8/8/2015

G.R.No.113003

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.113003October17,1997
ALBERTAYOBIDOandCRESENCIOYOBIDO,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,LENYTUMBOY,ARDEETUMBOYandJASMINTUMBOY,respondents.

ROMERO,J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the issue is whether or not the
explosionofanewlyinstalledtireofapassengervehicleisafortuitouseventthatexemptsthecarrierfromliability
forthedeathofapassenger.
OnApril26,1988,spousesTitoandLenyTumboyandtheirminorchildrennamedArdeeandJasmin,beardedat
Mangagoy,SurigaodelSur,aYobidoLinerbusboundforDavaoCity.AlongPicopRoadinKm.17,Sta.Maria,
Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded. The bus fell into a ravine around three (3) feet from the
road and struck a tree. The incident resulted in the death of 28yearold Tito Tumboy and physical injuries to
otherpassengers.
OnNovember21,1988,acomplaintforbreachofcontractofcarriage,damagesandattorney'sfeeswasfiledby
LenyandherchildrenagainstAlbertaYobido,theownerofthebus,andCresencioYobido,itsdriver,beforethe
RegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity.Whenthedefendantsthereinfiledtheiranswertothecomplaint,theyraised
theaffirmativedefenseofcasofortuito.TheyalsofiledathirdpartycomplaintagainstPhilippinePhoenixSurety
and Insurance, Inc. This thirdparty defendant filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim. At the pretrial
conference,thepartiesagreedtoastipulationoffacts.1
Upon a finding that the third party defendant was not liable under the insurance contract, the lower court
dismissed the third party complaint. No amicable settlement having been arrived at by the parties, trial on the
meritsensued.
The plaintiffs asserted that violation of the contract of carriage between them and the defendants was brought
aboutbythedriver'sfailuretoexercisethediligencerequiredofthecarrierintransportingpassengerssafelyto
theirplaceofdestination.AccordingtoLenyTumboy,thebusleftMangagoyat3:00o'clockintheafternoon.The
windingroadittraversedwasnotcementedandwaswetduetotherainitwasroughwithcrushedrocks.The
buswhichwasfullofpassengershadcargoesontop.Sinceitwas"runningfast,"shecautionedthedrivertoslow
down but he merely stared at her through the mirror. At around 3:30 p.m., in Trento, she heard something
explodeandimmediately,thebusfellintoaravine.
For their part, the defendants tried to establish that the accident was due to a fortuitous event. Abundio Salce,
who was the bus conductor when the incident happened, testified that the 42seater bus was not full as there
wereonly32passengers,suchthathehimselfmanagedtogetaseat.Headdedthatthebuswasrunningata
speedof"60to50"andthatitwasgoingslowbecauseofthezigzagroad.Heaffirmedthattheleftfronttirethat
explodedwasa"brandnewtire"thathemountedonthebusonApril21,1988oronlyfive(5)daysbeforethe
incident.TheYobidoLinersecretary,MinervaFernando,boughtthenewGoodyeartirefromDavaoToyoParts
on April 20, 1988 and she was present when it was mounted on the bus by Salce. She stated that all driver
applicants in Yobido Liner underwent actual driving tests before they were employed. Defendant Cresencio
Yobido underwent such test and submitted his professional driver's license and clearances from the barangay,
thefiscalandthepolice.
On August 29, 1991, the lower court rendered a decision2 dismissing the action for lack of merit. On the issue of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_113003_1997.html

1/5

8/8/2015

G.R.No.113003

whether or not the tire blowout was a caso fortuito, it found that "the falling of the bus to the cliff was a result of no other
outsidefactorthanthetireblowout."ItheldthattherulingintheLaMallorcaandPampangaBusCo.v.De Jesus 3 that a
tireblowoutis"amechanicaldefectoftheconveyanceorafaultinitsequipmentwhichwaseasilydiscoverableifthebus
hadbeensubjectedtoamorethoroughorrigidcheckupbeforeittooktotheroadthatmorning"isinapplicabletothiscase.
Itreasonedoutthatinsaidcase,itwasfoundthattheblowoutwascausedbytheestablishedfactthattheinnertubeofthe
leftfronttire"waspressedbetweentheinnercircleoftheleftwheelandtherimwhichhadslippedoutofthewheel."Inthis
case,however,"thecauseoftheexplosionremainsamysteryuntilatpresent."Assuch,thecourtadded,thetireblowout
was "a caso fortuito which is completely an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will" of the defendants who
shouldberelievedof"whateverliabilitytheplaintiffsmayhavesufferedbyreasonoftheexplosionpursuanttoArticle1174
4oftheCivilCode."

