05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.

# 1"
#

CONTENTS#

VI.#6th#week#(Common#Carriers;#Carriage#of#Passengers)#...............................................................#2!
1#Del#Prado#v#MRR,#52#Phil#900#–Respicio#........................................................................................#2!
2#Dangwa#Transportation#Co.,#Inc.#v.#CA,#202#SCRA#574*#SPerez#de#Tagle#..........................#4!
3#La#Mallorca#v.#CA,#179#SCRA#95*#SRazon#........................................................................................#6!
4#Aboitiz#Shipping#v.#CA,#179#SCRA#95*#SSantos#.............................................................................#8!
5#PAL#v.#CA,#226#SCRA#423*#SSuperable#..........................................................................................#11!
6#Japan#Airlines#v.#CA,#294#SCRA#19#–Tandoc#...............................................................................#14!
7#Bachelor#Express,#Inc.#v.#CA,#188#SCRA#216*#STiu#...................................................................#16!
8#Fortune#Express,#Inc.#v.#CA,#305#SCRA#14#–Puno#.....................................................................#17!
9#Gillaco#v.#MRR,#97#Phil#884#–Sanchez#...........................................................................................#18!
10#Maranan#v.#Perez,#20#SCRA#412*#SNathan#Oducado#............................................................#19!
11#Manila#Railroad#v.#Ballesteros,#16#SCRA#641*#SBascara#.....................................................#21!
12#Vda.#De#Abeto#v.#PAL,#115#SCRA#489*#SRespicio#....................................................................#22!
13#PAL#v.#NLRC,#124#SCRA#583#–Aquino#.........................................................................................#23!
14#Pilapil#v.#CA,#180#SCRA#546#–Benedicto#....................................................................................#24!
15#Gacal#v.#PAL,#183#SCRA#189*#SChan#.............................................................................................#25!
16#Quisumbing#v.#CA,#189#SCRA#605*#SCortez#..............................................................................#27!
17#Vda.#De#Bataclan#v.#Medina,#102#Phil#181#SCruz#Nenzo#......................................................#29!
18#Lara#v.#Valencia,#104#Phil#65#SDela#Paz#......................................................................................#33!
19#Fabre,#Jr.#v.#CA,#259#SCRA#426*#SGeraldez#................................................................................#34!
20#Sulpicio#Lines,#Inc.#v.#CA,#246#SCRA#299*#SKing#.....................................................................#36!
21#Mariano#v.#Callejas,#594#SCRA#569#–Lagos#...............................................................................#38!
#

# #
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
VI.#6TH#WEEK#(COMMON#CARRIERS;#CARRIAGE#OF#PASSENGERS)#
# 1#DEL#PRADO#V#MRR,#52#PHIL#900#–RESPICIO#
Doctrine:# CARRIERS;# STREET# RAILWAY;# PASSENGER# BOARDING# MOVING# CAR;# DUTY#
OF#MOTORMAN#NOT#TO#INCREASE#RISK.SThough#there#is#no#obligation#on#the#part#of#a#
street#railway#company#to#stop#its#cars#to#take#on#intending#passengers#at#other#points#
than# those# appointed# for# stoppage,# nevertheless# when# the# motorman# sees# a# person#
attempting#to#board#the#car#while#in#motion,#and#at#a#place#not#appointed#for#stopping,#
he#should#not#do#any#act#to#increase#the#peril#of#such#person;#and#if,#in#violation#of#this#
duty,# the# motorman# in# charge# of# a# car# prematurely# accelerates# speed# while# the#
intending# passenger# is# in# the# act# of# boarding# the# car,# with# the# result# that# he# slips# and#
gets#his#foot#crushed#under#the#wheel#of#the#moving#car,#the#company#is#civilly#liable#in#
damages.#
Common"Carrier" Manila#Electric#Company#
Passenger" Ignacio#del#Prado#
Problem" Ignacio# made# "para"# the# street# car.# It# slowed# down,# so# Ignacio#
attempted# to# board# as# the# it# moving.# But# before# he# even# secured#
his# position,# the# operator# jerked# the# street# car# forward# causing#
Igancio#to#fall,#his#right#foot#crushed#under#the#car#!amputated.#
Who"won" Passenger#Ignacio#del#Prado#
EMERGENCY:"
Manila#Electric#operates#street#cars#(ung#mga#mukhang#tren#sa#lansangan,#meron#nito#sa#
Pinas# noong# early# 1900s.# See# footnote1)# The# subject# car# traverses# Hidalgo# St.# Manila.#
There# are# designated# loading# and# unloading# stops.# However,# Ignacio# made# "para"# the#
car.#The#street#car#appeared#to#have#slowed#down#and#so#Ignacio#attempted#to#board#as#
the# train# was# moving:# he# held# the# rails# with# one# hand# and# placed# his# one# foot# on# the#
platform.# But# before# he# even# secured# his# position,# the# operator# jerked# the# street# car#
forward##causing#igancio#to#fall,#his#foot#crushed#under#the#car.#He#was#amputated.##
ISSUE:"Who"is"at"fault?"The"Manila"Electric"Company"because"of"Culpa"Contractual."
