set iii transpo case digests

7/23/2019 Set III Transpo Case Digests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/set-iii-transpo-case-digests 1/22

HERMINIO L. NOCUM, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS

BUS COMPANY, efenant-appellant.

!ACTS"

- Herminio L. Nocum who was a passenger in Bus No. 120 of Laguna

Tayabas Bus Company then making a trip within the barrio of ita!"unicipa#ity of Bay! Laguna! was in$ure% as a conse&uence of the

e'p#osion of firecrackers! containe% in a bo'! #oa%e% in sai% bus an%

%ec#are% to its con%uctor as containing c#othes an% misce##aneous

items by a co-passenger.

- (ccor%ing to )e*erino (n%aya! a witness for the p#aintiff! a man with

a bo' went up the baggage compartment of the bus where he

a#rea%y was an% sai% bo' was p#ace% un%er the seat. They #eft

(+carraga at about 11,0 in the morning an% when the e'p#osion

occurre%! he was thrown out. C in*estigation report states that thirty

se*en / passengers were in$ure%.

- The bus con%uctor! )ancho "en%o+a! testifie% that the bo'

be#onge% to a passenger whose name he %oes not know an% who

to#% him that it containe% misce##aneous items an% c#othes. He he#pe%

the owner in #oa%ing the baggage which weighe% about twe#*e /12

ki#os an% because of company regu#ation! he charge% him for it

twenty-fi*e centa*os /0.2. 3rom its appearance there was no

in%ication at a## that the contents were e'p#osi*es or firecrackers.

Neither %i% he open the bo' because he $ust re#ie% on the wor% of the

owner.

- ispatcher Nico#as Cornista of %efen%ant company corroborrate%the testimony of "en%o+a an% he sai%! among other things! that he

was present when the bo' was #oa%e% in the truck an% the owner

agree% to pay its fare. He a%%e% that they were not authori+e% to

open the baggages of passengers because instruction from the

management was to ca## the po#ice if there were packages containing

artic#es which were against regu#ations.

- Nocum fi#e% a comp#aint against Laguna Tayabas with C34

Batangas.

- C34 ru#e% in fa*or of Nocum.

C34 ecision, Laguna Tayabas %i% not obser*e the e'traor%inary or

utmost %i#igence of a *ery cautious person re&uire% by artic#es 1!

1 an% 15 of the NCC.

- The ser*ice manua# prohibits the emp#oyees to a##ow e'p#osi*es!

such as %ynamite an% firecrackers to be transporte% on its buses. To

imp#ement this particu#ar ru#e for the safety of passengers! it was

therefore incumbent upon the emp#oyees of the company to make

the proper inspection of a## the baggages which are carrie% by the

passengers.

- 3ortuitous e*ent6 (ccor%ing to C34! N788 The cause of the

une'pecte% e*ent must be in%epen%ent of the wi## of man o

something which cannot be a*oi%e%. This cannot be sai% of the

instant case. 4f proper an% rigi% inspection were obser*e% by the

%efen%ant! the contents of the bo' cou#% ha*e been %isco*ere% an%

the acci%ent a*oi%e%. 9efusa# by the passenger to ha*e the package

opene% was no e'cuse because! as state% by ispatcher Cornista

emp#oyees shou#% ca## the po#ice if there were packages containingartic#es against company regu#ations. Neither was fai#ure by

emp#oyees of %efen%ant company to %etect the contents of the

packages of passengers because #ike the rationa#e in the Necesito

*s. aras case /supra! a passenger has neither choice nor contro# in

the e'ercise of their %iscretion in %etermining what are insi%e the

package of co-passengers which may e*entua##y pro*e fata#.

- Hence! this appea#.

(ssignment of error:Laguna Tayabas; contention

- C34 <99< 4N N7T (B)7L=4N> (<LL(NT 397" L4(B4L4T?

9<)@LT4N> 397" TH< <AL7)47N 73 349<C9(C<9)

C7NT(4N< 4N ( (C(><! TH< C7NT<NT) 73 H4CH <9<

"4)9<9<)<NT< B? ( ())<N><9

ISSUE" :N L(>@N( T(?(B() 4) L4(BL<

RULING"

N7. (rtic#e 1 reasonab#y &ua#ifies the e'traor%inary %i#igencere&uire% of common carriers for the safety of the passengers

transporte% by them to be Daccor%ing to a## the circumstances of each

case.D 4n fact! (rtic#e 1 repeats this same &ua#ification, D(

common carrier is boun% to carry the passengers safe#y as far as

human care an% foresight can pro*i%e! using the utmost %i#igence of

*ery cautious persons! with %ue regar% for a# # the circumstances.D

hi#e it is true the passengers of appe##ant;s bus shou#% not be ma%e

to suffer for something o*er which they ha% no contro#! fairness

%eman%s that in measuring a common carrier;s %uty towar%s its

passengers! a##owance must be gi*en to the re#iance that shou#% be

repose% on the sense of responsibi#ity of a## the passengers in regar%

to their common safety. 4t is to be presume% that a passenger wi## not

take with him anything %angerous to the #i*es an% #imbs of his co-

passengers! not to speak of his own.

Not to be #ight#y consi%ere% must be the right to pri*acy to which

each passenger is entit#e%. He cannot be sub$ecte% to any unusua

search! when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage an%

nothing appears to in%icate the contrary! as in the case at bar. 4n

other wor%s! in&uiry may be *erba##y ma%e as to the nature of a

passenger;s baggage when such is not outwar%#y perceptib#e! bu



beyon% this! constitutiona# boun%aries are a#rea%y in %anger of being

transgresse%. Ca##ing a po#iceman to his ai%! as suggeste% by the

ser*ice manua# in*oke% by the tria# $u%ge! in compe##ing the

passenger to submit to more rigi% inspection! after the passenger

ha% a#rea%y %ec#are% that the bo' containe% mere c#othes an% other

misce##aneous! cou#% not ha*e $ustifie% in*asion of a constitutiona##y

protecte% %omain.

C34 %ecision re*erse%. Case is %ismisse%.

(%%itiona# chor*aness,

(ppe##ant further in*okes (rtic#e 11E of the Ci*i# Co%e which re#ie*es

a## ob#igors! inc#u%ing! of course! common carriers #ike appe##ant! from

the conse&uence of fortuitous e*ents. The court a &uo he#% that Dthe

breach of contract /in this case was not %ue to fortuitous e*ent an%

that! therefore! the %efen%ant is #iab#e in %amages.D )ince e ho#%

that appe##ant has succee%e% in rebutting the presumption of

neg#igence by showing that it has e'ercise% e'traor%inary %i#igence

for the safety of its passengers! Daccor%ing to the circumstances of

the /each caseD! e %eem it unnecessary to ru#e whether or not

there was any fortuitous e*ent in this case.

NEGROS NA#IGATION CO., INC., petiti$ne%, vs. THE COURT O!

APPEALS, RAMON MIRAN&A, SPS. RICAR&O an #IRGINIA &E

LA #ICTORIA, %esp$nents.

!ACTS"

- 4n (pri# of 1FG0! pri*ate respon%ent 9amon "iran%a purchase%from the Negros Na*igation Co.! 4nc. four specia# cabin tickets

/EE11! EE12! EE1 an% EE1E for his wife! %aughter! son an%

niece who were going to Baco#o% City to atten% a fami#y reunion. The

tickets were for =oyage No. E-( of the ":= on Iuan! #ea*ing

"ani#a at 1,00 p.m. on (pri# 22! 1FG0.

- The ship sai#e% from the port of "ani#a on sche%u#e. (t about 10,0

in the e*ening of (pri# 22! 1FG0! the on Iuan co##i%e% off the Tab#as

)trait in "in%oro! with the ":T Tac#oban City! an oi# tanker owne% by

the hi#ippine Nationa# 7i# Company /N7C an% the N7C

)hipping an% Transport Corporation /N7C:)TC. (s a resu#t! the

":= on Iuan sank. )e*era# of her passengers perishe% in the sea

trage%y. The bo%ies of some of the *ictims were foun% an% brought to

shore! but the four members of pri*ate respon%ents fami#ies were

ne*er foun%.

- ri*ate respon%ents fi#e% a comp#aint on Iu#y 15! 1FG0 in the

9egiona# Tria# Court of "ani#a! Branch E! against the Negros

Na*igation! the hi#ippine Nationa# 7i# Company /N7C! an% the

N7C )hipping an% Transport Corporation /N7C:)TC! seeking

%amages for the %eath of (r%ita %e #a =ictoria "iran%a! EG! 9osario =.

"iran%a! 1F! 9amon =. "iran%a! Ir.! 15! an% <#fre%a %e #a =ictoria

25.

- 4n its answer! petitioner a%mitte% that pri*ate respon%ents

purchase% ticket numbers EE11! EE12! EE1 an% EE1EJ that the

ticket numbers were #iste% in the passenger manifestJ an% that the

on Iuan #eft ier 2! North Harbor! "ani#a on (pri# 22! 1FG0 an% sank

that night after being ramme% by the oi# tanker ":T Tac#oban City

an% that! as a resu#t of the co##ision! some of the passengers of the":= on Iuan %ie%.

- etitioner! howe*er! %enie% that the four re#ati*es of pri*ate

respon%ents actua##y boar%e% the *esse# as shown by the fact tha

their bo%ies were ne*er reco*ere%. etitioner further a*erre% that the

on Iuan was seaworthy an% manne% by a fu## an% competent crew!

an% that the co##ision was entire#y %ue to the fau#t of the crew of the

":T Tac#oban City.

- 7n Ianuary 20! 1FG5! the N7C an% petitioner Negros Na*igation

Co.! 4nc. entere% into a compromise agreement whereby petitione

assume% fu## responsibi#ity for the payment an% satisfaction of a#

c#aims arising out of or in connection with the co##ision an% re#easing

the N7C an% the N7C:)TC from any #iabi#ity to it. The agreemen

was subse&uent#y he#% by the tria# court to be bin%ing upon petitioner

N7C an% N7C:)TC. ri*ate respon%ents %i% not $oin in the

agreement.

- 9TC ru#e% in fa*or of pri*ate respon%ents. 7n appea#! C( affirme%

with mo%ifications /re%uce% actua# %amages! increase%

compensatory.

- Hence! this petitition.

ISSUES RAISE& BY NEGROS NA#I"

/1 whether the members of pri*ate respon%ents fami#ies were

actua##y passengers of the on Iuan

/2 whether the ru#ing in "ecenas *. Court of (ppea#s! fin%ing the

crew members of petitioner to be gross#y neg#igent in the

performance of their %uties! is bin%ing in this case

/ whether the tota# #oss of the ":= on Iuan e'tinguishe%

petitioners #iabi#ity

RULING"

1. ?<).

etitioner;s contention - the purchase of the tickets %oes not

necessari#y mean that the a##ege% *ictims actua##y took the trip.

etitioner asserts that it is common know#e%ge that passengers

purchase tickets in a%*ance but %o not actua##y use them.

Hence! pri*ate respon%ent shou#% a#so pro*e the presence of



the *ictims on the ship.

)C - ri*ate respon%ent 9amon "iran%a testifie% that he

persona##y took his fami#y an% his niece to the *esse# on the %ay

of the *oyage an% staye% with them on the ship unti# it was time

for it to #ea*e. There is no reason he shou#% c#aim members of

his fami#y to ha*e perishe% in the acci%ent $ust to maintain an

action. eop#e %o not norma##y #ie about so gra*e a matter as

the #oss of %ear ones. 4t wou#% be more %ifficu#t for pri*ate

respon%ents to keep the e'istence of their re#ati*es if in%ee%they are a#i*e than it is for petitioner to show the contrary.

etitioners on#y proof is that the bo%ies of the suppose% *ictims

were not among those reco*ere% from the site of the mishap.

But so were the bo%ies of the other passengers reporte%

missing not reco*ere%.

itness - <%gar%o 9amire+ /seminarian! sur*i*or - "rs.

"iran%a was his gra%e schoo# teacherJ he ta#ke% to themJ

<#fre%a was his chi#hoo% frien%J he was with "rs. "iran%a an%

her chi#%ren an% niece from pm unti# 10pm

etitioner casts %oubt on 9amire+ testimony! c#aiming that

9amire+ cou#% not ha*e ta#ke% with the *ictims for about three

hours an% not run out of stories to te##! un#ess 9amire+ ha% astorehouse of stories. etitioner a#so points out that it took

9amire+ three / %ays before he fina##y contacte% pri*ate

respon%ent 9amon "iran%a to te## him about the fate of his

fami#y. But it is not improbab#e that it took 9amire+ three %ays

before ca##ing on pri*ate respon%ent "iran%a to te## him about

the #ast hours of "rs. "iran%a an% her chi#%ren an% niece! in

*iew of the confusion in the %ays fo##owing the co##ision as

rescue teams an% re#ati*es searche% for sur*i*ors.

2. ?<).

4n fin%ing petitioner gui#ty of neg#igence an% in fai#ing to e'ercise

the e'traor%inary %i#igence re&uire% of it in the carriage of

passengers! both the tria# court an% the appe##ate court re#ie% on

the fin%ings of this Court in "ecenas *. 4nterme%iate (ppe##ate

Court! which case was brought for the %eath of other

passengers. 4n that case it was foun% that a#though the

pro'imate cause of the mishap was the neg#igence of the crew

of the ":T Tac#oban City! the crew of the on Iuan was e&ua##y

neg#igent as it foun% that the #atters master! Capt. 9oge#io

)antisteban! was p#aying mah$ong at the time of co##ision! an%

the officer on watch! )enior Thir% "ate 9oge#io e =era!

a%mitte% that he fai#e% to ca## the attention of )antisteban to the

imminent %anger facing them. This Court foun% that Capt.)antisteban an% the crew of the ":= on Iuan fai#e% to take

steps to pre*ent the co##ision or at #east %e#ay the sinking of the

ship an% super*ise the aban%oning of the ship.

etitioner Negros e&ua##y neg#igent.

- ":T on Iuan o*er#oa%e% /Capacity, G5E wherein G10 are

passengersJ 100E was on boar%J 1E0 persons more than the

ma'imum number that cou#% be safe#y carrie% by it

- on Iuan was twice as fast /top spee% was 1 knotsJ Tac#oban

*esse# on#y 5. knots

- on Iuan carrie% the fu## comp#ement of officers an% crew

members

- e&uippe% with ra%ar /it %etecte% Tac#oban *esse# whi#e sti## E

nautica# mi#es awayJ *isua# confirmation whi#e 2. mi#es away

. N7.

The ru#e is we##-entrenche% in our $urispru%ence that a

shipowner may be he#% #iab#e for in$uries to passengers

notwithstan%ing the e'c#usi*e#y rea# an% hypothecary nature of

maritime #aw if fau#t can be attribute% to the shipowner.4n "ecenas! this Court foun% petitioner gui#ty of neg#igence in

/1 a##owing or to#erating the ship captain an% crew members in

p#aying mah$ong %uring the *oyage! /2 in fai#ing to maintain the

*esse# seaworthy an% / in a##owing the ship to carry more

passengers than it was a##owe% to carry. etitioner is! therefore!

c#ear#y #iab#e for %amages to the fu## e'tent.

'OREAN AIRLINES CO., LT&., petiti$ne%, vs. COURT O!

APPEALS an (UANITO C. LAPU), %esp$nents.

(UANITO C. LAPU), petiti$ne%, vs. COURT O! APPEALS an

'OREAN AIRLINES CO., LT&., %esp$nents.

!ACTS"

- )ometime in 1FG0! Iuanito C. Lapu+! an automoti*e e#ectrician! was

contracte% for emp#oyment in Ie%%ah! )au%i (rabia! for a perio% of

one year through an acific 7*erseas 9ecruiting )er*ices! 4nc.

Lapu+ was suppose% to #ea*e on No*ember G! 1FG0! *ia orean

(ir#ines. 4nitia##y! he was Dwait-#iste%!D which meant that he cou#% on#ybe accommo%ate% if any of the confirme% passengers fai#e% to show

up at the airport before %eparture. hen two of such passengers %i%

not appear! Lapu+ an% another person by the name of erico were

gi*en the two unc#aime% seats.