Dissatisfied,theplaintiffsappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.Theyascribedtothelowercourtthefollowingerrors:
(a)findingthatthetireblowoutwasacasofortuito(b)failingtoholdthatthedefendantsdidnotexerciseutmost
and/orextraordinarydiligencerequiredofcarriersunderArticle1755oftheCivilCode,and(c)decidingthecase
contrarytotherulinginJuntillav.Fontanar,5andNecesitov.Paras.6
OnAugust23,1993,theCourtofAppealsrenderedtheDecision7reversingthatofthelowercourt.Itheldthat:
ToOurmind,theexplosionofthetireisnotinitselfafortuitousevent.Thecauseoftheblowout,ifduetoa
factorydefect,impropermounting,excessivetirepressure,isnotanunavoidableevent.Ontheotherhand,
there may have been adverse conditions on the road that were unforeseeable and/or inevitable, which
couldmaketheblowoutacasofortuito.Thefactthatthecauseoftheblowoutwasnotknowndoesnot
relieve the carrier of liability. Owing to the statutory presumption of negligence against the carrier and its
obligationtoexercisetheutmostdiligenceofverycautiouspersonstocarrythepassengersafelyasfaras
human care and foresight can provide, it is the burden of the defendants to prove that the cause of the
blowoutwasafortuitousevent.Itisnotincumbentupontheplaintifftoprovethatthecauseoftheblowout
isnotcasofortuito.
ProvingthatthetirethatexplodedisanewGoodyeartireisnotsufficienttodischargedefendants'burden.
AsenunciatedinNecesitovs.Paras, the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the
selectionanduseofitsequipment,andthegoodreputeofthemanufacturerwillnotnecessarilyrelievethe
carrierfromliability.
Moreover, there is evidence that the bus was moving fast, and the road was wet and rough. The driver
couldhaveexplainedthattheblowoutthatprecipitatedtheaccidentthatcausedthedeathofTotoTumboy
could not have been prevented even if he had exercised due care to avoid the same, but he was not
presentedaswitness.
TheCourtofAppealsthusdisposedoftheappealasfollows:
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentofthecourtaquoissetasideandanotheroneenteredorderingdefendants
topayplaintiffsthesumofP50,000.00forthedeathofTitoTumboy,P30,000.00inmoraldamages,and
P7,000.00forfuneralandburialexpenses.
SOORDERED.
ThedefendantsfiledamotionforreconsiderationofsaiddecisionwhichwasdeniedonNovember4,1993bythe
CourtofAppeals.Hence,theinstantpetitionassertingthepositionthatthetireblowoutthatcausedthedeathof
TitoTumboywasacasofortuito.PetitionersclaimfurtherthattheCourtofAppeals,inrulingcontrarytothatof
the lower court, misapprehended facts and, therefore, its findings of fact cannot be considered final which shall
bindthisCourt.Hence,theypraythatthisCourtreviewthefactsofthecase.
The Court did reexamine the facts and evidence in this case because of the inapplicability of the established
principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed on appeal by this
Court.Thisgeneralprincipleissubjecttoexceptionssuchastheonepresentinthiscase,namely,thatthelower
courtandtheCourtofAppealsarrivedatdiversefactualfindings.8However,uponsuchreexamination,wefoundno
reasontooverturnthefindingsandconclusionsoftheCourtofAppeals.

Asarule,whenapassengerboardsacommoncarrier,hetakestherisksincidentaltothemodeoftravelhehas
taken.Afterall,acarrierisnotaninsurerofthesafetyofitspassengersandisnotboundabsolutelyandatall
eventstocarrythemsafelyandwithoutinjury.9 However, when a passenger is injured or dies while travelling, the law
presumesthatthecommoncarrierisnegligent.Thus,theCivilCodeprovides:

Art.1756.Incaseofdeathorinjuriestopassengers,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfault
ortohaveactednegligently,unlesstheyprovethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligenceasprescribedin
articles1733and1755.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_113003_1997.html