Although# Ignacio# attempted# to# board# the# car# at# an# undesignated# loading# station,# the#
operated#is#still#required#to#observe#diligence.#He#cannot#just#jerk#the#car#forward.#The#
defense# of# diligence# is# not# tenable# because# that# only# obtains# culpa# aquiliana.# This# is#
culpa# contractual,# and# since# there# is# a# breach# of# duty,# Manila# Electric# is# liable.# While#
ignacio# may# not# be# completely# without# fault,# his# fault# is# not# the# proximate# cause# of#
injury,# but# his# actions# warrant# a# reduction# of# damages.# Dissent:# the# motorman# did# not#
see#Ignacio#boarding#and#he#was#careful,#his#alleged#jerking#of#the#streetcar#is#not#true.#
" complete# candor# of# this# statement,# for# we# are# unable# to# see# how# a# motorman#
#############################################################
1# #
2"
FACTS"
• the#Manila#Electric#Company,#is#engaged#in#operating#street#cars#in#the#City#for#the#
conveyance# of# passengers;# 1925,# one# Teodorico# Florenciano,# as# Manila# Electric's#
motorman,# was# in# charge# of# car# No.# 74# running# from# east# to# west# on# R.# Hidalgo#
Street,#the#scene#of#the#accident#being#at#a#point#near#the#intersection#of#said#street#
and#Mendoza#Street.#After#the#car#had#stopped#at#its#appointed#place#for#taking#on#
and# letting# off# passengers,# just# east# of# the# intersection,# it# resumed# its# course# at# a#
moderate# speed# under# the# guidance# of# the# motorman.# The" car" had" proceeded"
only" a" short" distance," however," Ignacio" del" Prado," ran" across" the" street" to"
catch" the" car," his" approach" being" made" from" the" left.#The#car#was#of#the#kind#
having# entrance# and# exist# at# either# end,# and# the# movement# of# the# Ignacio# was# so#
timed#that#he#arrived#at#the#front#entrance#of#the#car#at#the#moment#when#the#car#
was#passing.#
• The#testimony#of#the#Ignacio#and#of#Ciriaco#Guevara,#one#of#his#witnesses,#tends#to#
shows# that# the# Ignacio," upon" approaching" the" car," raised" his" hand" as" an"
indication" to" the" motorman" of" his" desire" to" board" the" car," in" response" to"
which"the"motorman"eased"up"a"little,"without"stopping."Upon"this"the"Ignacio"
seized," with" his" hand," the" front" perpendicular" handspot," at" the" same" time"
placing"his"left"foot"upon"the"platform.#However,"before"the"Ignacio's"position"
had"become"secure,"and"even"before"his"raised"right"foot"had"reached"the"flat"
form," the" motorman" applied" the" power," with" the" result" that" the" car" gave" a"
slight"lurch"forward."This"sudden"impulse"to"the"car"caused"the"Ignacio's"foot"
to"slip,"and"his"hand"was"jerked"loose"from"the"handpost,"He"therefore"fell"to"
the"ground,"and"his"right"foot"was"caught"and"crushed"by"the"moving"car.#The#
next#day#the#member#had#to#be#amputated#in#the#hospital.##
• The# witness,# Ciriaco# Guevara,# also# stated# that,# as# the# Ignacio# started# to# board# the#
car,#he#grasped#the#handpost#on#either#side#with#both#right#and#left#hand.#The#latter#
statement# may# possibly# be# incorrect# as# regards# the# use# of# his# right# hand# by# the#
Ignacio,#but#we#are#of#the#opinion#that#the#finding#of#the#trial#court#to#the#effect#that#