- (ccor%ing to Lapu+! he was a##owe% to check in with one suitcase

an% one shou#%er bag at the check-in counter of (L. He passe%

through the customs an% immigration sections for routine check-up

an% was c#eare% for %eparture as assenger No. 1 of (L 3#ight

No. < F0. Together with the other passengers! he ro%e in the

shutt#e bus an% procee%e% to the ramp of the (L aircraft for

boar%ing. Howe*er! when he was at the thir% or fourth rung of the

stairs! a (L officer pointe% to him an% shoute% Down8 own8D He

was thus barre% from taking the f#ight. hen he #ater aske% for

another booking! his ticket was cance#e% by (L. Conse&uent#y! he

was unab#e to report for his work in )au%i (rabia within the stipu#ate%

2-week perio% an% so #ost his emp#oyment.

- (L! on the other han%! a##ege% that on No*ember G! 1FG0! an

acific 9ecruiting )er*ices 4nc. coor%inate% with (L for the

%eparture of 0 contract workers! of whom on#y 21 were confirme%

an% F were wait-#iste% passengers. The agent of an acific! Iimmie



Ioseph! after being informe% that there was a possibi#ity of ha*ing

one or two seats becoming a*ai#ab#e! ga*e priority to erico! who

was one of the super*isors of the hiring company in )au%i (rabia.

The other seat was won through #ottery by Lapu+. Howe*er! on#y one

seat became a*ai#ab#e an% so! pursuant to the ear#ier agreement that

erico was to be gi*en priority! he a#one was a##owe% to boar%.

-9TC he#% (L #iab#e for %amages /actua# an% compensatory! #ega#

interest from the %ate of fi#ing comp#aint.

- 7n appea#! C( affirme% with mo%ifications /re%uce% actua# an%

compensatory! a%%e% mora# an% e'emp#ary.

- (L an% Lapu+ fi#e% their respecti*e motions for reconsi%eration!

which were both %enie% for #ack of merit. Hence! the present petitions

for re*iew which ha*e been conso#i%ate%.

ISSUE" :N TH<9< () ( B9<(CH 73 C7NT9(CT 73

C(994(><

RULING"

?<). The status of Lapu+ as stan%by passenger was change% to that

of a confirme% passenger when his name was entere% in the

passenger manifest of (L for its 3#ight No. < F0. His c#earance

through immigration an% customs c#ear#y shows that he ha% in%ee%

been confirme% as a passenger of (L in that f#ight. (L thus

committe% a breach of the contract of carriage between them when it

fai#e% to bring Lapu+ to his %estination.

This Court has he#% that a contract to transport passengers is

%ifferent in kin% an% %egree from any other contractua# re#ation. The

business of the carrier is main#y with the tra*e#ing pub#ic. 4t in*ites

peop#e to a*ai# themse#*es of the comforts an% a%*antages it offers.

The contract of air carriage generates a re#ation atten%e% with a

pub#ic %uty. assengers ha*e the right to be treate% by the carrier;s

emp#oyees with kin%ness! respect! courtesy an% %ue consi%eration.

They are entit#e% to be protecte% against persona# miscon%uct!

in$urious #anguage! in%ignities an% abuses from such emp#oyees. )o

it is that any %iscourteous con%uct on the part of these emp#oyees

towar% a passenger gi*es the #atter an action for %amages against

the carrier.

The breach of contract was aggra*ate% in this case when! instea% of

courteous#y informing Lapu+ of his being a Dwait-#iste%D passenger! a

(L officer ru%e#y shoute% Down8 own8D whi#e pointing at him! thus

causing him embarrassment an% pub#ic humi#iation.

(L argues that Dthe e*i%ence of confirmation of a chance passenger

status is not through the entry of the name of a chance passenger in

the passenger manifest nor the c#earance from the Commission on

4mmigration an% eportation! because they are mere#y means of

faci#itating the boar%ing of a chance passenger in case his status is

confirme%.D e are not persua%e%.

The e*i%ence presente% by Lapu+ shows that he ha% in%ee%

checke% in at the %eparture counter! passe% through customs an%

immigration! boar%e% the shutt#e bus an% procee%e% to the ramp of

(L;s aircraft. 4n fact! his baggage ha% a#rea%y been #oa%e% in (L;s

aircraft! to be f#own with him to Ie%%ah. The contract of carriagebetween him an% (L ha% a#rea%y been perfecte% when he was

summari#y an% inso#ent#y pre*ente% from boar%ing the aircraft.

The appea#e% $u%gment is (3349"<! but with the mo%ification that

the #ega# interest on the %amages awar%e% to pri*ate respon%ent

shou#% commence from the %ate of the %ecision of the tria# court.

!RAN'LIN G. GACAL an CORA)ON M. GACAL, t*e latte

assiste + *e% *s+an, !RAN'LIN G. GACAL, petiti$ne%s, vs

PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., an THE HONORABLE PE&RO

SAMSON C. ANIMAS, in *is apait as PRESI&ING (U&GE $

t*e COURT O! !IRST INSTANCE O! SOUTH COTABATO

BRANCH I, %esp$nents.

!ACTS"

- #aintiffs 3rank#in >. >aca# an% his wife! Cora+on ". >aca#

Bonifacio ). (nis#ag an% his wife! "ansueta L. (nis#ag! an% the #ate

<#ma %e >u+man! were then passengers boar%ing %efen%ant;s B(C

1-11 at a*ao (irport for a f#ight to "ani#a! not knowing that on thesame f#ight! "aca#inog! Taurac en%atum known as Comman%e

Kapata! Nasser 7mar! Li#ing usuan 9a%ia! imantong imarosing

an% "ike 9an%a! a## of "arawi City an% members of the "oro

Nationa# Liberation 3ront /"NL3! were their co-passengers! three

/ arme% with grena%es! two /2 with .E ca#iber pisto#s! an% one

with a .22 ca#iber pisto#.

- Ten /10 minutes after take off at about 2,0 in the afternoon! the

hi$ackers bran%ishing their respecti*e firearms announce% the

hi$acking of the aircraft an% %irecte% its pi#ot to f#y to Libya.

-ith the pi#ot e'p#aining to them especia##y to its #ea%er! Comman%er

Kapata! of the inherent fue# #imitations of the p#ane an% that they are

not rate% for internationa# f#ights! the hi$ackers %irecte% the pi#ot to f#y

to )abah. ith the same e'p#anation! they re#ente% an% %irecte% the

aircraft to #an% at Kamboanga (irport! Kamboanga City for refue#ing.

The aircraft #an%e% at ,00 o;c#ock in the afternoon of "ay 21! 1F5

at Kamboanga (irport.

- hen the p#ane began to ta'i at the runway! it was met by two

armore% cars of the mi#itary with machine guns pointe% at the p#ane



an% it stoppe% there. The rebe#s thru its comman%er %eman%e% that a

C-aircraft take them to Libya with the resi%ent of the %efen%ant

company as hostage an% that they be gi*en !000 an% si' /5

arma#ites! otherwise they wi## b#ow up the p#ane if their %eman%s wi##

not be met by the go*ernment an% hi#ippine (ir Lines.

- "eanwhi#e! the passengers were not ser*e% any foo% nor water an%

it was on#y on "ay 2! a )un%ay! at about 1,00 o;c#ock in the

afternoon that they were ser*e% 1:E s#ice of a san%wich an% 1:10 cupof (L water.

- (fter that! re#ati*es of the hi$ackers were a##owe% to boar% the p#ane

but imme%iate#y after they a#ighte% therefrom! an armore% car

bumpe% the stairs. That commence% the batt#e between the mi#itary

an% the hi$ackers which #e% u#timate#y to the #iberation of the sur*i*ing

crew an% the passengers! with the fina# score of ten /10 passengers

an% three / hi$ackers %ea% on the spot an% three / hi$ackers

capture%.

- City 3isca# 3rank#in >. >aca# was unhurt. "rs. Cora+on ". >aca#

suffere% in$uries in the course of her $umping out of the p#ane when it

was peppere% with bu##ets by the army an% after two /2 han%

grena%es e'p#o%e% insi%e the p#ane. )he was hospita#i+e% at >enera#

)antos octors Hospita#! >enera# )antos City! for two /2 %ays!

spen%ing 2E.50 for hospita# an% me%ica# e'penses! (ssistant City

3isca# Bonifacio ). (nis#ag a#so escape% unhurt but "rs. (nis#ag

suffere% a fracture at the ra%ia# bone of her #eft e#bow for which she

was hospita#i+e% an% operate% on at the )an e%ro Hospita#! a*ao

City! an% therefore! at a*ao 9egiona# Hospita#! a*ao City!

spen%ing E!00.00. <#ma %e >u+man %ie% because of that batt#e.

- (n action of %amages was institute% by the p#aintiffs with C34 )outhCotabato! Branch 1.

- C34 %ismisse% the comp#aints fin%ing that a## the %amages

sustaine% in the premises were attribute% to force ma$eure.

- Hence! this petition for re*iew on certiorari.

etitioner;s contention, The main cause of the unfortunate inci%ent is

the gross! wanton an% ine'cusab#e neg#igence of respon%ent (ir#ine

personne# in their fai#ure to frisk the passengers a%e&uate#y in or%er

to %isco*er hi%%en weapons in the bo%ies of the si' /5 hi$ackers.

They c#aime% that %espite the pre*a#ence of sky$acking! (L %i% not

use a meta# %etector which is the most effecti*e means of %isco*ering

potentia# sky$ackers among the passengers

9espon%ent;s contention, That in the performance of its ob#igation to

safe#y transport passengers as far as human care an% foresight can

pro*i%e! it has e'ercise% the utmost %i#igence of a *ery cautious

person with %ue regar% to a## circumstances! but the security checks

an% measures an% sur*ei##ance precautions in a## f#ights! inc#u%ing the

inspection of baggages an% cargo an% frisking of passengers at the

a*ao (irport were performe% an% ren%ere% so#e#y by mi#itary

personne# who un%er appropriate authority ha% assume% e'c#usi*e

$uris%iction o*er the same in a## airports in the hi#ippines.

ISSUE" hether or not hi$acking or air piracy %uring martia# #aw an%

un%er the circumstances obtaining herein! is a caso fortuito or force

ma$eure which wou#% e'empt an aircraft from payment of %amages to

its passengers whose #i*es were put in $eopar%y an% whose persona#be#ongings were #ost %uring the inci%ent

RULING"

remises consi%ere%,

- 1, Common carriers are re&uire% to e'ercise e'traor%inary

%i#igence in their *igi#ance o*er the goo%s an% for the safety of

passengers transporte% by them! accor%ing to a## the circumstances

of each case.

- 1E, They are presume% at fau#t or to ha*e acte% neg#igent#y

whene*er a passenger %ies or is in$ure%.

- The source of a common carrier;s #ega# #iabi#ity is the contract of

carriage! an% by entering into sai% contract! it bin%s itse#f to carry the

passengers safe#y as far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%e.

There is breach of this ob#igation if it fai#s to e'ert e'traor%inary

%i#igence accor%ing to a## the circumstances of the case in e'ercise of

the utmost %i#igence of a *ery cautious person.

- 4t is the %uty of a common carrier to o*ercome the presumption of

neg#igence. Howe*er! no person sha## be responsib#e for those

De*ents which cou#% not be foreseen or which though foreseen were

ine*itab#e. /(rtic#e 11E- E e#ements of caso fortuito

)C

(pp#ying the abo*e gui%e#ines to the case at bar! the fai#ure to

transport petitioners safe#y from a*ao to "ani#a was %ue to the

sky$acking inci%ent stage% by si' /5 passengers of the same p#ane!

a## members of the "oro Nationa# Liberation 3ront /"NL3! without

any connection with pri*ate respon%ent! hence! in%epen%ent of the

wi## of either the (L or of its passengers.

@n%er norma# circumstances! (L might ha*e foreseen the

sky$acking inci%ent which cou#% ha*e been a*oi%e% ha% there been a

more thorough frisking of passengers an% inspection of baggages as

authori+e% by 9.(. No. 52. But the inci%ent in &uestion occurre%

%uring "artia# Law where there was a mi#itary take-o*er of airport

security inc#u%ing the frisking of passengers an% the inspection of

their #uggage preparatory to boar%ing %omestic an% internationa#

f#ights. 4n fact mi#itary take-o*er was specifica##y announce% on

7ctober 20! 1F by >enera# Iose L. 9ancu%o! Comman%ing

>enera# of the hi#ippine (ir 3orce in a #etter to Brig. >en. Iesus

)ingson! then irector of the Ci*i# (eronautics (%ministration #ater



confirme% short#y before the hi$acking inci%ent of "ay 21! 1F5 by

Letter of 4nstruction No. FF issue% on (pri# 2G! 1F5

7therwise state%! these e*ents ren%ere% it impossib#e for (L to

perform its ob#igations in a nomina# manner an% ob*ious#y it cannot

be fau#te% with neg#igence in the performance of %uty taken o*er by

the (rme% 3orces of the hi#ippines to the e'c#usion of the former.

3ina##y! there is no %ispute that the fourth e#ement has a#so beensatisfie%. Conse&uent#y the e'istence of force ma$eure has been

estab#ishe% e'empting respon%ent (L from the payment of

%amages to its passengers who suffere% %eath or in$uries in their

persons an% for #oss of their baggages.

C34 %ecision affirme%.

!ORTUNE E/PRESS, INC. v CA

!ACTS"

This is an appea# by petition for re*iew on certiorari of the %ecision which %ismisse% the comp#aint of pub#ic respon%ents againstpetitioner for a0a1es f$% +%ea* $f $nt%at $f a%%ia1e fi#e% onthe groun% that petitioner had not exercised the required degree of diligence in the operation of one of its buses. (tty. Ta#ib Caorong!

whose heirs are pri*ate respon%ents herein! was a passenger of thebus an% was ki##e% in the ambush in*o#*ing sai% bus.

7n No*ember 1G! 1FGF! a +s $f petiti$ne% fi1%e in an aient 2it* a 3eepne in auswagan! Lanao %e# Norte! resu#ting in the%eath of se*era# passengers of the $eepney! inc#u%ing two "aranaos.Crisanto >enera#ao! a *o#unteer fie#% agent of the Constabu#ary9egiona# )ecurity @nit No. A! con%ucte% an in*estigation of theacci%ent. He foun% that the owner of the $eepney was a "aranaoresi%ing in e#abayan! Lanao %e# Norte an% that certain "aranaos

were p#anning to take re*enge on the petitioner by burning some ofits buses. >enera#ao ren%ere% a report on his fin%ings to )gt.9eyna#%o Bastasa of the hi#ippine Constabu#ary 9egiona#Hea%&uarters at Cagayan %e 7ro. @pon the instruction of )gt.Bastasa! he went to see ios%a%o Bra*o! operations manager ofpetitioner! its main office in Cagayan %e 7ro City. Bra*o assure% himthat the necessary precautions to insure the safety of #i*es an%property wou#% be taken.

(t about 5,E .". on No*ember 22! 1FGF! three arme% "aranaos who preten%e% to be passengers! sei+e% a bus of petitioner atLinamon! Lanao %e# Norte whi#e on its way to 4#igan City. (mong the

passengers of the bus was (tty. Caorong. The #ea%er of the"aranaos or%ere% the %ri*er! >o%ofre%o Cabatuan! to stop the buson the si%e of the highway. The #ea%er then shot Cabatuan on thearm! which cause% him to s#ump on the steering whee#. The one ofthe companions of "ananggo#o starte% pouring gaso#ine insi%e thebus! as the other he#% the passenger at bay with a han%gun."ananggo#o then or%ere% the passenger to get off the bus. Thepassengers! inc#u%ing (tty. Caorong! steppe% out of the bus an% wentbehin% the bushes in a fie#% some %istance from the highway.

(tty. Caorong returne% to the bus to retrie*e something from theo*erhea% rack. (t that time! one of the arme% men was pouring

gaso#ine on the hea% of the %ri*er. Cabatuan! who ha% meantimeregaine% consciousness! hear% (tty. Caorong p#ea%ing with thearme% men to spare the %ri*er as he was innocent of any wrong%oing an% was on#y trying to make a #i*ing. The arme% men werehowe*er! a%amant as they repeate% the warning that they were goingto burn the bus a#ong with its %ri*er. uring this e'change between(tty. Caorong an% the assai#ants! Cabatuan c#imbe% out of the #eft

win%ow of the bus an% craw#e% to the cana# on the opposite si%e othe highway. He hear% shots from insi%e the bus.

