the interest path, and the earning-capacity formula through Smith Bell as applied in Sps. Cruz.

Cases: G.R. No. 186312 (2010), G.R. No. 92288 (1993), G.R. No. 145804 (2003), G.R. No. 157917 (2012), G.R. No. L-9907 (1958), G.R. No. 166250 (2010), G.R. No. 112287 (1997), and G.R. No. 194121 (2016) with G.R. No. 97412 (1994) and G.R. No. 189871 (2013) attesting the interest quotations.

Source and Verification Note

Scope follows the syllabus Part II-D slice with the table of contents of Aquino 2024 Chapter 10 in exact order. The Aquino textbook file on this machine is a scanned-image portable document whose pages yield no extractable text, so chapter substance was rebuilt from the controlling provisions with the eight damages-relevant assigned Batch 2 digests and the Batch 2 Case List rather than from verbatim book prose. Civil Code quotations were read from the ChanRobles full-text capture of Republic Act No. 386 cross-checked against the Official Gazette text, namely Arts. 1146, 1170, 1172-1174, 1207, 1755-1756, 1759-1764, 2176, 2179-2180, 2194, 2197, 2199-2202, 2206, 2208-2213, 2216-2217, 2219, 2220-2221, 2223-2227, 2229-2235, and 1764. The Art. 2208 quotation above is an abridged enumeration naming all eleven instances rather than the full paragraph text. The 2018 Bar Q stem on Ysidro and Yatco is verbatim from the Bar Questions compilation, and no other verbatim damages-kinds question exists in the 2016 to 2025 bank, so remaining drills are drafted without years. The Eastern Shipping and Nacar rate statements were verified against the LawPhil full texts of G.R. No. 97412 and G.R. No. 189871. Case citations and dates come from the Batch 2 Case List with consolidated dockets reduced to the first number. Drafted drills carry no year. Doctrinal points beyond the assigned digests, such as the alternative-compensation sorting with the moral-factor weighing, are stated as derivations from the verified provision texts rather than as book assertions. Amendatory and related laws are dated in text, namely the Code of Commerce of 1888, the Civil Code of 1950, P.D. No. 1755 of 1980, Commonwealth Act No. 65 of 1936, R.A. No. 4136 of 1964, and the Montreal Convention adopted in 1999. No invented statute, docket, or holding is asserted.