the# motorman# slowed# up# slightly# as# the# Ignacio# was# boarding# the# car# that# the#
Ignacio's#fall#was#due#in#part#at#lease#to#a#sudden#forward#movement#at#the#moment#
when# the# Ignacio# put# his# foot# on# the# platform# is# supported# by# the# evidence# and#
ought#not#to#be#disturbed#by#us.#
Issue:"Is"the"manila"electric"liable?"Yes."
Ratio"
• The#motorman#stated#at#the#trial#that#he#did#not#see#the#Ignacio#attempting#to#board#
the#car;#that#he#did#not#accelerate#the#speed#of#the#car#as#claimed#by#the#Ignacio's#
witnesses;# and# that# he# in# fact# knew# nothing# of# the# incident# until# after# the# Ignacio#
had# been# hurt# and# some# one# called# to# him# to# stop.# We# are# not# convinced# of# the#
operating# this# car# could# have# failed# to# see# a# person# boarding# the# car# under# the#
circumstances#revealed#in#this#case.#It#must#be#remembered#that#the#front#handpost#
which,#as#all#witness#agree,#was#grasped#by#the#Ignacio#in#attempting#to#board#the#
car,#was#immediately#on#the#left#side#of#the#motorman.#
• With#respect#to#the#legal#aspects#of#the#case#we#may#observe#at#the#outset#that#there#
is# no# obligation# on# the# part# of# a# street# railway# company# to# stop# its# cars# to# let# on#
intending# passengers# at# other# points# than# those# appointed# for# stoppage.# In# fact# it#
would#be#impossible#to#operate#a#system#of#street#cars#if#a#company#engage#in#this#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
business# were# required# to# stop# any# and# everywhere# to# take# on# people# who# were#
too# indolent,# or# who# imagine# themselves# to# be# in# too# great# a# hurry,# to# go# to# the#
proper# places# for# boarding# the# cars.# Nevertheless,# although# the# motorman# of# this#
car#was#not#bound#to#stop#to#let#the#Ignacio#on,#it#was#his#duty#to#do#act#that#would#
have# the# effect# of# increasing# the# Ignacio's# peril# while# he# was# attempting# to# board#
the#car.#The#premature#acceleration#of#the#car#was,#in#our#opinion,#a#breach#of#this#
duty.#
• The# relation# between# a# carrier# of# passengers# for# hire# and# its# patrons# is# of# a#
contractual# nature;# and# in# failure# on# the# part# of# the# carrier# to# use# due# care# in#
carrying#its#passengers#safely#is#a#breach#of#duty#(culpa'contructual)#under#articles#
1101,# 1103# and# 1104# of# the# Civil# Code.# Furthermore,# the# duty# that# the# carrier# of#
passengers#owes#to#its#patrons#extends#to#persons#boarding#the#cars#as#well#as#to#
those#alighting#therefrom.#The#case#of#Cangco#vs.#Manila#Railroad#Co.#(38#Phil.,#768),#
supplies# an# instance# of# the# violation# of# this# duty# with# respect# to# a# passenger# who#
was# getting# off# of# a# train.# In# that# case# the# Ignacio# stepped# off# of# a# moving# train,#
while#it#was#slowing#down#in#a#station,#and#at#the#time#when#it#was#too#dark#for#him#
to# see# clearly# where# he# was# putting# his# feet.# The# employees# of# the# company# had#
carelessly#left#watermelons#on#the#platform#at#the#place#where#the#Ignacio#alighted,#
with#the#result#that#his#feet#slipped#and#he#fell#under#the#car,#where#his#right#arm#
badly# injured.# This# court# held# that# the# railroad# company# was# liable# for# breach#
