Você está na página 1de 2

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE- STILL TRYING TO FIND ORIGS

Sarreal v. Soliman (1965)


Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponencia:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
1 Plaintiff Prudencia Sarreal is a teacher in Mariveles, Bataan.
However, there was a break in her teaching from Liberation
when she met an accident with the La-Mallorca-Pambusco in
1953. She was receiving PhP140.00 a month as a teacher.
She is also a business agent dealing in buying and selling
furniture. She is a widow of Jose Sarreal who died in 1952.
Jose Sarreal had been mayor for three terms in Mariveles.
Sarreal figured in an accident where she was a passenger in
one of the defendants' (La Mallorca-Pambusco) buses. She
paid PhP3.75 for her round trip ticket from Manila to
Mariveles and vice versa. While at a stopover in Balanga,
Bataan, Sarreal went down to answer the call of nature.
When she was returning to the bus, another bus driven by
Soliman hit Sarreal as a result of which she sustained
multiple injuries. The bus driven by Soliman was also owned
by La-Mallorca-Pambusco.
2

Plaintiff filed an action before the CFI of Bataan against


defendants Emiliano Soliman and others claiming (1)
damages for breach of contract arising from the carrierpassenger relation between the plaintiff and the defendant
carrier companies, La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus
Company, and (2) damages for the negligence of defendant
Emiliano Soliman, a chauffeur of the said carrier companies.
The defendant companies maintained that they had
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
hiring or selection of their employees, including the
defendant chauffeur.

The lower court rendered judgment condemning the


defendant Emiliano Soliman to pay the plaintiff, and holding
the defendant carrier companies subsidiarily liable.

ISSUES: Whether defendant carrier companies observed


extraordinary diligence or the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, having due regard for all circumstances, to avoid the injury
caused to the plaintiff.
RULING + RATIO: No.
The case at bar is not one to recover damages for the tortious act or
omission of another under Article 1732.
Under the circumstances, the relation of passenger and carrier
between the plaintiff and defendant companies continued to exist
and was not suspended, let alone terminated.
As a general rule, a passenger who, without objection from the
carrier of its agent, alights at an intermediate station, which is a
station for the discharge and reception of passengers, for any
reasonable and usual purpose, such as that of obtaining
refreshment, for the sending or receipt of telegrams, or for exercise,
or other matters of convenience or necessity, does not lose his status
as a passenger. A bus passenger who disembarks at a rest stop
when ordered to do so by the driver of the bus does not lose the
status of a passenger.
At the time of the accident there was a door on the right side of the
entrance facing Paterno Street which was well adjusted then and the
door was hanging loosely to the left side, and one entering the
station will encounter stores along the left side. The presence of the
said stores along the right side of the station must have made it a
thoroughly crowded and congested station. There were sacks of rice
piled at the right side of the entrance to the station which, together
with the loosely hanging door blocked a possible exit toward the
street through the narrow space between the parked trucks and the
wall along the right side of the station. Worse, there were not even
seats provided inside the station for passengers waiting for the
departure of their buses.

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE- STILL TRYING TO FIND ORIGS

Not only did the defendant companies neglect to maintain adequate


station facilities for the protection and accommodation of the said
Balanga station, but they also failed to exercise even the most
elementary care to see that said station was free from such defects
and obstructions from which resultant injury to persons or property
could reasonably be expected.
Every person is under a duty to exercise his sense and intelligence
in his actions in order to avoid injury to others, and where a situation
suggests investigation and inspection in order that its dangers may
fully appear, the duty to make such investigation and inspection is
imposed by law. To render one liable for negligence, it is sufficient
that he should have foreseen that the negligence would probably
result in injury of some kind to some person, and he need not have

foreseen the particular consequences or injury that resulted. And


where, as in this case, the peculiar facts obtaining called for caution
and vigilance of a high or superior degree, Emiliano Soliman's utter
inattention to his assigned duty amounted to gross, not merely
simple, negligence.
As regards the issue of contributory negligence, the Court disagreed
with the trial court and ruled that there was no contributory
negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
DISPOSITION:

Você também pode gostar