2/5

8/8/2015

G.R.No.113003

Article1755providesthat"(a)commoncarrierisboundtocarrythepassengerssafelyasfarashumancareand
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances."Accordingly,inculpacontractual,onceapassengerdiesorisinjured,thecarrierispresumedto
havebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently.Thisdisputablepresumptionmayonlybeovercomebyevidence
thatthecarrierhadobservedextraordinarydiligenceasprescribedbyArticles1733,10 1755 and 1756 of the Civil
Codeorthatthedeathorinjuryofthepassengerwasduetoafortuitousevent.11Consequently,thecourtneednotmake
an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier to hold it responsible for damages sought by the
passenger.12

Inviewoftheforegoing,petitioners'contentionthattheyshouldbeexemptfromliabilitybecausethetireblowout
wasnomorethanafortuitouseventthatcouldnothavebeenforeseen,mustfail.Afortuitouseventispossessed
ofthefollowingcharacteristics:(a)thecauseoftheunforeseenandunexpectedoccurrence,orthefailureofthe
debtortocomplywithhisobligations,mustbeindependentofhumanwill(b)itmustbeimpossibletoforeseethe
event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid (c) the
occurrencemustbesuchastorenderitimpossibleforthedebtortofulfillhisobligationinanormalmannerand
(d)theobligermustbefreefromanyparticipationintheaggravationoftheinjuryresultingtothecreditor.13 As
Article 1174 provides, no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or
loss.14

Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event.
Therearehumanfactorsinvolvedinthesituation.Thefactthatthetirewasnewdidnotimplythatitwasentirely
freefrommanufacturingdefectsorthatitwasproperlymountedonthevehicle.Neithermaythefactthatthetire
boughtandusedinthevehicleisofabrandnamenotedforquality,resultingintheconclusionthatitcouldnot
explode within five days' use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the
automobileorthroughthenegligenceofitsdriverisnotacasofortuitothatwouldexemptthecarrierfromliability
fordamages.15
Moreover,acommoncarriermaynotbeabsolvedfromliabilityincaseofforcemajeureorfortuitouseventalone.
The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an
accident.16ThisCourthashadoccasiontostate:
Whileitmaybetruethatthetirethatblewupwasstillgoodbecausethegroovesofthetirewerestillvisible,
this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to
showthattheaccidentwasduetoadverseroadconditionsorthatprecautionsweretakenbythejeepney
drivertocompensateforanyconditionsliabletocauseaccidents.Thesuddenblowingup,therefore,could
havebeencausedbytoomuchairpressureinjectedintothetirecoupledbythefactthatthejeepneywas
overloadedandspeedingatthetimeoftheaccident.17
Itisinterestingtonotethatpetitionersprovedthroughthebusconductor,Salce,thatthebuswasrunningat"60
50" kilometers per hour only or within the prescribed lawful speed limit. However, they failed to rebut the
testimony of Leny Tumboy that the bus was running so fast that she cautioned the driver to slow down. These
contradictoryfactsmust,therefore,beresolvedinfavorofliabilityinviewofthepresumptionofnegligenceofthe
carrierinthelaw.Coupledwiththisistheestablishedconditionoftheroadrough,windingandwetduetothe
rain. It was incumbent upon the defense to establish that it took precautionary measures considering partially
dangerousconditionoftheroad.Asstatedabove,proofthatthetirewasnewandofgoodqualityisnotsufficient
proofthatitwasnotnegligent.Petitionersshouldhaveshownthatitundertookextraordinarydiligenceinthecare
ofitscarrier,suchasconductingdailyroutinarycheckupsofthevehicle'sparts.AsthelateJusticeJ.B.L.Reyes
said:
It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to test the strength of each and every
partofitsvehiclesbeforeeachtripbutweareoftheopinionthatadueregardforthecarrier'sobligations
toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to determine the condition and strength of
thosevehicleportionsthefailureofwhichmayendangerthesafetyofthepassengers.18
Havingfailedtodischargeitsdutytooverthrowthepresumptionofnegligencewithclearandconvincingevidence,
petitionersareherebyheldliablefordamages.Article176419inrelationtoArticle220620oftheCivilCodeprescribes
theamountofatleastthreethousandpesosasdamagesforthedeathofapassenger.Underprevailingjurisprudence,the
awardofdamagesunderArticle2206hasbeenincreasedtofiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00).21

Moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith had been proven.
However, the same damages may be recovered when breach of contract of carriage results in the death of a
passenger,22 as in this case. Exemplary damages, awarded by way of example or correction for the public good when
moral damages are awarded, 23 may likewise be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_113003_1997.html

3/5

8/8/2015

G.R.No.113003

fraudulent,reckless,oppressive,ormalevolentmanner.24Becausepetitionersfailedtoexercisetheextraordinarydiligence
required of a common carrier, which resulted in the death of Tito Tumboy, it is deemed to have acted recklessly. 25 As
such,privaterespondentsshallbeentitledtoexemplarydamages.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that
petitionersshall,inadditiontothemonetaryawardstherein,beliablefortheawardofexemplarydamagesinthe
amountofP20,000.00.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,Melo,FranciscoandPanganiban,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Record,pp.7778.
2PennedbyJudgeWilliamM.Layague.
3123Phil.875(1966).
4Art.1174.Exceptincasesexpresslyspecifiedbythelaw,orwhenitisotherwisedeclaredby
stipulation,orwhenthenatureoftheobligationrequirestheassumptionofrisk,nopersonshallbe
responsibleforthoseeventswhichcouldnotbeforeseen,orwhich,thoughforeseen,were
inevitable.
5L45637,May31,1985,136SCRA624.
6104Phil.75(1958).
7PennedbyAssociateJusticeMinervaP.GonzagaReyesandconcurredinbyAssociateJustices
VicenteV.MendozaandPacitaCaizaresNye.
8PhilippineRabbitBusLines,Inc.v.IAC,G.R.Nos.6610204,August30,1990,189SCRA158,
159.
9TOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Vol.V,1992ed.,p.312.
10Art.1733.Commoncarriers,fromthenatureoftheirbusinessandforreasonsofpublicpolicy,are
boundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsandforthesafetyofthe
passengerstransportedbythem,accordingtoallthecircumstancesofeachcase.
Suchextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsisfurtherexpressedinarticles
1734,1735,and1745,Nos.5,6,and7,whiletheextraordinarydiligenceforthesafetyofthe
passengersisfurthersetforthinarticles1755and1756.
11Phil.RabbitBusLines,Inc.vs.IAC,supra,atpp.171172citingLasamv.Smith,Jr.,45Phil.657
(1924).
12BatangasTrans.Co.v.Caguimbal,130Phil.166,171(1968)citingBritoSyv.MalateTaxicab&
Garage,Inc.,102Phil.482(1957).
13MetalFormingCorp.v.OfficeofthePresident,317Phil.853,859(1995)Vasquezv.Courtof
Appeals,L42926,September13,1985,138SCRA553,557citingLasamv.Smith,supraatp.661
andAustriav.CourtofAppeals,148APhil.462(1971)Estradav.Consolacion,L40948,June29,
1976,71SCRA523,530RepublicofthePhil.v.LuzonStevedoringCorporation,128Phil.313
(1967).
14Vasquezv.CourtofAppeals,supra,atp.557.
15Sonv.CebuAutobusCo.,94Phil.893,896(1954)citingLasamv.Smith,supra.
16BachelorExpress,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.85691,July31,1990,188SCRA216,222
223.
17Juntillav.Fontanar,supra,atp.630.
18Necesitov.Paras,supraatp.82.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_113003_1997.html

4/5

8/8/2015

G.R.No.113003

19Art.1764.DamagesincasescomprisedinthisSectionshallbeawardedinaccordancewithTitle
XVIIIofthisBook,concerningDamages.Article2206shallalsoapplytothedeathofapassenger
caused,bythebreachofcontractbyacommoncarrier.
20Art.2206.Theamountofdamagesfordeathcausedbyacrimeorquasidelictshallbeatleast
threethousandpesos,eventhoughtheremayhavebeenmitigatingcircumstances.....
21SulpicioLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,316Phil.455,460(1995)citingPeoplev.Flores,G.R.
Nos.10380102,October19,1994,237SCRA653.
22SulpicioLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,supraatpp.460461citingTransWorldAirLinesv.Court
ofAppeals,G.R.No.78656,August30,1988,165SCRA143PhilippineRabbitBusLines,Inc.v.
Esguerra,203Phil.107(1982)andVasquezv.CourtofAppeals,supra.
23Art.2229,CivilCode.
24Art.2232,supra.
25SulpicioLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,supraatp.461.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/oct1997/gr_113003_1997.html

5/5