Larry %e #a Cru+! one of the passengers! saw that Att. Ca$%$n1 2as *it. T*en t*e +s 2as set $n fi%e. )ome of the passengers were ab#e to pu## (tty. Caorong out of the burning bus an% rush him tothe "ercy Community Hospita# in 4#igan City! but he %ie% whi#eun%ergoing operation.

T*e t%ial $%t is0isse t*e $0plaint ho#%ing that, “Accordinglythe failure of defendant to accord faith and credit to the report of Mr.Generalao and the fact that it did not provide security to its busescannot, in the light of the circumstances, be characterized asnegligence. Finally, the evidence clearly shos that the assailantsdid not have the least intention of the harming any of the

passengers. !hey ordered all the passengers to alight and set fire on

the bus only after all the passengers ere out of danger. !he deathof Atty. "aorong as an unexpected and unforseen occurrence overhich defendant had no control. Atty. "aorong performed an act ofcharity and heroism in coming to the succor of the driver even in theface of danger. #e deserves the undying gratitude of the driverhose life he saved. $o one should blame him for an act ofextraordinary charity and altruism hich cost his life. %ut neithershould any blame be laid on the doorstep of defendant. #is deathas solely due to the illfull acts of the laless hich defendantcould neither prevent nor to stop.&

T*e CA %eve%se t*e l$2e% $%t4s eisi$n ho#%ing that, “#o diddefendant'appellee react to the tip or information that certain

Maranao hotheads ere planning to burn five of its buses out ofrevenge for the deaths of to Maranaos in an earlier collisioninvolving appellee(s bus) *xcept for the remar+s of appellee(soperations manager that e ill have our action . . . . and -(ll be theone to settle it personally, nothing concrete hatsoever as ta+enby appellee or its employees to prevent the execution of the threat.efendant'appellee never adopted even a single safety measure forthe protection of its paying passengers. /ere thereavailable safeguards) 0f course, there ere1 one as fris+ing

passengers particularly those en route to the area here the threatsere li+ely to be carried out such as here the earlier accidentoccurred or the place of influence of the victims or their locality. -ffris+ing as resorted to, even temporarily, . . . . appellee might belegally excused from liabilty.

$othing, and no repeat, nothing at all, as done by defendant'appellee to protect its innocent passengers from the danger arisingfrom the Maranao threats. -t must be observed that fris+ing is not anovelty as a safety measure in our society. 2ensitive places 3 infact, nearly all important places 3 have applied this method ofsecurity enhancement. Gadgets and devices are avilable in themar+et for this purpose. -t ould not have eighed much against thebudget of the bus company if such items ere made available to its

personnel to cope up ith situations such as the Maranaos threats.

ISSUES"



1. C( erre% in re*ersing the #ower courtMs %ecision2. 7N the acts of the "aranao 7ut#aws were so gra*e! irresistib#e!*io#ent an% forcefu#! as to be regar%e% as caso fortuito

HEL&"The petition is out of merit.

!i%st. Petiti$ne%5s B%ea* $f t*e C$nt%at $f Ca%%ia1e.

(rt. 15 of the Ci*i# Co%e pro*i%es that a common carrier isresponsib#e for in$uries suffere% by a passenger on account of wi#fu##acts of other passengers! if the emp#oyees of the common carriercou#% ha*e pre*ente% the act through the e'ercise of the %i#igence ofa goo% father of a fami#y. 4n the present case! it is c#ear that becauseof the neg#igence of petitioner;s emp#oyees! the sei+ure of the bus by"ananggo#o an% his men was ma%e possib#e.

espite warning by the hi#ippine Constabu#ary at Cagayan %e 7rothat the "aranaos were p#anning to take re*enge on the petitioner byburning some of its buses an% the assurance of petitioner;s operationmanager! ios%a%o Bra*o! that the necessary precautions wou#% betaken! petitioner %i% nothing to protect the safety of its passengers.

Ha% petitioner an% its emp#oyees been *igi#ant they wou#% not ha*efai#e% to see that the ma#efactors ha% a #arge &uantity of gaso#ine withthem. @n%er the circumstances! simp#e precautionary measures toprotect the safety of passengers! such as frisking passengers an%inspecting their baggages! preferab#y with non-intrusi*e ga%gets suchas meta# %etectors! before a##owing them on boar% cou#% ha*e beenemp#oye% without *io#ating the passenger;s constitutiona# rights. (sthis Court amen%e% in >aca# *. hi#ippine (ir Lines! 4nc.! 5 a commoncarrier can be he#% #iab#e for fai#ing to pre*ent a hi$acking by friskingpassengers an% inspecting their baggages.

3rom the foregoing! it is e*i%ent that petitioner;s emp#oyees fai#e% topre*ent the attack on one of petitioner;s buses because they %i% not

e'ercise the %i#igence of a goo% father of a fami#y. Hence! petitionershou#% be he#% # iab#e for the %eath of (tty. Caorong.

Se$n. Sei6%e $f Petiti$ne%5s Bs n$t a Case $f !$%e Ma3e%e

(rt. 1 of the Ci*i# Co%e pro*i%es that Da common carrier is boun%to carry the passengers as far as human care an% foresight canpro*i%e! using the utmost %i#igence of *ery cautious persons! with%ue regar% for a## the circumstances.D 4n the present case! this factorof unforeseeabi#ity /the secon% re&uisite for an e*ent to beconsi%ere% force ma$eure is #acking. (s a#rea%y state%! %espite thereport of C agent >enera#ao that the "aranaos were p#anning toburn some of petitioner;s buses an% the assurance of petitioner;soperation manager /ios%a%o Bra*o that the necessary precautions

wou#% be taken! nothing was rea##y %one by petitioner to protect thesafety of passengers.

PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES v IAC

!ACTS"

This is a petition for re*iew on certiorari of the %ecision of the4nterme%iate (ppe##ate Court which re*erse% the %ecision of theCourt of 3irst 4nstance %enying the motion for reconsi%eration.

(bout 11,00 o;c#ock in the morning on ecember 2E! 1F55! Cata#inaascua! Cari%a% ascua! (%e#ai%a <stomo! <r#in%a "eria#es"erce%es Loren+o! (#e$an%ro "ora#es an% Kenai%a are$as boar%e%the $eepney owne% by spouses 4si%ro "angune an% >ui##erma

Carreon an% %ri*en by Tran&ui#ino "ana#o at au! "aba#acatampanga boun% for Carmen! 9osa#es! angasinan to spen%Christmas at their respecti*e homes. Their contract with "ana#o wasfor them to pay 2E.00 for the trip. urporte%#y ri%ing on the frontseat was "erce%es Loren+o. 7n the #eft rear passenger seat wereCari%a% ascua! (#e$an%ro "ora#es an% Kenai%a are$as. 7n theright rear passenger seat were Cata#ina ascua! (%e#ai%a <stomoan% <r#in%a "eria#es. (fter a brief stopo*er at "onca%a! Tar#ac forefreshment! the $eepney procee%e% towar%s Carmen! 9osa#esangasinan.

@pon reaching barrio )inayoan! )an "anue#! Tar#ac! the right rea whee# of the $eepney was %etache%! so it was running in an

unba#ance% position. "ana#o steppe% on the brake! as a resu#t of which! the $eepney which was then running on the eastern #ane /itsright of way ma%e a @-turn! in*a%ing an% e*entua##y stopping on the

western #ane of the roa% in such a manner that the $eepney;s fronface% the south /from where it came an% its rear face% the north/towar%s where it was going. The $eepney practica##y occupie% an%b#ocke% the greater portion of the western #ane! which is the right of

way of *ehic#es coming from the north! among which was Bus No of petitioner hi#ippine 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc. /9abbit %ri*en byTomas %e#os 9eyes. (s a resu#t of the co##ision! three passengers othe $eepney /Cata#ina ascua! <r#in%a "eria#es an% (%e#ai%a<stomo %ie% whi#e the other $eepney passengers sustaine% physicain$uries.

(t the time an% in the *icinity of the acci%ent! there were no *ehic#esfo##owing the $eepney! neither were there oncoming *ehic#es e'cepthe bus. The weather con%ition of that %ay was fair.

T*e t%ial $%t *$ls"1. That %efen%ants 4si%ro "angune! >ui##erma Carreon

an% Tran&ui#ino "ana#o thru their neg#igencebreache% contract of carriage with their passengersthe p#aintiffs; an%:or their heirs! an% this Court ren%ers

$u%gment or%ering sai% %efen%ants! $oint#y an%se*era##y! to pay the p#aintiffs



2. The %efen%ant 3i#riters >uaranty 4nsurance Co.!ha*ing contracte% to ensure an% answer for theob#igations of %efen%ants "angune an% Carreon for%amages %ue their passengers! this Court ren%ers

$u%gment against the sai% %efen%ants 3i#riters>uaranty 4nsurance Co.! $oint#y an% se*era##y with sai%%efen%ants /"angune an% Carreon to pay thep#aintiffs the amount herein abo*e a%$u%icate% in theirfa*or in Ci*i# Case No. 115 on#y

. 7n the cross c#aim of hi#. 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc.or%ering the %efen%ant! 4si%ro "angune! >ui##ermaCarreon an% Tran&ui#ino "ana#o! to pay $oint#y an%se*era##y! cross-c#aimant hi#. 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc.!the amounts of 215.2 as actua# %amages to its BusNo. an% 2!1.50 for #oss of i ts earning.

T*e CA %eve%se the #ower courtMs %ecision as to item no. .

The motion for reconsi%eration was %enie%. Hence! the presentpetition.

ISSUE"7N hi# 9abbit Bus Lines is #iab#e for the %eath an% physica#

in$uries suffere% by the passengers of the $eepney.

HEL&"

(pp#ying primari#y 789 the %octrine of #ast c#ear chance! 7:9 thepresumption that %ri*ers who bump the rear of another *ehic#e gui#tyan% the cause of the acci%ent un#ess contra%icte% by other e*i%ence!an 7;9 the substantia# factor test conc#u%e% that %e#os 9eyes wasneg#igent.

The misappreciation of the facts an% e*i%ence an% the misapp#icationof the #aws by the respon%ent court warrant a re*ersa# of its&uestione% %ecision an% reso#ution.

1. e reiterate that <=t>*e p%iniple a+$t <t*e last lea%< *ane, wou#% ca## for app#ication in a suit between the owners an% %ri*ers ofthe two co##i%ing *ehic#es. 4t %oes not arise where a passenger%eman%s responsibi#ity from the carrier to enforce its contractua#ob#igations. 3or it wou#% be ine&uitab#e to e'empt the neg#igent %ri*erof the $eepney an% its owners on the groun% that the other %ri*er was#ikewise gui#ty of neg#igence.D

:. On t*e p%es0pti$n t*at %ive%s 2*$ +0p t*e %ea% $fan$t*e% ve*ile 1ilt an t*e ase $f t*e aient, nless$nt%aite + $t*e% eviene! the respon%ent court sai% the

$eepney ha% a#rea%y e'ecute% a comp#ete turnabout an% at the timeof impact was a#rea%y facing the western si%e of the roa%. Thus the

$eepney assume% a new fronta# position *is a *is! the bus! an% thebus assume% a new ro#e of %efensi*e %ri*ing. The spirit behin% thepresumption of gui#t on one who bumps the rear en% of another*ehic#e is for the %ri*er fo##owing a *ehic#e to be at a## times prepare%of a pen%ing acci%ent shou#% the %ri*er in front su%%en#y come to afu## stop! or change its course either through change of min% of thefront %ri*er! mechanica# troub#e! or to a*oi% an acci%ent. The rear*ehic#e is gi*en the responsibi#ity of a*oi%ing a co##ision with the front*ehic#e for it is the rear *ehic#e who has fu## contro# of the situation asit is in a position to obser*e the *ehic#e in front of it.

. ?it* %e1a% t$ t*e s+stantial fat$% test! it was the opinion othe respon%ent court that, 4t is the ru#e un%er the substantia# factortest that if the actor;s con%uct is a substantia# factor in bringing aboutharm to another! the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor shou#%ha*e foreseen the e'tent of the harm or the manner in which itoccurre% %oes not pre*ent him from being #iab#e /9estatement! Torts2%. Here! e fin% %efen%ant bus running at a fast spee% when theacci%ent occurre% an% %i% not e*en make the s#ightest effort to a*oi%the acci%ent! . . . . The bus %ri*er;s con%uct is thus a substantia#factor in bringing about harm to the passengers of the $eepney! noton#y because he was %ri*ing fast an% %i% not e*en attempt to a*oi%the mishap but a#so because it was the bus which was the physicaforce which brought about the in$ury an% %eath to the passengers ofthe $eepney.

(fter a minute scrutiny of the factua# matters an% %u#y pro*ene*i%ence! e fin% that the pro'imate cause of the acci%ent was theneg#igence of "ana#o an% spouses "angune an% Carreon. They a#fai#e% to e'ercise the precautions that are nee%e% precise#y pro hac*ice.

4n cu#pa contractua#! the moment a passenger %ies or is in$ure%! thecarrier is presume% to ha*e been at fau#t or to ha*e acte% neg#igent#y

an% this %isputab#e presumption may on#y be o*ercome by e*i%encethat he ha% obser*e% e'tra-or%inary %i#igence as prescribe% in(rtic#es 1! 1 an% 15 of the New Ci*i# Co%e 2 or that the%eath or in$ury of the passenger was %ue to a fortuitous e*ent

T*e t%ial $%t 2as t*e%ef$%e %i1*t in finin1 t*at Manal$ ansp$ses Man1ne an Ca%%e$n 2e%e ne1li1ent. Howe*er! itsru#ing that spouses "angune an% Carreon are $oint#y an% se*era##y#iab#e with "ana#o is erroneous The %ri*er cannot be he#% $oint#y an%se*era##y #iab#e with the carrier in case of breach of the contract ofcarriage. The rationa#e behin% this is rea%i#y %iscernib#e. 3irst#y! thecontract of carriage is between the carrier an% the passenger! an% inthe e*ent of contractua# #iabi#ity! the carrier is e'c#usi*e#y responsib#e

therefore to the passenger! e*en if such breach be %ue to theneg#igence of his %ri*er

ACCOR&INGLY, t*e petiti$n is *e%e+ GRANTE&.



LARA v #ALENCIA

!ACTS"

The %ecease% was an inspector of the Bureau of 3orestry statione%in a*ao with an annua# sa#ary of 1!G00. The %efen%ant! =a#encia!is engage% in the business of e'porting #ogs from his #umberconcession in Cotabato. Lara went to sai% concession uponinstructions of his chief to c#assify the #ogs of %efen%ant which wereabout to be #oa%e% on a ship anchore% in the port of arang. The

work Lara of #aste% for si' %ays %uring which he contracte% ma#ariafe*er. 4n the morning of Ianuary F! 1FE! Lara who then in a hurry toreturn to a*ao aske% %efen%ant if he cou#% take him in his pick-upas there was then no other means of transportation! to which%efen%ant agree%! an% in that same morning the pick-up #eft arangboun% for a*ao taking a#ong si' passengers! inc#u%ing Lara.

Before #ea*ing arang! =a#encia in*ite% Lara to sit with him on the

front seat but Lara %ec#ine%. 4t was their un%erstan%ing that uponreaching barrio )amoay! Cotabato! the passengers were to a#ight an%take a bus boun% for a*ao! but when they arri*e% at that p#ace! on#yBernar%o a#ighte% an% the other passengers re&ueste% %efen%ant toa##ow them to ri%e with him up to a*ao because there was then noa*ai#ab#e bus that they cou#% take in going to that p#ace. efen%ant/=a#encia again accommo%ate% the passengers.

hen they continue% their trip! the sitting arrangement of thepassengers remaine% the same! Lara being seate% on a bag in themi%%#e with his arms on a suitcase an% his hea% co*e re% by a $acket.@pon reaching m. F5! barrio Cati%tuan! Lara acci%enta##y fe## fromthe pick-up an% as a resu#t he suffere% serious in$uries. =a#encia

stoppe% the pick-up to see what happene% to Lara. He sought thehe#p of the resi%ents of that p#ace an% app#ie% water to Lara but to noa*ai#. They brought Lara to the nearest p#ace where they cou#% fin% a%octor an% not ha*ing foun% any they took him to )t. Ioseph;s C#inicof i%apawan. But when Lara arri*e% he was a#rea%y %ea%. 3romthere they procee%e% to a*ao City an% imme%iate#y notifie% the#oca# authorities. (n in*estigation was ma%e regar%ing thecircumstances surroun%ing the %eath of Lara but no crimina# action

was taken against %efen%ant.