positive# duty# (culpa' contractual),# and# the# Ignacio# was# awarded# damages# in# the#
amount#of#P2,500#for#the#loss#of#his#arm.#In#the#opinion#in#that#case#the#distinction#
is# clearly# drawn# between# a# liability# for# negligence# arising# from# breach# of#
contructual# duty# and# that# arising# articles# 1902# and# 1903# of# the# Civil# Code# (culpa'
aquiliana).#
• The# distiction# between# these# two# sorts# of# negligence# is# important# in# this#
jurisdiction,# for# the# reason# that# where# liability# arises# from# a# mere# tort# (culpa'
aquiliana),# not# involving# a# breach# of# positive# obligation,# an# employer,# or# master,#
may#exculpate#himself,#under#the#last#paragraph#of#article#1903#of#the#Civil#Code,#by#
providing# that# he# had# exercised# due# degligence# to# prevent# the# damage;# whereas#
this# defense# is# not# available# if# the# liability# of# the# master# arises# from# a# breach# of#
contrauctual#duty#(culpa'contractual).#In#the#case#bfore#us#the#company#pleaded#as#
a# special# defense# that# it# had# used# all# the# deligence# of# a# good# father# of# a# family# to#
prevent# the# damage# suffered# by# the# Ignacio;# and# to# establish# this# contention# the#
company# introduced# testimony# showing# that# due# care# had# been# used# in# training#
and# instructing# the# motorman# in# charge# of# this# car# in# his# art.# But# this# proof# is#
irrelevant#in#view#of#the#fact#that#the#liability#involved#was#derived#from#a#breach#of#
obligation# under# article# 1101# of# the# Civil# Code# and# related# provisions.# (Manila#
Railroad# Co.# vs.# Compana# Transatlantica# and# Atlantic,# Gulf# &# Pacific# Co.,# 38# Phil.,#
875,#887;#De#Guia#vs.#Manila#Electric#Railroad#&#Light#Co.,#40#Phil.,#706,#710.)#
• Another#practical#difference#between#liability#for#negligence#arising#under#1902#of#
the#Civil#Code#and#liability#arising#from#negligence#in#the#performance#of#a#positive#
duty,#under#article#1101#and#related#provisions#of#the#Civil#Code,#is#that,#in#dealing#
with#the#latter#form#of#negligence,#the#court#is#given#a#discretion#to#mitigate#liability#
according#to#the#circumstances#of#the#case#(art#1103).#No#such#general#discretion#is#
given# by# the# Code# in# dealing# with# liability# arising# under# article# 1902;# although#
possibly#the#same#end#is#reached#by#courts#in#dealing#with#the#latter#form#of#liability#
3"
because# of# the# latitude# of# the# considerations# pertinent# to# cases# arising# under# this#
article.#
• As#to#the#contributory#negligence#of#the#Ignacio,#we#are#of#the#opinion#that#it#should#
be#treated,#as#in#Rakes#vs.#Atlantic,#Gulf#and#Pacific#Co.#(7#Phil.,#359),#as#a#mitigating#
circumstance# under# article# 1103# of# the# Civil# Code.# It# is# obvious# that# the# Ignacio's#
negligence# in# attempting# to# board# the# moving# car# was# not# the# proximate# cause# of#
the# injury.# The# direct# and# proximate# cause# of# the# injury# was# the# act# of# Manila#
Electric's# motorman# in# putting# on# the# power# prematurely.# A# person# boarding# a#
moving#car#must#be#taken#to#assume#the#risk#of#injury#from#boarding#the#car#under#
the#conditions#open#to#his#view,#but#he#cannot#fairly#be#held#to#assume#the#risk#that#
