G.R. No. 208802 October 14, 2015

G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., v HEIRS OF ROMEO L. BATTUNG, JR., represented by ROMEO BATTUNG, SR.,

Commercial Law; Transportation Law; Common Carrier. While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance, and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide. What constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.

Same; same; same. Where the injury sustained by the passenger was (1) in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting, or (2) to the negligent or willful acts of the common carrier's employees with respect to the foregoing – such as when the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers which the carrier had no control of or prior knowledge to prevent- there would be no issue regarding the common carrier's negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable care, as well as competent employees in relation to its transport business; as such, the presumption of fault/negligence foisted under Article 1756 of the Civil Code should not apply.

Same; same; same. Case law states that the concept of diligence of a good father of a family connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation.

PERLAS- BERNABE J.:

FACTS: The case started on a shooting incident wherein the victim Battung, was shot by a co- passenger while riding the petitioner’s bus on a trip going to Manila. While on their way, the bus driver stopped the vehicle, alighted and checked the tires. It is at this moment when a co- passenger shot the victim who was sitting at the first row and immediately went down the bus. The conductor, after seeing what happened, informed the driver and they immediately brought Battung to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Hence, a complaint was filed by the respondents against the driver, conductor and the petitioner corporation for civil liability alleging breach on the contract of carriage on the part of the latter thereby causing the death of Battung. The respondents alleged that being a common

carrier, the petitioner is bound to observe extraordinary care and diligence in ensuring the safety of passenger. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents and affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages to respondent.

HELD: NEGATIVE. Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. However a common carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers as stressed by the law on several jurisprudence of the SC.

With us is a mere presumption of fault on the part of the common carrier which, of course, may be rebutted upon showing of proof that exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event.

It is therefore vital for the carrier to prove that the injury or death does not arise out of their negligence or of its employees in carrying the passenger for transport. In the case at bar, the death is neither caused by the negligence of the petitioner corporation nor the driver and conductor but is caused by a stealthy action of a co- passenger who after killing the victim, immediately alighted. Therefore, the petitioner’s act of extraordinary diligence could not be put into question and no presumption of fault or negligence could be used.

Hence, in this case, the applicable provision is Article 1763 of the Civil Code, which states that a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission, which indeed requires a lesser degree of diligence on the part of the common carrier. And here, the prosecution still failed to prove negligence on the part of the petitioner. No danger or suspicious action was foreseen by the petitioner or any of its employees from the time the killers went inside the bus, when they are being ticketed or asked of their fare that would require any heightened alert and security measures.

Consequently, it cannot be settled that there is a failure to employ diligence of a good father of a family by the petitioner or any of its employees in relation to its responsibility under Article 1763 of the Civil Code. As such, petitioner cannot altogether be held civilly liable.