4t therefore appears that the %ecease%! as we## his companions whoro%e in the pick-up of %efen%ant! were mere#y accommo%ationpassengers who pai% nothing for the ser*ice an% so they can beconsi%ere% as in*ite% guests within the meaning of the #aw. (saccommo%ation passengers or in*ite% guests! %efen%ant as owneran% %ri*er of the pick-up owes to them mere#y the %uty to e'ercisereasonab#e care so that they may be transporte% safe#y to their%estination.

efen%ant! therefore! is on#y re&uire% to obser*e or%inary care! an%is not in %uty boun% to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence as re&uire% ofa common carrier by our #aw /(rtic#es 1 an% 15! new Ci*i#Co%e.

ISSUE"

7N efen%ant /=a#encia obser*e% or%inary care or %i#igence intransporting the %ecease% from arang to a*ao on the %ate in&uestion6

HEL&"

<*en if we a%mit as true the facts foun% by the tria# court! sti## we fin%that the same are not sufficient to show that %efen%ant has fai#e% totake the precaution necessary to con%uct his passengers safe#y totheir p#ace of %estination for there is nothing there to in%icate tha%efen%ant has acte% with neg#igence or without taking the precautionthat an or%inary pru%ent man wou#% ha*e taken un%er simi#acircumstances. 4t shou#% be note% that Lara went to the #umbeconcession of %efen%ant in answer to a ca## of %uty which he wasboun% to perform because of the re&uirement of his office an% hecontracte% the ma#aria fe*er in the course of the performance of that%uty. 4t shou#% a#so be note% that %efen%ant was not in %uty boun% totake the %ecease% in his own pick-up to a*ao because from arangto Cotabato there was a #ine of transportation that regu#ar#y makestrips for the pub#ic! an% if %efen%ant agree% to take the %ecease% inhis own car! it was on#y to accommo%ate him consi%ering his fe*erishcon%ition an% his re&uest that he be so accommo%ate%. 4t shou#%a#so be note% that the passengers who ro%e in the pick-up of

%efen%ant took their respecti*e seats therein at their own choice an%not upon in%ication of %efen%ant with the particu#arity that %efen%antin*ite% the %ecease% to sit with him in the front seat but whichin*itation the %ecease% %ec#ine%. The reason for this can on#y beattribute% to his %esire to be at the back so that he cou#% sit on a bagan% tra*e# in a rec#ining position because such was more con*enienfor him %ue to his fe*erish con%ition. (## the circumstances thereforec#ear#y in%icate that %efen%ant ha% %one what a reasonab#e pru%enman wou#% ha*e %one un%er the circumstances.

There is e*ery reason to be#ie*e that the unfortunate happening wason#y %ue to an unforeseen acci%ent accuse% by the fact that at thetime the %ecease% was ha#f as#eep an% must ha*e fa##en from the

pick-up when it ran into some stones causing it to $erk consi%eringthat the roa% was then bumpy! rough an% fu## of stones.

(## things consi%ere%! we are persua%e% to conc#u%e that theacci%ent occurre% not %ue to the neg#igence of %efen%ant but tocircumstances beyon% his contro# an% so he shou#% be e'empt from#iabi#ity.

NECESSITO v PARAS

!ACTS"

These cases in*o#*e ex contractu against the owners an% operatorsof the common carrier known as hi#ippine 9abbit Bus Lines! fi#e% byone passenger! an% the heirs of another! who in$ure% as a resu#t othe fa## into a ri*er of the *ehic#e in which they were ri%ing.

4n the morning of Ianuary 2G! 1F5E! )e*erina >arces an% her one-year o#% son! reci##ano Necesito! carrying *egetab#es! boar%e%passenger auto truck or bus No. 1FF of the hi#ippine 9abbit BusLines at (gno! angasinan. The passenger truck! %ri*en by3rancisco Ban%one##! then procee%e% on its regu#ar run from (gno to"ani#a. (fter passing "angatarem! angasinan truck No. 1FFentere% a woo%en bri%ge! but the front whee#s swer*e% to the rightthe %ri*er #ost contro#! an% after wrecking the bri%ge;s woo%en rai#s



the truck fe## on its right si%e into a creek where water was breast%eep. The mother! )e*erina >arces! was %rowne%J the son!reci##ano Necesito! was in$ure%! suffering abrasions an% fracture ofthe #eft femur. He was brought to the ro*incia# Hospita# at agupan!

where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of#ine. The money! wrist watch an% cargo of *egetab#es were #ost.

Two actions for %amages an% attorney;s fees tota##ing o*er G!000ha*ing been fi#e% in the Court of 3irst 4nstance of Tar#ac against thecarrier! the #atter p#ea%e% that the acci%ent was %ue to Dengine ormechanica# troub#eD in%epen%ent or beyon% the contro# of the%efen%ants or of the %ri*er Ban%one##.

(fter $oint tria#! the Court of 3irst 4nstance foun% that the bus wasprocee%ing s#ow#y %ue to the ba% con%ition of the roa%J that theacci%ent was cause% by the fracture of the right steering knuck#e!

which was %efecti*e in that its center or core was not compact butDbubb#e% an% ce##u#ousD! a con%ition that cou#% not be known orascertaine% by the carrier %espite the fact that regu#ar thirty-%ayinspections were ma%e of the steering knuck#e! since the stee#e'terior was smooth an% shiny to the %epth of :15 of an inch a##aroun%J that the knuck#es are %esigne% an% manufacture% for hea*y%uty an% may #ast up to ten yearsJ that the knuck#e of bus No. 1FF

that broke on Ianuary 2G! 1FE! was #ast inspecte% on Ianuary !1FE! an% was %ue to be inspecte% again on 3ebruary th.

Hence! the tria# court! ho#%ing that the acci%ent was e'c#usi*e#y %ueto fortuitous e*ent! %ismisse% both actions.

ISSUE"- 7N the carrier is #iab#e for the manufacturing %efect of

the steering knuck#e- 7N e*i%ence %isc#oses that in regar% thereto the carrier

e'ercise% the %i#igence re&uire% by #aw- 7N a mechanica# %efect is a caso fortuito that e'empts

the carrier from #iabi#ity

HEL&"

(9T. 1. ( common carrier is boun% to carry the passengers safe#yas far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%e! using the utmost%i#igence of *ery cautious persons! with a %ue regar% for the a## thecircumstances.

4t is c#ear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passengers; safety.His #iabi#ity rests upon neg#igence! his fai#ure to e'ercise the DutmostD%egree of %i#igence that the #aw re&uires! an% by (rt. 15! in case ofa passenger;s %eath or in$ury the carrier bears the bur%en ofsatisfying the court that he has %u#y %ischarge% the %uty of pru%ence

re&uire%. 4n the (merican #aw! where the carrier is he#% to the same%egree of %i#igence as un%er the new Ci*i# Co%e! the ru#e on the#iabi#ity of carriers for %efects of e&uipment is thus e'presse%, DTheprepon%erance of authority is in fa*or of the %octrine that apassenger is entit#e% to reco*er %amages from a carrier for an in$uryresu#ting from a %efect in an app#iance purchase% from amanufacturer! whene*er it appears that the %efect wou#% ha*e been%isco*ere% by the carrier if it ha% e'ercise% the %egree of care whichun%er the circumstances was incumbent upon it! with regar% toinspection an% app#ication of the necessary tests. 3or the purposesof this %octrine! the manufacturer is consi%ere% as being in #aw theagent or ser*ant of the carrier! as far as regar%s the work of

constructing the app#iance. (ccor%ing to this theory! the goo% reputeof the manufacturer wi## not re#ie*e the carrier from #iabi#ityD

The rationa#e of the carrier;s #iabi#ity is the fact that the passenger hasneither choice nor contro# o*er the carrier in the se#ection an% use ofthe e&uipment an% app#iances in use by the carrier. Ha*ing no pri*ity

whate*er with the manufacturer or *en%or of the %efecti*ee&uipment! the passenger has no reme%y against him! whi#e thecarrier usua##y has. 4t is but #ogica#! therefore! that the carrier! whi#enot in insurer of the safety of his passengers! shou#% ne*erthe#ess behe#% to answer for the f#aws of his e&uipment if such f#aws were at a#%isco*erab#e.

4n the case now before us! the recor% is to the effect that the on#y tesapp#ie% to the steering knuck#e in &uestion was a pure#y *isuainspection e*ery thirty %ays! to see if any cracks %e*e#ope%. 4nowhere appears that either the manufacturer or the carrier at anytime teste% the steering knuck#e to ascertain whether its strength wasup to stan%ar%! or that it ha% no hi%%en f#aws wou#% impair thastrength. (n% yet the carrier must ha*e been aware of the criticaimportance of the knuck#e;s resistanceJ that its fai#ure or breakage

wou#% resu#t in #oss of ba#ance an% steering contro# of the bus! with%isastrous effects upon the passengers.

e are satisfie% that the perio%ica# *isua# inspection of the steeringknuck#e as practice% by the carrier;s agents %i% not measure up tothe re&uire% #ega# stan%ar% of Dutmost %i#igence of *ery cautiouspersonsD Das far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%eD! an%therefore that the knuck#e;s fai#ure can not be consi%ere% a fortuitouse*ent that e'empts the carrier from responsibi#ity

(APAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT O! APPEALS

ENRI@UE AGANA, MARIA ANGELA NINA AGANA, A&ALIA B

!RANCISCO an (OSE MIRAN&A, respondents.

!ats"

(n appea# by certiorari fi#e% by petitioner Iapan (ir#ines! 4nc. /I(L

seeking the re*ersa# of the %ecision of the Court of (ppea#s.

7n Iune 1! 1FF1! pri*ate respon%ent Iose "iran%a boar%e% I(L

f#ight No. IL 001 in )an 3rancisco! Ca#ifornia boun% fo

"ani#a. Likewise! on the same %ay pri*ate respon%ents <nri&ue

(gana! "aria (nge#a Nina (gana an% (%e#ia 3rancisco #eft Los

(nge#es! Ca#ifornia for "ani#a *ia I(L f#ight No. IL 051. (s an

incenti*e for tra*e##ing on the sai% air#ine! both f#ights were to make

an o*ernight stopo*er at Narita! Iapan! at the air#ines e'pense

thereafter procee%ing to "ani#a the fo##owing %ay.

@pon arri*a# at Narita! Iapan on Iune 1E! 1FF1! pri*ate

respon%ents were bi##ete% at Hote# Nikko Narita for the night. The

ne't %ay! pri*ate respon%ents! on the fina# #eg of their $ourney! went to

the airport to take their f#ight to "ani#a. Howe*er! %ue to the "t

inatubo eruption! unre#enting ashfa## b#ankete% Ninoy (&uino

4nternationa# (irport /N(4(! ren%ering it inaccessib#e to air#ine

traffic. Hence! pri*ate respon%ents trip to "ani#a was cance##e%

in%efinite#y.



To accommo%ate the nee%s of its stran%e% passengers! I(L

rebooke% a## the "ani#a-boun% passengers on f#ight No. E1 %ue to

%epart on Iune 15! 1FF1 an% a#so pai% for the hote# e'penses for

their une'pecte% o*ernight stay. 7n Iune 15! 1FF1! much to the

%ismay of the pri*ate respon%ents! their #ong anticipate% f#ight to

"ani#a was again cance##e% %ue to N(4(s in%efinite c#osure. (t this

point! I(L informe% the pri*ate respon%ents that it wou#% no #onger

%efray their hote# an% accommo%ation e'pense %uring their stay in

Narita.

)ince N(4( was on#y reopene% to air#ine traffic on Iune 22!

1FF1! pri*ate respon%ents were force% to pay for their

accommo%ations an% mea# e'penses from their persona# fun%s from

Iune 15 to Iune 21! 1FF1. Their une'pecte% stay in Narita en%e% on

Iune 22! 1FF1 when they arri*e% in "ani#a on boar% IL f#ight No.

E1.

7b*ious#y! sti## ree#ing from the e'perience! pri*ate

respon%ents! on Iu#y 2! 1FF1! commence% an action for %amages

against I(L before the 9egiona# Tria# Court of Oue+on City! Branch

10E.

ri*ate respon%entsM Contention before the 9TC,

- I(L fai#e% to #i*e up to its %uty to pro*i%e care an% comfort to its

stran%e% passengers when it refuse% to pay for their hote# an%

accommo%ation e'penses from Iune 15 to 21! 1FF1 at Narita!

Iapan.

- They insiste% that I(L was ob#igate% to shou#%er their e'penses as

#ong as they were sti## stran%e% in Narita.

etitionerMs Contention before the 9TC,

- I(L %enie% this a##egation an% a*erre% that air#ine passengers ha*e

no *este% right to these amenities in case a f#ight is cance##e% %ue to

force ma$eure.

7n Iune 1G! 1FF2! the tria# court ren%ere% its $u%gment in fa*or of

pri*ate respon%ents ho#%ing I(L #iab#e for %amages.

I(L appea#e% the %ecision before the Court of (ppea#s! which!

howe*er! with the e'ception of #owering the %amages awar%e%

affirme% the tria# court.

3ai#ing in its bi% to reconsi%er the %ecision! I(L has now fi#e% this

instant petition.

4ssue,

hether I(L! as a common carrier has the ob#igation to shou#%er the

hote# an% mea# e'penses of its stran%e% passengers unti# they ha*e

reache% their fina# %estination! e*en if the %e#ay were cause% by force

ma$eure.

ri*ate 9espon%entMs Contention,

- whi#e I(L cannot be he#% responsib#e for the %e#aye% arri*a# in

"ani#a! it was ne*erthe#ess #iab#e for their #i*ing e'penses %uring thei

une'pecte% stay in Narita since air#ines ha*e the ob#igation to ensure

the comfort an% con*enience of its passengers.

9u#ing,

To begin with! there is no %ispute that the "t. inatubo eruption

pre*ente% I(L from procee%ing to "ani#a on sche%u#e. Likewise

pri*ate respon%ents conce%e that such e*ent can be consi%ere% as

force ma$eure since their %e#aye% arri*a# in "ani#a was not imputab#e

to I(L.

(ccor%ing#y! there is no &uestion that when a party is unab#e to fu#fi#

his ob#igation because of force ma$eure! the genera# ru#e is that he

cannot be he#% #iab#e for %amages for non-performance. P5Q Coro##ari#y

when I(L was pre*ente% from resuming its f#ight to "ani#a %ue to theeffects of "t. inatubo eruption! whate*er #osses or %amages in the

form of hote# an% mea# e'penses the stran%e% passengers incurre%

cannot be charge% to I(L. ?et it is un%eniab#e that I(L assume% the

hote# e'penses of respon%ents for their une'pecte% o*ernight stay on

Iune 1! 1FF1.

Their pre%icament was not %ue to the fau#t or neg#igence of I(L but

the c#osure of N(4( to internationa# f#ights. 4n%ee%! to ho#% I(L! in the

absence of ba% faith or neg#igence! #iab#e for the amenities of its

stran%e% passengers by reason of a fortuitous e*ent is too much of a

bur%en to assume.

