7. Philippine National Railways vs CA RULING: No.

The petitioners were negligent

when the collision took place. The transcript of
FACTS: Jose Amores was traversing the
stenographic notes reveals that the train was
railroad tracks. Before crossing the railroad
running at a fast speed because
track, he stopped for a while then proceeded
notwithstanding the application of the ordinary
accordingly. Unfortunately, just as Amores was
and emergency brakes, the train still dragged
at the intersection, a Philippine National
the car some distance away from the point of
Railways train turned up and collided with the
impact. Evidence likewise unveils the
car. At the time of the mishap, there was neither
inadequate precautions taken by petitioner PNR
a signal nor a crossing bar at the intersection to
to forewarn the public of the impending danger.
warn motorists of an approaching train. Aside
Aside from not having any crossing bar, no
from the railroad track, the only visible warning
flagman or guard to man the intersection at all
sign at that time was the defective standard
times was posted on the day of the incident. A
signboard STOP, LOOK and LISTEN wherein the
reliable signaling device in good condition, not
sign Listen was lacking while that of Look was
just a dilapidated Stop, Look and Listen signage
bent. No whistle blow from the train was
because of many years of neglect, is needed to
likewise heard before it finally bumped the car
give notice to the public. It is the responsibility
of Amores. After impact, the car was dragged
of the railroad company to use reasonable care
about ten meters beyond the center of the
to keep the signal devices in working order.
crossing. Amores died as a consequence
Failure to do so would be an indication of
thereof. The heirs of Amores herein
negligence. As ruled in PNR vs Brunty, railroad
respondents, filed a Complaint for Damages
companies owe to the public a duty of exercising
against petitioners PNR and Virgilio J. Borja,
a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to
PNR’s locomotive driver at the time of the
persons and property at railroad crossings,
incident. In their complaint, respondents
which duties pertain both to the operation of
averred that the trains speedometer was
trains and to the maintenance of the crossings.
defective, and that the petitioners negligence
Moreover, every corporation constructing or
was the proximate cause of the mishap for their
operating a railway shall make and construct at
failure to take precautions to prevent injury to
all points where such railway crosses any public
persons and property despite the dense
road, good, sufficient, and safe crossings, and
population in the vicinity. The petitioners denied
erect at such points, at sufficient elevation from
the allegations, stating that the train was
such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles
railroad-worthy and without any defect.
of every kind, a sign with large and distinct
According to them, the proximate cause of the
letters placed thereon, to give notice of the
death of Amores was his own carelessness and
proximity of the railway, and warn persons of
negligence, and Amores wantonly disregarded
the necessity of looking out for trains. The
traffic rules and regulations in crossing the
failure of the PNR to put a cross bar, or signal
railroad tracks and trying to beat the
light, flagman or switchman, or semaphore is
approaching train.
evidence of negligence and disregard of the
ISSUE: Is CA correct in ascribing negligence on safety of the public, even if there is no law or
the part of the petitioners? ordinance requiring it, because public safety
demands that said device or equipment be
installed. Also, Article 2180 of the New Civil
Code discusses the liability of the employer once
negligence or fault on the part of the employee
has been established. The employer is actually
liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
families in the selection and supervision of its
employees. The liability is primary and can only
be negated by showing due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee, a
factual matter that has not been demonstrated.
Even the existence of hiring procedures and
supervisory employees cannot be incidentally
invoked to overturn the presumption of
negligence on the part of the employer.