(ir#ine passengers must take such risks inci%ent to the mo%e of

tra*e#.PQ 4n this regar%! a%*erse weather con%itions or e'treme

c#imatic changes are some of the peri#s in*o#*e% in air tra*e#! the

conse&uences of which the passenger must assume or e'pect. (fte

a##! common carriers are not the insurer of a## risks.

e are not prepare%! howe*er! to comp#ete#y abso#*e petitione

I(L from any #iabi#ity. 4t must be note% that pri*ate respon%ents

bought tickets from the @nite% )tates with "ani#a as their fina

%estination. hi#e I(L was no #onger re&uire% to %efray pri*ate

respon%ents #i*ing e'penses %uring their stay in Narita on account o

the fortui tous e*ent! I(L ha% the %uty to make thenecessary arrangements to transport pri*ate respon%ents on the firs

a*ai#ab#e connecting f#ight to "ani#a. etitioner I(L renege% on its

ob#igation to #ook after the comfort an% con*enience of its

passengers when it %ec#assifie% pri*ate respon%ents from transi

passengers to new passengers as a resu#t of which pri*ate

respon%ents were ob#ige% to make the necessary arrangements

themse#*es forthe ne't f#ight to "ani#a. ri*ate respon%ents were

p#ace% on the waiting #ist from Iune 20 to Iune 2E. To assure

themse#*es of a seat on an a*ai#ab#e f#ight! they were compe##e% to

stay in the airport the who#e %ay of Iune 22! 1FF1 an% it was on#y at

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/aug1998/118664.htm#_edn6









G,00 p.m. of the aforesai% %ate that they were a%*ise% that they cou#%

be accommo%ate% in sai% f#ight which f#ew at about F,00 a.m. the

ne't %ay.

e are not ob#i*ious to the fact that the cance##ation of I(L

f#ights to "ani#a from Iune 1 to Iune 21! 1FF1 cause% consi%erab#e

%isruption in passenger booking an% reser*ation. 4n fact! it wou#% be

unreasonab#e to e'pect! consi%ering N(4(s c#osure! that I(L f#ight

operations wou#% be norma# on the %ays affecte%. Ne*erthe#ess! this

%oes not e'cuse I(L from its ob#igation to make the necessaryarrangements to transport pri*ate respon%ents on its first a*ai#ab#e

f#ight to "ani#a. (fter a##! it ha% a contract to transport pri*ate

respon%ents from the @nite% )tates to "ani#a as their fina#

%estination.

etitioner I(L is or%ere% to pay each of the pri*ate respon%ents

nomina# %amages in the sum of 100!000.00 each inc#u%ing

attorneys fees of 0!000.00 p#us costs.

LA MALLORCA, petitioner!*s.

HONORABLE COURT O! APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET

AL., respon%ents.

3acts,

7n ecember 20! 1F! at about noontime! p#aintiffs! husban% an%

wife! together with their minor %aughters! name#y! "i#agros! 1 years

o#%! 9a&ue#! about ER years o#%! an% 3e! o*er 2 years o#%! boar%e%

the ambusco Bus No. 2! bearing p#ate T@ No. /1Fampanga! owne% an% operate% by the %efen%ant! at )an

3ernan%o! ampanga! boun% for (nao! "e'ico! ampanga.

(t the time! they were carrying with them four pieces of baggages

containing their persona# be#onging. The con%uctor of the bus! who

happene% to be a ha#f-brother of p#aintiff "ariano Be#tran! issue%

three tickets /<'hs. (! B! S C co*ering the fu## fares of the p#aintiff

an% their e#%est chi#%! "i#agros.

No fare was charge% on 9a&ue# an% 3e! since both were be#ow the

height at which fare is charge% in accor%ance with the appe##ant;s

ru#es an% regu#ations.

(fter about an hour;s trip! the bus reache% (nao whereat it stoppe%

to a##ow the passengers boun% therefor! among whom were the

p#aintiffs an% their chi#%ren to get off.

ith respect to the group of the p#aintiffs! "ariano Be#tran! then

carrying some of their baggages! was the first to get %own the bus!

fo##owe% by his wife an% his chi#%ren. "ariano #e% his companions to

a sha%e% spot on the #eft pe%estrians si%e of the roa% about four or

fi*e meters away from the *ehic#e. (fterwar%s! he returne% to the bus

in contro*ersy to get his other bayong! which he ha% #eft behin%! bu

in so %oing! his %aughter 9a&ue# fo##owe% him! unnotice% by her

father.

hi#e sai% "ariano Be#tran was on the running boar% of the bus

waiting for the con%uctor to han% him hisbayong which he #eft un%e

one of its seats near the %oor! the bus! whose motor was not shut off

whi#e un#oa%ing! su%%en#y starte% mo*ing forwar%! e*i%ent#y toresume its trip! notwithstan%ing the fact that the con%uctor has no

gi*en the %ri*er the customary signa# to start! since sai% con%ucto

was sti## atten%ing to the baggage #eft behin% by "ariano Be#tran.

4nci%enta##y! when the bus was again p#ace% into a comp#ete stop! it

ha% tra*e##e% about ten meters from the point where the p#aintiffs ha%

gotten off.

)ensing that the bus was again in motion! "ariano Be#tran

imme%iate#y $umpe% from the running boar% without getting

his bayong from the con%uctor. He #an%e% on the si%e of the roa%

a#most in front of the sha%e% p#ace where he #eft his wife an%

chi#%ren. (t that precise time! he saw peop#e beginning to gather

aroun% the bo%y of a chi#% #ying prostrate on the groun%! her sku#

crushe%! an% without #ife. The chi#% was none other than his %aughte

9a&ue#! who was run o*er by the bus in which she ro%e ear#ier

together with her parents.

3or the %eath of their sai% chi#%! the p#aintiffs commence% the presen

suit against the %efen%ant seeking to reco*er from the #atter an

aggregate amount of 15!000 to co*er mora# %amages an% actua

%amages sustaine% as a resu#t thereof an% attorney;s fees. (fter tria

on the merits! the court be#ow ren%ere% the $u%gment in &uestion.

7n the basis of these facts! the tria# court foun% %efen%ant #iab#e for

breach of contract of carriage an% sentence% it to pay !000.00 for

the %eath of the chi#% an% E00.00 as compensatory %amages

representing buria# e'penses an% costs.

7n appea# to the Court of (ppea#s! La "a##orca c#aime% that there

cou#% not be a breach of contract in the case! for the reason that

when the chi#% met her %eath! she was no #onger a passenger of the

bus in*o#*e% in the inci%ent an%! therefore! the contract of carriageha% a#rea%y terminate%.

(#though the Court of (ppea#s sustaine% this theory! it ne*erthe#ess

foun% the %efen%ant-appe##ant gui#ty of quasi'delict an% he#% the #atte

#iab#e for %amages! for the neg#igence of its %ri*er! in accor%ance with

(rtic#e 21G0 of the Ci*i# Co%e. (n%! the Court of (ppea#s %i% not on#y

fin% the petitioner #iab#e! but increase% the %amages awar%e% the

p#aintiffs-appe##ees to 5!000.00! instea% of !000.00 grante% by the

tria# court.



4n its brief before us! La "a##orca conten%s that the Court of (ppea#s

erre%,

/1 in ho#%ing it #iab#e for quasi'delict ! consi%ering that respon%ents

comp#aint was one for breach of contract! an%

/2 in raising the awar% of %amages from !000.00 to 5!000.00

a#though respon%ents %i% not appea# from the %ecision of the #owercourt.

4ssue,

hether as to the chi#%! who was a#rea%y #e% by the father to a p#ace

about meters away from the bus! the #iabi#ity of the carrier for her

safety un%er the contract of carriage a#so persiste%.

9u#ing,

(s a ru#e that the re#ation of carrier an% passenger %oes not cease at

the moment the passenger a#ights from the carrier;s *ehic#e at a

p#ace se#ecte% by the carrier at the point of %estination! but continues

unti# the passenger has ha% a reasonab#e time or a reasonab#e

opportunity to #ea*e the carrier;s premises. (n%! what is a reasonab#e

time or a reasonab#e %e#ay within this ru#e is to be %etermine% from

a## the circumstances.

4n the present case! the father returne% to the bus to get one of his

baggages which was not un#oa%e% when they a#ighte% from the bus.

9a&ue#! the chi#% that she was! must ha*e fo##owe% the father.

Howe*er! a#though the father was sti## on the running boar% of the

bus awaiting for the con%uctor to han% him the bag or bayong! the

bus starte% to run! so that e*en he /the father ha% to $ump %own

from the mo*ing *ehic#e. 4t was at this instance that the chi#%! who

must be near the bus! was run o*er an% ki##e%. 4n the circumstances!

it cannot be c#aime% that the carrier;s agent ha% e'ercise% the

Dutmost %i#igenceD of a D*ery cautions personD re&uire% by (rtic#e

1 of the Ci*i# Co%e to be obser*e% by a common carrier in the%ischarge of its ob#igation to transport safe#y its passengers.

4n the first p#ace! the %ri*er! a#though stopping the bus! ne*erthe#ess

%i% not put off the engine. )econ%#y! he starte% to run the bus e*en

before the bus con%uctor ga*e him the signa# to go an% whi#e the

#atter was sti## un#oa%ing part of the baggages of the passengers

"ariano Be#tran an% fami#y. The presence of sai% passengers near

the bus was not unreasonab#e an% they are! therefore! to be

consi%ere% sti## as passengers of the carrier! entit#e% to the protection

un%er their contract of carriage.

But e*en assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has

a#rea%y terminate%! herein petitioner can be he#% #iab#e for the

neg#igence of its %ri*er! as ru#e% by the Court of (ppea#s! pursuant to

(rtic#e 21G0 of the Ci*i# Co%e.

ABOITI) SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner

*s.HON. COURT O! APPEALS, ELE#ENTH &I#ISION, LUCILA C

#IANA, SPS. ANTONIO #IANA an GORGONIA #IANA, an

PIONEER STE#E&ORING CORPORATION, respon%ents.

3acts,

7n "ay 11! 1F! (nac#eto =iana boar%e% the *esse# ":= (ntonia!

owne% by %efen%ant! at the port at )an Iose! 7cci%enta# "in%oro

boun% for "ani#a! ha*ing purchase% a ticket /No. 11F2 in the sum

of 2.10. 7n "ay 12! 1F! sai% *esse# arri*e% at ier E! North

Harbor! "ani#a! an% the passengers therein %isembarke%! a

gangp#ank ha*ing been pro*i%e% connecting the si%e of the *esse# tothe pier. 4nstea% of using sai% gangp#ank (nac#eto =iana

%isembarke% on the thir% %eck which was on the #e*e# with the pier

(fter sai% *esse# ha% #an%e%! the ioneer )te*e%oring Corporation

took o*er the e'c#usi*e contro# of the cargoes #oa%e% on sai% *esse

pursuant to the "emoran%um of (greement %ate% Iu#y 25! 1F

between the thir% party %efen%ant ioneer )te*e%oring Corporation

an% %efen%ant (boiti+ )hipping Corporation.

The crane owne% by the thir% party %efen%ant an% operate% by its

crane operator (#e$o 3igueroa was p#ace% a#ongsi%e the *esse# an%

one /1 hour after the passengers of sai% *esse# ha% %isembarke%! it

starte% operation by un#oa%ing the cargoes from sai% *esse#. hi#e

the crane was being operate%! (nac#eto =iana who ha% a#rea%y

%isembarke% from sai% *esse# ob*ious#y remembering that some o

his cargoes were sti## #oa%e% in the *esse#! went back to the *esse#

an% it was whi#e he was pointing to the crew of the sai% *esse# to the

p#ace where his cargoes were #oa%e% that the crane hit him! pinning

him between the si%e of the *esse# an% the crane. He was thereafte

brought to the hospita# where he #ater e'pire% three / %ays

thereafter! on "ay 1! 1F! the cause of his %eath accor%ing to the

eath Certificate being Dhypostatic pneumonia secon%ary to

traumatic fracture of the pubic bone #acerating the urinary b#a%%erD.

3or his hospita#i+ation! me%ica#! buria# an% other misce##aneouse'penses! (nac#eto;s wife! herein p#aintiff! spent a tota# of F!G00.00

(nac#eto =iana who was on#y forty /E0 years o#% when he met sai%

fatefu# acci%ent was in goo% hea#th. His a*erage annua# income as a

farmer or a farm super*isor was E00 ca*ans of pa#ay annua##y. His

parents! herein p#aintiffs (ntonio an% >orgonia =iana! prior to his

%eath ha% been recipient of twenty /20 ca*ans of pa#ay as support o

120.00 month#y. Because of (nac#eto;s %eath! p#aintiffs suffere%

menta# anguish an% e'treme worry or mora# %amages. 3or the fi#ing

of the instant case! they ha% to hire a #awyer for an agree% fee of ten

thousan% /10!000.00 pesos.



ri*ate respon%ents =ianas fi#e% a comp#aint ; for %amages against

petitioner corporation for breach of contract of carriage.

4n its answer. (boiti+ %enie% responsibi#ity conten%ing that at the time

of the acci%ent! the *esse# was comp#ete#y un%er the contro# of

respon%ent ioneer )te*e%oring Corporation as the e'c#usi*e

ste*e%oring contractor of (boiti+! which han%#e% the un#oa%ing of

cargoes from the *esse# of (boiti+. 4t is a#so a*erre% that since the

crane operator was not an emp#oyee of (boiti+! the #atter cannot behe#% #iab#e un%er the fe##ow-ser*ant ru#e.

Thereafter! (boiti+! as thir%-party p#aintiff! fi#e% a thir%-party

comp#aint against ioneer imputing #iabi#ity thereto for (nac#eto

=iana;s %eath as ha*ing been a##ege%#y cause% by the neg#igence of

the crane operator who was an emp#oyee of ioneer un%er its

e'c#usi*e contro# an% super*ision.

ioneer! in its answer to the thir%-party comp#aint! raise% the

%efenses that (boiti+ ha% no cause of action against ioneer

consi%ering that (boiti+ is being sue% by the =ianas for breach of

contract of carriage to which ioneer is not a partyJ that ioneer ha%

obser*e% the %i#igence of a goo% father of a fami#y both in the

se#ection an% super*ision of its emp#oyees as we## as in the

pre*ention of %amage or in$ury to anyone inc#u%ing the *ictim

(nac#eto =ianaJ that (nac#eto =iana;s gross neg#igence was the

%irect an% pro'imate cause of his %eathJ an% that the fi#ing of the

thir%-party comp#aint was premature by reason of the pen%ency of

the crimina# case for homici%e through reck#ess impru%ence fi#e%

against the crane operator! (#e$o 3igueroa.

4n a %ecision ren%ere% on (pri# 1! 1FG0 by the tria# court! (boiti+ was

or%ere% to pay the =ianas for %amages incurre%! an% ioneer wasor%ere% to reimburse (boiti+ for whate*er amount the #atter pai% the

=ianas.

Both (boiti+ an% ioneer fi#e% separate motions for reconsi%eration

wherein they simi#ar#y raise% the tria# court;s fai#ure to %ec#are that

(nac#eto =iana acte% with gross neg#igence %espite the

o*erwhe#ming e*i%ence presente% in support thereof. 4n a%%ition!

(boiti+ a##ege%! in opposition to ioneer;s motion! that un%er the

memoran%um of agreement the #iabi#ity of ioneer as contractor is

automatic for any %amages or #osses whatsoe*er occasione% by an%

arising from the operation of its arrastre an% ste*e%oring ser*ice

4n an or%er %ate% 7ctober 2! 1FG2! the tria# court abso#*e% ioneer

from #iabi#ity for fai#ure of the =ianas an% (boiti+ to prepon%erant#y

estab#ish a case of neg#igence against the crane operator which the

court a quo ru#e% is ne*er presume%! asi%e from the fact that the

memoran%um of agreement suppose%#y refers on#y to ioneer;s

#iabi#ity in case of #oss or %amage to goo%s han%#e% by it but not in

the case of persona# in$uries! an%! fina##y that (boiti+ cannot proper#y

in*oke the fe##ow-ser*ant ru#e simp#y because its #iabi#ity stems from

a breach of contract of carriage.

Not satisfie% with the mo%ifie% $u%gment of the tria# court! (boiti+

appea#e% the same to respon%ent Court of (ppea#s which affirme%

the fin%ings of of the tria# court e'cept as to the amount of %amages

awar%e% to the =ianas.

Hence! this petition wherein petitioner (boiti+ postu#ates tha

respon%ent court erre%,

/( 4n ho#%ing that the %octrine #ai% %own by this honorab#e Court in

La "a##orca *s. Court of (ppea#s! et a#. /1 )C9( F! Iu#y 2! 1F55

is app#icab#e to the case in the face of the un%isputab#e fact that the

factua# situation un%er the La "a##orca case is ra%ica##y %ifferent from

the facts obtaining in this caseJ

/B 4n ho#%ing petitioner #iab#e for %amages in the face of the fin%ing

of the court a &uo an% confirme% by the Honorab#e respon%ent court

of (ppea#s that the %ecease%! (nac#eto =iana was gui#ty o

contributory neg#igence! which! e respectfu##y submit contributory

neg#igence was the pro'imate cause of his %eathJ specifica##y the

honorab#e respon%ent Court of (ppea#s fai#e% to app#y (rt. 152 o

the New Ci*i# Co%eJ

/C 4n the a#ternati*e assuming the ho#%ing of the Honorab#e

respon%ent Court of (ppears that petitioner may be #ega##y

con%emne% to pay %amages to the pri*ate respon%ents we

respectfu##y submit that it committe% a re*ersib#e error when i

%ismisse% petitioner;s thir% party comp#aint against pri*ate

respon%ent ioneer )te*e%oring Corporation instea% of compe##ing

the #atter to reimburse the petitioner for whate*er %amages it may be

compe##e% to pay to the pri*ate respon%ents =ianas

4ssue,

hether or not the Court of (ppea#s erre% in its ru#ing against

petitioner (boiti+.

9u#ing,

4. The ru#e is that the re#ation of carrier an% passenger continues unti

the passenger has been #an%e% at the port of %estination an% has #ef

the *esse# owner;s %ock or premises.

4t is apparent from the foregoing that what prompte% the Court to ru#e

as it %i% in sai% case is the fact of the passenger;s reasonab#e

presence within the carrier;s premises.

4t is not %efinite#y shown that one /1 hour prior to the inci%ent! the

*ictim ha% a#rea%y %isembarke% from the *esse#. etitioner fai#e% to

pro*e this. hat is c#ear to us is that at the time the *ictim was taking

his cargoes! the *esse# ha% a#rea%y %ocke% an hour ear#ier. 4n

consonance with common shipping proce%ure as to the minimum

time of one /1 hour a##owe% for the passengers to %isembark! it may

be presume% that the *ictim ha% $ust gotten off the *esse# when he

went to retrie*e his baggage. ?et! e*en if he ha% a#rea%y

%isembarke% an hour ear#ier! his presence in petitioner;s premises



was not without cause. The *ictim ha% to c#aim his baggage which

was possib#e on#y one /1 hour after the *esse# arri*e% since it was

a%mitte%#y stan%ar% proce%ure in the case of petitioner;s *esse#s that

the un#oa%ing operations sha## start on#y after that time.

Conse&uent#y! un%er the foregoing circumstances! the *ictim

(nac#eto =iana is sti## %eeme% a passenger of sai% carrier at the time

of his tragic %eath.

44. @n%er the #aw! common carriers are! from the nature of their

business an% for reasons of pub#ic po#icy! boun% to obser*e

e'traor%inary %i#igence in the *igi#ance o*er the goo%s an% for the

safety of the passengers transporte% by them! accor%ing to a## the

circumstances of each case.

The presumption is! therefore! estab#ishe% by #aw that in case of a

passenger;s %eath or in$ury the operator of the *esse# was at fau#t or

neg#igent! ha*ing fai#e% to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence! an% it is

incumbent upon it to rebut the same.

(s foun% by the Court of (ppea#s! the e*i%ence %oes not show that

there was a cor%on of %rums aroun% the perimeter of the crane! as

c#aime% by petitioner. 4t a#so a%*erte% to the fact that the a##ege%

presence of *isib#e warning signs in the *icinity was %isputab#e an%

not in%ubitab#y estab#ishe%. Thus! we are not inc#ine% to accept

petitioner;s e'p#anation that the *ictim an% other passengers were

sufficient#y warne% that mere#y *enturing into the area in &uestion

was fraught with serious peri#.

There is no showing that petitioner was e'traor%inari#y %i#igent in

re&uiring or seeing to it that sai% precautionary measures were

strict#y an% actua##y enforce% to subser*e their purpose of pre*enting

entry into the forbi%%en area.

hi#e the *ictim was a%mitte%#y contributori#y neg#igent! sti##

petitioner;s aforesai% fai#ure to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence was

the pro'imate an% %irect cause of! because it cou#% %efinite#y ha*e

pre*ente%! the former;s %eath. "oreo*er! in paragraph .5 of its

petition! at bar! petitioner has e'press#y conce%e% the factua# fin%ing

of respon%ent Court of (ppea#s that petitioner %i% not present

sufficient e*i%ence in support of its submission that the %ecease%(nac#eto =iana was gui#ty of gross neg#igence.

arenthetica##y! ioneer is not within the ambit of the ru#e on

e'traor%inary %i#igence re&uire% of! an% the correspon%ing

presumption of neg#igence foiste% on! common carriers #ike (boiti+.

This! of course! %oes not %etract from what we ha*e sai% that no

neg#igence can be impute% to ioneer but! that on the contrary! the

fai#ure of (boiti+ to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence for the safety of

its passenger is the rationa#e for our fin%ing on its #iabi#ity.

CALALAS v CA

This a petition for re*iew on certiorari of the %ecision of the Court of

(ppea#s re*ersing the %ecision of the 9egiona# Tria# Court! an%

awar%ing %amages instea% to <#i+a )unga as p#aintiff in an action for

a breach of contract of carriage.

!ACTS"

(t 10 o;c#ock in the morning of (ugust 2! 1FGF! <#i+a )unga! then a

co##ege freshman ma$oring in hysica# <%ucation at the )i#iman

@ni*ersity! took a passenger $eepney owne% an% operate% by =icente

Ca#a#as. (s the $eepney was fi##e% to capacity of about 2E

passengers! )unga was gi*en by the con%uctor an De'tension seat!D

a woo%en stoo# at the back of the %oor at the back of the %oor at the

rear en% of the *ehic#e. 7n the way to ob#acion )ibu#an! Negros

7cci%enta#! the $eepney stoppe% to #et a passenger off. (s she wasseate% at the rear of the *ehic#e! )unga ga*e way to the outgoing

passenger. Iust as she was %oing so! an 4su+u truck %ri*en by

4g#ecerio =erena an% owne% by 3rancisco )a#*an bumpe% the rea

portion of the $eepney. (s a resu#t! )unga was in$ure%. )he sustaine%

a fracture of the D%ista# thir% of the #eft tibu#a-fibu#a with se*ere

necrosis of the un%er#ying skin.D C#ose% re%uction of the fracture

#ong #eg circu#ar casting! an% case we%ging were %one un%e

se%ation. Her confinement in the hospita# #aste% from (ugust 2 to

)eptember ! 1FGF. Her orthope%ic surgeon! certifie% she wou#%

remain on a cast for a perio% of three months an% wou#% ha*e to

ambu#ate in crutches %uring sai% perio%. )unga fi#e% a comp#aint for

%amages against Ca#a#as! a##eging *io#ation of the contract o

carriage by the former in fai#ing to e'ercise the %i#igence re&uire% of

him as a common carrier. Ca#a#as! fi#e% a thir% party comp#ain

against 3rancisco )a#*a! the owner of the 4su+u truck. Lower Court

ren%ere% $u%gment against )a#*a an% abso#*e% Ca#a#as of #iabi#ity. 4

took cogni+ance of another case fi#e% by Ca#a#as against )a#*a an%

=erena for &uasi-%e#ict! in which it was he#% )a#*a an% his %ri*er

=erena $oint#y #iab#e to Ca#a#as for the %amage to his $eepney. Court

of (ppea#s, re*erse% the ru#ing of the #ower court on the groun% that

)unga;s action was base% on a contract of carriage! not &uasi %e#ict



an% that the common carrier fai#e% to e'ercise the %i#igence re&uire%

un%er the ci*i# co%e. Thir%-party comp#aint was %ismisse%.

ISSUE"

hether or not the C( erre% in not taking cogni+ance of the ru#ing in

the Ci*i# Case that the neg#igence of =erena was the pro'imatecause of the acci%ent an% therefore shou#% negate his #iabi#ity

HEL&"

C, )unga is boun% by the ru#ing of the ci*i# case an% to ru#e

otherwise wou#% be to make the common carrier an insurer of the

safety of its passengers.

)C, The argument that )unga is boun% by the ru#ing in Ci*i# Case

fin%ing the %ri*er an% the owner of the truck #iab#e for &uasi-%e#ict

ignores the fact that she was ne*er a party to that case an%!

therefore! the princip#e of res $u%icata %oes not app#y. Nor are the

issues in the ci*i# case an% in the present case the same. Ci*i# case

issue was regar%ing &uasi-%e#ict /premise% on tort whi#e the issue in

this case is the breach of the contract of carriage /base% on

neg#igence. The %octrine of pro'imate cause on#y app#ies to actions

for &uasi-%e#ict! an% not in actions in*o#*ing breach of contract.

C/2, the bumping of the $eepney by the truck owne% by )a#*a was

a caso fortuito.

)C/2, in the case at bar! upon the happening of the acci%ent! the

presumption of neg#igence at once arose an% it became the %uty of

petitioner to pro*e that he obser*e% e'traor%inary %i#igence in the

care of his passengers. The fact that )unga was seate% in an

De'tension seatD p#ace% her in a peri# greater than that to which the

other passengers were e'pose%. Therefore! not on#y was petitioner

unab#e to o*ercome the presumption of neg#igence impose% on him

for the in$ury sustaine% by sunga! but a#so! the e*i%ence shows he

was actua##y neg#igent in transporting passengers. ( caso fortuito is

an e*ent which cou#% not be foreseen! or which! though foreseen!

was ine*itab#e. This re&uires that the fo##owing re&uirements to be

present, /a the cause of the breach is in%epen%ent of the %ebtor;s

wi##J /b the e*ent is unforeseeab#e or una*oi%ab#eJ /c the e*ent such

as to ren%er it impossib#e for the %ebtor to fu#fi## the ob#igation in a

norma# mannerJ an% /% the %ebtor %i% not take part in causing the

in$ury to the cre%itor. etitioner shou#% ha*e foreseen the %anger of

parking his $eepney with its bo%y protru%ing two meters into the

highway. herefore! the %ecision of the C( is affirme%.

GILLACO v MANILA RAILROA& COMPANY

(ppea# from the $u%gment of the Court of 3irst 4nstance sentencing

"ani#a 9ai#roa% Company to pay %amagaes to Corne#ia >i##aco an%

her chi#%ren with Tomas >i##aco! shot by the emp#oyee of thecompany in (pri# 1FE5.

!ACTS"

(bout ,0 am of (pri# 1! 1FE5! Lieut. Tomas >i##aco! husban% of the

p#aintiff! was a passenger in the ear#y morning train of the "ani#a

9ai#roa% Company from Ca#amba! Laguna to "ani#a. That when the

train reache% the aco 9ai#roa% station! <mi#io e*esa! a train guar%

of the "ani#a 9ai#roa% Company assigne% in the "ani#a-)an

3ernan%o! La @nion Line! happene% to be in sai% station waiting for

the same train which wou#% take him to Tutuban )tation! where he

was going to report for %uty. That <mi#io e*esa ha% a #ong stan%ing

persona# gru%ge against Tomas >i##aco! same %ating back %uring the

Iapanese occupation. That because of this persona# gru%ge! e*esa

shot >i##aco with the carbine furnishe% to him by the "ani#a 9ai#roa%

Company for his use as such train guar%! upon seeing him insi%e the

train coach. That Tomas >i##aco %ie% as a resu#t of the woun% which

he sustaine% from the shot fire% by e*esa. 4t is a#so un%ispute% that

e*esa was con*icte% of homici%e by fina# $u%gment of the Court o(ppea#s. Lower Court, ru#e% in fa*or of >i##aco on the groun% that a

contract of transportation imp#ies protection of the passengers

against acts of persona# *io#ence by the agents or emp#oyees of the

carrier. Hence this appea#.

ISSUE"

hether or not "ani#a 9ai#roa% Company shou#% be he#% #iab#e fo

the ki##ing %one by its emp#oyee

HEL&"

C, No #iabi#ity shou#% attach to it as emp#oyer of the ki##er! <mi#io

e*esaJ that it is not responsib#e subsi%iary e' %e#icto! because the

crime was not committe% whi#e the s#ayer was in the actua

performance of his or%inary %uties an% ser*ice.



)C, There can be no &uarre# with the princip#e that a passenger is

entit#e% to protection from persona# *io#ence by the carrier or its

agents or emp#oyees! since the contract of transportation ob#igates

the carrier to transport a passenger safe#y to his %estination. But

un%er the #aw of the case! this responsibi#ity e'ten%s on#y to those

that the carrier cou#% foresee or a*oi% through the e'ercise of the

%egree of care an% %i#igence re&uire% of it. @n%er the o#% Ci*i# Co%e/which was in force in 1FE5 when >i##aco was shot! Dno one sha## be

#iab#e for e*ents which cou#% not be foreseen or which! e*en

foreseen! were ine*itab#e...D -The act of guar% e*esa in shooting

passenger >i##aco because of a persona# gru%ge was entire#y

unforeseeab#e by the "ani#a 9ai#roa% Co. The #atter ha% no means to

ascertain or anticipate that the two wou#% meet! nor cou#% it

reasonab#y foresee e*ery persona# rancor that might e'ist between

each one of its many emp#oyees an% any one of the thousan%

passengers ri%ing in its trains. The shooting in &uestion was therefore

Dcaso fortuitoD within the %efinition of artic#e 110 of the o#% ci*i# co%eJ

an% pursuant to estab#ishe% %octrine! the resu#ting breach of

appe##ant;s contract of safe carriage with the #ate Tomas >i##aco wase'cuse% thereby. - (nother important consi%eration is that when the

crime took p#ace! the guar% e*esa ha% no %uties to %ischarge in

connection with the transportation of the %ecease% from Ca#amba to

"ani#a. The stipu#ation of facts is c#ear when e*esa shot an% ki##e%

>i#aco! he was at aco station awaiting transportation to get to the

point of the train that he was engage% to guar%. He was un%er no

ob#igation to safeguar% the passengers of the Ca#amba-"ani#a train

an% the ki##ing was not %one in #ine of %uty. herefore! $u%gment

appea#e% from is re*erse% an% the comp#aint or%ere% %ismisse%.

MARANAN v PERE)

(ppea# from the $u%gment of the Court of 3irst 4nstance of Batangas.

!ACTS"

9oge#io Corachea! on 7ctober 1G!1F50! was a passenger in a

ta'icab owne% an% operate% by ascua# ere+ when he was stabbe%

an% ki##e% by the %ri*er )imeon =a#en+ue#a. Crimina# case,=a#en+ue#a was prosecute% an% foun% gui#ty of homici%e in the Court

of 3irst 4nstance of Batangas. (ppea# from sai% con*iction was taken

to the Court of (ppea#s. C( affirme% the $u%gment of con*iction an%

fina# $u%gment was entere% therein. Ci*i# Case, 7n ecember

5!1F51! whi#e appea# was pen%ing in the C(! (ntonia "aranan!

9oge#io;s mother! fi#e% an action in the Court of 3irst 4nstance of

Batangas to reco*er %amages from ere+ an% =a#en+ue#a for the

%eath of her son. efen%ants asserte% that the %ecease% was ki##e%

in se#f-%efense! since he first assau#te% the %ri*er by stabbing him

from behin% an% that the %eath was a caso fortuito for which the

carrier was not #iab#e. The Court of 3irst 4nstance ru#e% for "aranan!

awar%ing her %amages /k against %efen%ant ere+ but %ismissing

her c#aim against =a#en+ue#a. "aranan an% ere+ both appea#e% to

the C(. The former asking for more %amages! the #atter insisting on

non-#iabi#ity.

ISSUE"

hether or not ere+ cou#% be he#% #iab#e for the %eath of the son of

"aranan.

HEL&"

?es.

C, 4n >i##aco * "ani#a 9ai#roa% Co! the Court ru#e% that the carrier is

un%er no abso#ute #iabi#ity for assau#ts of its emp#oyees upon the

passengers.

)C, The facts an% contro##ing #aw of that case an% the one at bar are

*ery %ifferent. 4n the >i##aco case! the passenger was ki##e% outsi%e

the scope an% course of %uty of the gui#ty emp#oyee. Here! the ki##ing

was perpetrate% by the %ri*er of the *ery cab transporting thepassenger! in whose han%s the carrier ha% entruste% the %uty of

e'ecuting the contract of carriage. 4n other wor%s! the ki##ing took

p#ace in the course of %uty of the gui#ty emp#oyee an% when the

emp#oyee was acting within the scope of his %uties. "oreo*er! the

>i##aco case was %eci%e% un%er the pro*isions of the Ci*i# Co%e of

1FGF which! un#ike the present Ci*i# Co%e! %i% not impose upon

common carriers abso#ute #iabi#ity for the safety of passengers. The

New Ci*i# Co%e e'press#y makes the common carrier #iab#e fo

intentiona# assau#ts committe% by its emp#oyees upon its passengers

(rtic#e 1F states that Dcommon carriers are #iab#e for the %eath or

in$uries to passengers through the neg#igence or wi##fu# acts of the

former;s emp#oyees! a#though such emp#oyees may ha*e acte%

beyon% the scope of their authority or in *io#ation of the or%ers of the

common carriers.D The basis of the carrier;s #iabi#ity for assau#ts on

passengers committe% by its %ri*ers rests on /1 the %octrine of

respon%eat superior /minority *iew or /2 the princip#e that it is the

carrier;s %uty to transport the passenger safe#y /uphe#% by the

ma$ority. 4t is no %efense that the act was %one in e'cess of authority

or %isobe%ience of the carrier;s or%ers. The carrier;s #iabi#ity here is

abso#ute in the sense that it practica##y secures the passengers from

assau#ts committe% by its own emp#oyees. Three reasons behin% the

secon% princip#e, /1 the specia# un%ertaking of the carrier re&uires

that it furnish its passenger the fu## measure of protection affor%e% by

the e'ercise of the high %egree of care prescribe% by #aw! especia##y

from the acts of the carrier;s own ser*ants charge% with thepassenger;s safetyJ /2 sai% #iabi#ity of the carrier for the ser*ant;s

*io#ation of %uty to passengers is the resu#t of the former;s confi%ing

in the ser*ant;s han%s the performance of his contract to safe#y

transport the passenger! %e#egating therewith the %uty of protecting

the passenger with the utmost care prescribe% by #awJ an% / as

between the carrier an% the passenger! the former must bear the risk

of wrongfu# acts or neg#igence of the carrier;s emp#oyees against

passengers! since it! an% not the passengers! has power to se#ect

an% remo*e them.



herefore! with mo%ification increasing the awar% of %amages in

p#aintiff;s fa*or! the $u%gment appea#e% from is affirme% in a## other

respects.

PHIL NATIONAL RAIL?AYS v CA

!ACTS"

7n )eptember 10!1F2! at about F pm! inifre%o Tupang! husban%

of 9osario Tupang! boar%e% train no 15 of the hi#ippine Nationa#

9ai#ways at Libmanan! Camarines )ur! as a paying passenger boun%

for "ani#a. ue to some mechanica# %efect! the train stoppe% at

)ipocot! Camarines )ur! for repairs. (fter 2 hours the train resume%

its trip. @nfortunate#y! upon passing 4yam Bri%e at Lucena! Oue+on!

inifre%o Tupang fe## off the train resu#ting in his %eath. The train %i%

not stop %espite the a#arm raise% by the other passengers that

somebo%y fe## from the train. 4nstea%! the con%uctor! erfecto

(bra+a%o! ca##e% the station agent at Can%e#aria! Oue+on! an%re&ueste% for *erification of the information. o#ice authorities of

Lucena were %ispatche% to the bri%ge where they foun% the #ife#ess

bo%y of inifre%o Tupang. (utopsy showe% that inifre%o Tupang

%ie% of car%io-respiratory fai#ure %ue to massi*e cerebra# hemorrhage

%ue to traumatic in$ury. @pon the comp#aint of the %ecease%;s wi%ow!

9osario Tupang! the C34 of 9i+a# he#% the petitioner N9 #iab#e for

%amages for breach of contract of carriage. 7n appea#! the C(

sustaine% the ho#%ing of the tria# court that the N9 %i% not e'ercise

utmost %i#igence re&uire% by #aw of a common carrier. N9 mo*e%

for reconsi%eration raising for the first time as a %efense the %octrine

of state immunity from suit. "otion was %enie%J the groun% a%*ance%

cou#% not be raise% for the first time on appea#. Hence this petition for

re*iew.

ISSUE"

hether or not the N9 is an agent of the go*ernment an% if so! is it

immune from suit.

HEL&"

C, 4t a##ege% that it is a mere agency of the hi#ippine go*ernment

without %istinct or separate persona#ity of its own! an% that its fun%s

are go*ernmenta# in character! an% therefore! not sub$ect to

garnishment or e'ecution.

)C, The N9 was create% un%er 9( E15. )ection E of the (ct

pro*i%es that DThe phi#ippine nationa# rai#ways sha## ha*e the

fo##owing powers, /( to %o a## such other things an% to transact a##

such business %irect#y or in%irect#y necessary! inci%enta# or con%uci*e

to the attainment of the purpose of the corporationJ an% /B

>enera##y! to e'ercise a## powers of a corporation un%er the

corporation #aw. -ursuant to /b! there can be no &uestion then that

the N9 may sue an% be sue% an% may be sub$ecte% to court

processes $ust #ike any other corporation. "oreo*er! there is no #ega#

bar to garnishment or e'ecution as was reso#*e% by the )C in recen

%ecisions. - DBy engaging in a particu#ar business through the

instrumenta#ity of a corporation! the go*ernment %i*ests itse#f pro hac

*ice of its so*ereign character! so as to ren%er the corporation

sub$ect to the ru#es of #aw go*erning pri*ate corporations.D

But whi#e petitioner fai#e% to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence as

re&uire% by #aw! it appears that the %ecease% chargeab#e with

contributory neg#igence /he opte% to sit on the open p#atform

between the coaches an% %i% not ho#% on tight#y on the upright metabar foun% at the si%e of p#atform. herefore! the %ecision of the C(

is mo%ifie% by e#iminating mora# an% e'emp#ary %amages.

&el P%a$ v. Me%al$

!ats" The appellant, t*e Manila Elet%i C$0pan 70e%al$9 is

engage% in operating street cars in the City for the con*eyance of

passengersJ an% on the morning of No*ember 1G! 1F2! one

Teo%orico 3#orenciano! as mera#coMs motorman! was in charge of car

No. E running from east to west on 9. Hi%a#go )treet! the scene othe acci%ent being at a point near the intersection of sai% street an%

"en%o+a )treet. The car ha% procee%e% on#y a short %istance $us

east of the intersection! at a mo%erate spee% un%er the gui%ance of

the motorman! howe*er! when the plaintiff, I1nai$ &el P%a$ ran

across the street to catch the car. The testimony of the p#aintiff an% o

Ciriaco >ue*ara! one of his witnesses! ten%s to shows that the

p#aintiff! upon approaching the car! raise% his han% as an in%ication to

the motorman of his %esire to boar% the car an% starte% to boar% the

car! an% was ab#e to grasp the han%post on either si%e with both right

an% #eft han%. 4n response to which the motorman ease% up a #itt#e

but %i% not put the car into comp#ete stop. #aintiff was ab#e to ge

ho#% of the rai# an% step his #eft foot when the car acce#erate%. (s a

resu#t! p#aintiff s#ippe% off an% fe## to the groun%. His foot was crushe%

by the whee# of the car an% nee%e% to be ampute%. 4gnacio fi#e% a

comp#aint for breach of %uty /cu#pa contractua# un%er artic#es 1101

110 an% 110E of the Ci*i# Co%e institute% in the C34 of "ani#a.

&efense"

i% not see the p#aintiff attempting to boar% the carJ that he %i% no

acce#erate the spee% of the car as c#aime% by the p#aintiff;s

witnesses.

Isses"

8. :N the motorman was neg#igent

2. :N "era#co is #iab#e for breach of contract of carriage

. :N there was contributory neg#igence on the part of the p#aintiff

Hel"

/1 e may obser*e at the outset that there is no ob#igation on the

part of a street rai#way company to stop its cars to #et on inten%ing



passengers at other points than those appointe% for stoppage.

Ne*erthe#ess! a#though the motorman of this car was not boun% to

stop to #et the p#aintiff on! it was his %uty to %o no act that wou#% ha*e

the effect of increasing the p#aintiff;s peri# whi#e he was attempting to

boar% the car. The premature acce#eration of the car was! in our

opinion! a breach of this %uty.

/2 The re#ation between a carrier of passengers for hire an% its

patrons is of a contractua# natureJ an% a fai#ure on the part of the

carrier to use %ue care in carrying its passengers safe#y is a breach

of %uty /cu#pa contractua#. 3urthermore! the %uty that the carrier of

passengers owes to its patrons e'ten%s to persons boar%ing the cars

as we## as to those a#ighting therefrom.

here #iabi#ity arises from a mere tort /cu#pa a&ui#iana! not in*o#*ing

a breach of positi*e ob#igation! an emp#oyer! or master! may

e'cu#pate himse#f by pro*ing that he ha% e'ercise% %ue %i#igence to

pre*ent the %amageJ whereas this %efense is not a*ai#ab#e if the

#iabi#ity of the master arises from a breach of contractua# %uty /cu#pa

contractua#. 4n the case before us the company p#ea%e% as a specia#

%efense that it ha% use% a## the %i#igence of a goo% father of a fami#y

to pre*ent the %amage suffere% by the p#aintiffJ an% to estab#ish this

contention the company intro%uce% testimony showing that %ue care

ha% been use% in training an% instructing the motorman in charge of

this car in his art. But this proof is irre#e*ant in *iew of the fact that

the #iabi#ity in*o#*e% was %eri*e% from a breach of ob#igation.

/ 4t is ob*ious that the p#aintiff;s neg#igence in attempting to boar%

the mo*ing car was not the pro'imate cause of the in$ury. The %irect

an% pro'imate cause of the in$ury was the act of appe##ant;s

motorman in putting on the power premature#y. (gain! the situation

before us is one where the neg#igent act of the company;s ser*ant

succee%e% the neg#igent act of the p#aintiff! an% the neg#igence of thecompany must be consi%ere% the pro'imate cause of the in$ury. The

ru#e here app#icab#e seems to be ana#ogous to! if not i%entica# with

that which is sometimes referre% to as the $t%ine $f <t*e last

lea% *ane.< 4n accor%ance with this %octrine! the contributory

neg#igence of the party in$ure% wi## not %efeat the action if it be shown

that the %efen%ant might! by the e'ercise of reasonab#e care an%

pru%ence! ha*e a*oi%e% the conse&uences of the neg#igence of the

in$ure% party. The neg#igence of the p#aintiff was! howe*er!

contributory to the acci%ent an% must be consi%ere% as a mitigating

circumstance.

U(ppea#e% for costs of %amages

7rigina#, 0!000 /persona# %amages an% 10!000 /cost of tria#

((9, compensate% by an amount of 2!00 a#though he #ost his

foot! he is ab#e to use an artificia# member without great

incon*enience an% his earning capacity has probab#y not been

re%uce% by more than 0 per centum.

&issentin1" (OHNSON, ( $u%gment of the #ower court shou#% be

re*oke% for the fo##owing reasons,

/a motorman manage% the car carefu##y an% with or%inary pru%ence

at the moment the a##ege% acci%ent occurre%

/bappe##ee acte% with impru%ence an% #ack of %ue care in attempting

to boar% a street car whi#e the same was in motionJ an%

/c That he contribute% to his own in$ury! without any neg#igence o

ma#ice or impru%ence on the part of the %efen%ant.

The appe##ee shou#% be re&uire% to suffer the %amages which hehimse#f! through his own neg#igence! occasione%! without any

neg#igence! impru%ence or ma#ice on the part of the

appe##ant.chanrob#es*irtua#aw#ibrary

Isaa v. A.L. A00en T%ansp$%t C$., In.

3acts, "ay 1! 1F1 Cesa% Isaa boar%e% Bus No. 1 from Ligao

(#bay boun% for i#i! Camarines )ur an% seate% himse#f on the #eft

si%e resting his left a%0 $n t*e 2in$2 sill +t 2it* *is left el+$2

$tsie t*e 2in$2. Before reaching his %estination! a pick-up car

at fu## spee% an% was running outsi%e of its proper #ane came from

the opposite %irection The %ri*er of the bus swer*e% the bus to the*ery e'treme right of the roa% unti# its front an% rear whee#s ha*e

gone o*er the pi#e of stones or gra*e# situate% on the rampart of the

roa%. The bus ran o*er a greater portion of the pi#e of gra*e#! the

peak of which was about feet high! without en%angering the safety

of his passengers. espite efforts! the rear #eft si%e of the bus was hi

by the pick-up car causng CesarMs #eft arm to be comp#ete#y se*ere%

He was rushe% to a hospita# in 4riga! Camarines )ur where he was

gi*en b#oo% transfusion to sa*e his #ife (fter E %ays! he was

transferre% to another hospita# in Tabaco! (#bay! where he un%er went

treatment for months Later! he was mo*e% to the 7rthope%ic

Hospita# where he was operate% on an% staye% for another 2 months

#aintiff brought this action against %efen%ants for %amages a##eging

that the co##ision which resu#te% in the #oss of his #eft arm was main#y

%ue to the gross incompetence an% reck#essness of the %ri*er of the

bus operate% by %efen%ant an% that %efen%ant incurre% in cu#pa

contractua# arising from its non-comp#iance with its ob#igation to

transport p#aintiff safe#y to his! %estination. He incurre% e'penses o

52.E0! e'c#u%ing me%ica# fees which were pai% by (.L. (mmen

Trans. Co

&efense" the in$ury suffere% by p#aintiff was %ue entire#y to the fau#t

or neg#igence of the %ri*er of the pick-up car which co##i%e% with the

bus %ri*en by its %ri*er an% to the contributory neg#igence of p#aintif

himse#f. efen%ant further c#aims that the acci%ent which resu#te% in

the in$ury of p#aintiff is one which %efen%ant cou#% not foresee or

though foreseen! was ine*itab#e.

Tria# Court ismisse% the comp#aint! co##ision occurre% %ue to the

neg#igence of the %ri*er of the pick-up car. Hence! the (ppea#.

ISSUE" :N %efen%ant obser*e% e'traor%inary %i#igence or the

utmost %i#igence of e*ery cautious person! ha*ing %ue regar% for a#

circumstances! in a*oi%ing the co##ision which resu#te% in the in$ury

cause% to the p#aintiff6



HEL&"

?<). (ppea#e% %ecision is (3349"<. Bus No. 1! imme%iate#y

prior to the co##ision! was running at a mo%erate spee% because it

ha% $ust stoppe% at the schoo# +one of "atacong! o#angui! (#bay

whi#e the pick up was running at a fu## spee% an% outsi%e of its proper

#ane. The %ri*er trie% to *eer farther right but thereMs no more space

in the right si%e to a*oi% co##ision an% without en%angering the safety

of his passengers. (n% notwithstan%ing a## these efforts! the rear #eft

si%e of the bus was hit by the pick-up car. Not a#ways be e'pecte%

from one who is p#ace% su%%en#y in a pre%icament where he is not

gi*en enough time to take the course of action as he shou#% un%er

P%iniples 1$ve%nin1 t*e lia+ilit $f a $00$n a%%ie%"

1.the #iabi#ity of a carrier is contractua# an% arises upon breach of its

ob#igation. There is breach if it fai#s to e'ert e'traor%inary %i#igence

accor%ing to a## circumstances of each case

2.a carrier is ob#ige% to carry its passenger with the utmost %i#igence

of a *ery cautious person! ha*ing %ue regar% for a## the

circumstances

.a carrier is presume% to be at fau#t or to ha*e acte% neg#igent#y in

case of %eath of! or in$ury to! passengers! it being its %uty to pro*e

that it e'ercise% e'traor%inary %i#igence

The carrier is not an insurer against a## risks of tra*e# where a

carrier;s emp#oyee is confronte% with a su%%en emergency! the fact

that he is ob#ige% to act &uick#y an% without a chance for %e#iberation

must be taken into account! an% he is he#% to the some %egree of

care that he wou#% otherwise be re&uire% to e'ercise in the absence

of such emergency but must e'ercise on#y such care as any or%inary

pru%ent person wou#% e'ercise un%er #ike circumstances an%con%itions! an% the fai#ure on his part to e'ercise the best $u%gment

the case ren%ers possib#e %oes not estab#ish #ack of care an% ski## on

his part. Consi%ering a## the circumstances! we are persua%e% to

conc#u%e that the %ri*er of the bus has %one what a pru%ent man

cou#% ha*e %one to a*oi% the co##ision. Howe*er! a#though there is

4saac;s contributory neg#igence for the in$ury sustaine% /na#aka#abas

yung kamay niya the tria# court cannot re#ie*e (.L. (mmen of its

#iabi#ity but wi## on#y entit#e it to a re%uction of the amount of %amage

cause% /(rtic#e 152! new Ci*i# Co%e! but this is a circumstance

which further mi#itates against the position taken by 4saac.

PNR vs. ETHEL BRUNTY an (UAN MANUEL M. GARCIA,

3(CT), R*$na B%nt, %aughter of respon%ent <the# Brunty an%

an (merican citi+en! came to the hi#ippines for a *isit sometime in

Ianuary 1FG0 .rior to her %eparture! she! together with her 3i#ipino

host (an Manel M. Ga%ia ! tra*e#e% to Baguio City on boar%

a*"erce%es Ben+ se%an %ri*en + R$$lf$ L. Me%elita .4t was

about 12,00 mi%night! Ianuary 2! 1FG0. By then!N9 Train No. T-

1! %ri*en by (#fonso 9eyes! was on its way to Tutuban! "etro

"ani#a as it ha% #eft the La @nions station at 11,00 p.m.! Ianuary 2E!

1FG0.By 2,00 a.m.! 9hon%a ! >arcia an% "erce#ita were a#rea%y

approaching the rai#roa% crossing at Barangay 9i+a#!"onca%a

Tar#ac. "erce#ita! %ri*ing at appro'imate#y 0 km:hr! %ro*e past a

*ehic#e! unaware of the rai#roa% track up ahea% an% that they were

about to co##i%e with N9 Train No. T-1. "erce#ita was instant#y

ki##e% when the "erce%es Ben+ smashe% into the train the two other

passengers suffere% serious physica# in$uries.( certain Iames

Harrow brought 9hon%a to the Centra# Lu+on octorMs Hospita# in

Tar#ac! where she was pronounce% %ea% after ten minutes from

arri*a#. >arcia! who ha% suffere% se*ere hea% in$uries! was brought*ia ambu#ance to the same hospita#. He was transferre% to the "ani#a

octorMs Hospita#! an% #ater to the "akati "e%ica# Center for furthe

treatment.N9 insiste% among others that the so#e an% pro'imate

cause of the acci%ent was the neg#igence an% reck#essness of >arcia

an% "erce#ita. 4t insiste% that it ha% pro*i%e% a%e&uate warning

signa#s at the rai#roa% crossing an% ha% e'ercise% %ue care in the

se#ection an% super*ision of its emp#oyees.

7n Iu#y 2G! 1FG1! <the# Brunty sent a %eman% #etterG to the N9

%eman%ing payment of actua#! compensatory! an% mora# %amages

as a resu#t of her %aughterMs %eath. hen N9 %i% not respon%!

<the# Brunty an% >arcia! fi#e% a comp#aintF for %amages against theN9 before the 9TC of "ani#a. The case was raff#e% to Branch 20

(##eging that the acci%ent was the %irect an% pro'imate resu#t of the

gross an% reck#ess neg#igence of N9 in not pro*i%ing the necessary

e&uipment at the rai#roa% crossing in Barangay 9i+a#! "unicipa#ity o

"onca%a! Tar#ac. (#so! there was no f#agbar or re% #ight signa# to

warn motorists who were about to cross the rai#roa% track! an% tha

the f#agman or switchman was on#y e&uippe% with a han% f#ash#ight

#aintiffs #ikewise a*erre% that N9 fai#e% to super*ise its emp#oyees

in the performance of their respecti*e tasks an% %uties! more

particu#ar#y the pi#ot an% operator of the train.

&efense" N9 c#aime% that it e'ercise% the %i#igence of a goo%father of a fami#y not on#y in the se#ection but a#so in the super*ision

of its emp#oyees. (#so stresse% that it ha% the right of way on the

rai#roa% crossing in &uestion! an% that it has no #ega# %uty to put up a

bar or re% #ight signa# in any such crossing. 4t insiste% that there were

a%e&uate! *isib#e! an% c#ear warning signs strategica##y poste% on the

si%es of the roa% before the rai#roa% crossing. 4t countere% that the

imme%iate an% pro'imate cause of the acci%ent was "erce#itaMs

neg#igence! an% that he ha% the #ast c#ear chance to a*oi% the

acci%ent. The %ri*er %isregar%e% the warning signs! the whist#e b#asts

of the oncoming train an% the f#ash#ight signa#s to stop gi*en by the

guar%. (s counterc#aim! it praye% that it be awar%e% actua# an%

compensatory %amages! an% #itigation e'penses. (fter tria# on the

merits! the 9TC ren%ere% its ecision1F on "ay 21! 1FF0 in fa*or of

p#aintiffs.

The N9! now petitioner! comes before this Court in this etition for

9e*iew on Certiorari on the fo##owing groun%s /etitioner insists tha

the pro'imate cause of the mishap was "erce#itaMs %isregar% of traffic

ru#es an% regu#ations. Ha% the court consi%ere% the fact tha

"erce#ita ha% o*ertaken another *ehic#e a few yar%s before the

rai#roa% track! it wou#% ha*e reache% a %ifferent conc#usion,



1.TH< C7@9T 73 (<(L) <99< 4N "(N43<)TL?

7=<9L774N> C<9T(4N 9<L<=(NT 3(CT) N7T 4)@T< B?

TH< (9T4<) (N H4CH! 43 97<9L? C7N)4<9<!

7@L I@)T43? ( 433<9<NT C7NCL@)47N )@CH (),

2.TH< 9<)7N<NT)M 94=<9 7=<9T77 (N7TH<9 =<H4CL<

B? (CC<L<9(T4N> (T 0 4L7"<T<9) <9 H7@9 4TH4N

I@)T 0 ?(9) ((? 397" TH< 9(4L97( T9(C).

.TH< 34N4N>) 73 3(CT 73 TH< C7@9T 73 (<(L) (9<C7NT9(9? T7 TH7)< 73 TH< T94(L C7@9T 9<>(94N>

C7NT94B@T79? N<>L4><NC< 73 TH< 9<)7N<NT)M

94=<9.

E.TH< C7@9T 73 (<(L) <99< 4N N7T (L?4N> TH<

7CT94N< 73 L()T CL<(9 CH(NC< 4N TH< 4N)T(NT C()<.-

ne1ative $nl eist if +$t* ate ne1li1entl in $llisi$n

ISSUE"

1.:N the contention of N9 as to the pro'imate cause correct

2.:N there was a contributory neg#igence on "erce%itaMs part

HEL&"

/1 N7. 4n %etermining whether or not there is neg#igence on the part

of the parties in a gi*en situation! $urispru%ence has #ai% %own the

fo##owing 7C$%liss vs Manila Rail%$a C$.9 test, &i efenant, in

$in1 t*e alle1e ne1li1ent at, se t*at %eas$na+le a%e an

ati$n 2*i* an $%ina%il p%ent pe%s$n 2$l *ave se in

t*e sa0e sitati$n 4f not! the person is gui#ty of neg#igence.

etitioner was foun% neg#igent because of its fai#ure to pro*i%e the

necessary safety %e*ice to ensure the safety of motorists in crossing

the rai#roa% track. (s such! it is #iab#e for %amages for *io#ating the

pro*isions of (rtic#e 215 of the New Ci*i# Co%e. 4t was c#ear#y

estab#ishe% that p#aintiffs-appe##ees /respon%ents herein sustaine%

%amage or in$ury as a resu#t of the co##ision. That there was

neg#igence on the part of N9 is! #ikewise! beyon% ca*i#. Consi%ering

the circumstances pre*ai#ing at the time of the fata# acci%ent! the

a##ege% safety measures insta##e% by the N9 at the rai#roa% crossing

is not on#y ina%e&uate but %oes not satisfy we##-sett#e% safety

stan%ar%s in transportation. ictures presente% in e*i%ence re*ea#e%

that, 1 there were no f#agbars or safety rai#roa% barsJ2 warning

signa#s were ina%e&uateJ the p#ace was not proper#y #ighte% such

that e*en if a f#agman was statione% at the site! it wou#% beimpossib#e to know or see a rai#roa% track ahea%. ( *ehic#e coming

from the "onca%a si%e wou#% ha*e %ifficu#ty in knowing that there is

an approaching train because of the s#ight cur*e! more so! at an

unho#y hour as 2,00 a.m. Thus! it is imperati*e on the part of the N9

to pro*i%e a%e&uate safety e&uipment in thearea. 9ai#roa%

companies owe to the pub#ic a %uty of e'ercising areasonab#e %egree

of care to a*oi% in$ury to persons an% property at rai#roa% crossings!

which %uties pertain both in the operation of trains an% in the

maintenance of the crossings. "oreo*er! e*ery corporation

constructing or operating a rai#way sha## make an% construct at a##

points where such rai#ways crosses any pub#ic roa%!goo%! sufficien

an% safe crossings an% erect at such points at a sufficient e#e*ation

from such roa% a to a%mit a free passage of *ehic#es of e*ery kin%! to

gi*e notice of the pro'imity of the rai#way. (n% warn persons of the

necessity of #ooking out for trains.

4n a #ong #ine of cases the court he#% that in or%er to sustain a c#aim

base% on &uasi %e#ict the fo##owing re&uisites must concur,

1.amage to p#aintiff 2. Neg#igence by act or omission!of which%efen%at or some person for whose act he must respon% was gui#ty

an% . Connection of cause an% effect between such neg#igence an%

%amage.

(pp#ying the foregoing re&uistes the C( correct#y ma%e the fo##owing

conc#usion that it was c#ear#y estab#ishe% that p#aintiffs sustaine%

%amage an% in$ury as a resu#t of co##usion. That there was neg#igence

on the part of N9 at the rai#roa% crossing is not on#y ina%e&uate but

%oes not satisfy we##-sett#e% safe#y stan%ar%s in transportation.

/2 ?<). Contributory Neg#igence is con%uct n the part of the in$ure%

party contributing as a #ega# cause to the harm he ha suffere%! whichfa##s be#ow the stan%ar% to which he is re&uire% to conform for his

own protection. To ho#% a person as ha*ing contribute% to his in$uries

it must be shown that he performe% an act that brought about his

in$uries in %isregar% of warning or signs of an impen%ing %anger to

hea#th an% bo%y.

To pro*e contributory neg#igence! it is sti## necessary to estab#ish a

causa# #ink! a#though not pro'imate! between the neg#igence of the

party an% the succee%ing in$ury. 4n a #ega# sense neg#igence is

contributory on#y when it contributes pro'imate#y to the in$ury an% no

simp#y a con%ition for its occurrence.

"erce#ita was not fami#iar with the roa% yet he was %ri*ing the ben+

at a spee% of 0 km:hr an% in fact ha% o*ertaken a *ehic#e a few

yar%s before reaching the rai#roa% track. "erce#ita shou#% not ha*e

%ri*en his car the way he %i%. Howe*er! whi#e his act contribute% to

the co##ision ! they ne*erthe#ess %o not negate petitionerMs #iabi#ity

ursuant to (rt.21F of the NCC the on#y effect of such contributory

neg#igence cou#% ha*e is to mitigate #iabi#ity which howe*er is not

app#icab#e in this case since the re#ationship between the %ri*er an%

9hon%a Brunty was not a##ege%.

(ctua# or compensatory %amages are those awar%e% in or%er to

compensate a party for an in$ury or #oss he suffere%. They arise outof a sense of natura# $ustice! aime% at repairing the wrong %one. To

be reco*erab#e! they must be %u#y pro*e% with a reasonab#e %egree

of certainty. ( court cannot re#y on specu#ation! con$ecture! o

guesswork as to the fact an% amount of %amages! but must %epen%

upon competent proof that they ha*e suffere%! an% on e*i%ence o

the actua# amount thereof. 3ai#e% to estab#ish awar%e% 2!000 for

wake an% buria# e'pen%iture instea% of the c#aim of 1".

Neg#igence is the omission to %o something which a reasonab#e man

gui%e% by those consi%erations which or%inari#y regu#ate the con%uct



of human affairs wou#% %o or %oing of something which a pru%ent an%

reasonab#e man wou#% not %o.

Pilapil vs. CA

3(CT),

etitioner-p#aintiff Iose i#api#! a paying passenger! boar%e% (L(TC7

T9(N)79T(T47N C7"(N?! 4NC /V(L(TW ka#a ko #o*e#ife na#ang

maa#at ngayon chos8 %efen%ant;s bus bearing No. E0F at )anNico#as! 4riga City on 15 )eptember 1F1 at about 5,00 .". hi#e

sai% bus No. E0F was in %ue course negotiating the %istance

between 4riga City an% Naga City! upon reaching the *icinity of the

cemetery of the "unicipa#ity of Baao! Camarines )ur! on the way to

Naga City! an uni%entifie% man! a bystan%er a#ong sai% nationa#

highway! hur#e% a stone at the #eft si%e of the bus! which hit petitioner

abo*e his #eft eye. ri*ate respon%ent;s personne# #ost no time in

bringing the petitioner to the pro*incia# hospita# in Naga City where

he was confine% an% treate%. ue to no impro*ement on his eye he

was brought to to r. "a#abanan of 4riga City where he was treate%

for another week. )ince there was no impro*ement in his #eft eye;s

*ision! petitioner went to =. Luna hospita# in OC! but e*entua##y

petitioner partia##y #ost his #eft eyeMs *ision an% sustaine% a permanent

scar ./e'amine% by r. Capu#ong

Thus! etitioner #o%ge% an action for reco*ery of %amages before the

Court of 3irst 4nstance of Camarines )ur which the #atter grante%. 7n

appea#! the Court of (ppea#s re*erse% sai% %ecision.

etitioner argues that the nature of the business of a transportation

company re&uires the assumption of certain risks! an% the stoning of

the bus by a stranger resu#ting in in$ury to petitioner-passenger is one

such risk from which the common carrier may not e'empt itse#f from

#iabi#ity.

4))@<, :N common carriers assume risks to passengers such as

the stoning in this case

H<L,

N7. 4n consi%eration of the right grante% to it by the pub#ic to engage

in the business of transporting passengers an% goo%s! a common

carrier %oes not gi*e its consent to become an insurer of any an% a##

risks to passengers an% goo%s. 4t mere#y un%ertakes to perform

certain %uties to the pub#ic as the #aw imposes! an% ho#%s itse#f #iab#e

for any breach thereof.

hi#e the #aw re&uires the highest %egree of %i#igence from common

carriers in the safe transport of their passengers an% creates a

presumption of neg#igence against them! it %oes not! howe*er! make

the carrier an insurer of the abso#ute safety of its passengers.

(rtic#e 15. ( common carrier is responsib#e for in$uries suffere% by

a passenger on account of the wi#fu# acts or neg#igence of other

passengers or of strangers! if the common carrier;s emp#oyees

through the e'ercise of the %i#igence of a goo% father of a fami#y

cou#% ha*e pre*ente% or stoppe% the act or omission.

C#ear#y un%er the abo*e pro*ision! a tort committe% by a strange

which causes in$ury to a passenger %oes not accor% the #atter a

cause of action against the carrier. The neg#igence for which a

common carrier is he#% responsib#e is the neg#igent omission by the

carrier;s emp#oyees to pre*ent the tort from being committe% when

the same cou#% ha*e been foreseen an% pre*ente% by them. 3urther

un%er the same pro*ision! it is to be note% that when the *io#ation of

the contract is %ue to the wi##fu# acts of strangers! as in the instan

case! the %egree of care essentia# to be e'ercise% by the common

carrier for the protection of its passenger is on#y that of a goo% father

of a fami#y.

etitioner has charge% respon%ent carrier of neg#igence on the

groun% that the in$ury comp#aine% of cou#% ha*e been pre*ente% by

the common carrier if something #ike 0es*-2$%D 1%ills *a $ve%e

t*e 2in$2s $f its +s.

(#though the suggeste% precaution cou#% ha*e pre*ente% the in$ury

comp#aine% of! the ru#e of or%inary care an% pru%ence is not so

e'acting as to re&uire one charge% with its e'ercise to take %oubtfu

or unreasonab#e precautions to guar% against un#awfu# acts o

strangers. The carrier is not charge% with the %uty of pro*i%ing o

maintaining *ehic#es as to abso#ute#y pre*ent any an% a## in$uries to

passengers. here the carrier uses cars of the most appro*e% type

in genera# use by others engage% in the same occupation! an%

e'ercises a high %egree of care in maintaining them in suitab#e

con%ition! the carrier cannot be charge% with neg#igence in thisrespect.

set iii transpo case digests

Documents