the# motorman,# having# the# situation# in# view,# will# increase# his# peril# by# accelerating#
the#speed#of#the#car#before#he#is#planted#safely#on#the#platform.#Again,#the#situation#
before# us# is# one# where# the# negligent# act# of# the# company's# servant# succeeded# the#
negligent#act#of#the#Ignacio,#and#the#negligence#of#the#company#must#be#considered#
the#proximate#cause#of#the#injury.#The#rule#here#applicable#seems#to#be#analogous#
to,#if#not#identical#with#that#which#is#sometimes#referred#to#as#the#doctrine#of#"the#
last#clear#chance."#In#accordance#with#this#doctrine,#the#contributory#negligence#of#
the#party#injured#will#not#defeat#the#action#if#it#be#shown#that#the#defendant#might,#
by#the#exercise#of#reasonable#care#and#prudence,#have#avoided#the#consequences#of#
the#negligence#of#the#injured#party#(20#R.#C.#L.,#p.#139;#Carr#vs.#Interurban#Ry.#Co.,#
185# Iowa,# 872;# 171# N.# W.,# 167).# The# negligence# of# the# Ignacio# was,# however,#
contributory#to#the#accident#and#must#be#considered#as#a#mitigating#circumstance.#
• With#respect#to#the#effect#of#this#injury#upon#the#Ignacio's#earning#power,#we#note#
that,#although#he#lost#his#foot,#he#is#able#to#use#an#artificial#member#without#great#
inconvenience# and# his# earning# capacity# has# probably# not# been# reduced# by# more#
than#30#per#centum.#In#view#of#the#precedents#found#in#our#decisions#with#respect#
to#the#damages#that#ought#to#be#awarded#for#the#loss#of#limb,#and#more#particularly#
Rakes#vs.#Atlantic,#Gulf#and#Pacific#Co.#(7#Phil.,#359);#Cangco#vs.#Manila#Railroad#Co.#
(38# Phil.,# 768);# and# Borromeo# vs.# Manila# Electric# Railroad# and# Light# Co.# (44# Phil.,#
165),# and# in# view# of# all# the# circumstances# connected# with# the# case,# we# are# of# the#
opinion#that#the#Ignacio#will#be#adequately#compensated#by#an#award#of#P2,500.#
"
Dissenting:"
• This#appeal#presents#a#hard#case,#whichever#way#it#is#decided.#
• I#read#the#entire#record#in#this#case#before#it#was#submitted#to#the#second#division#
for#decision.#I#was#then#theponente.#I#was#then#convinced,#as#I#am#now,#after#a#reS
examination#of#the#record,#that#the#judgment#of#the#lower#court#should#be#revoked#
for#the#following#reasons:#
o That# the# motorman# managed# the# car# carefully# and# with# ordinary#
prudence#at#the#moment#the#alleged#accident#occured;#
o That# the# appellee# acted# with# imprudence# and# lack# of# due# care# in#
attempting#to#board#a#street#car#while#the#same#was#in#motion;#and#
o That#he#contributed#to#his#own#injury,#without#any#negligence#or#malice#or#
imprudence#on#the#part#of#the#defendant.#
• There# is# nothing# in# the# record# which# even# remotely# justifies# a# contribution# of#
damages# between# the# appellee# and# the# Manila# Electric.# The# appellee# should# be#
required# to# suffer# the# damages# which# he# himself,# through# his# own# negligence,#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
occasioned,#without#any#negligence,#imprudence#or#malice#on#the#part#of#the#Manila#
Electric.#
• Therefore,# the# judgment# of# the# court# a# quo# should# be# revoked,# and# the# Manila#
Electric#absolved#from#all#liability#under#the#complaint.#
# 2# DANGWA# TRANSPORTATION# CO.,# INC.# V.# CA,# 202# SCRA# 574*# S
PEREZ#DE#TAGLE#
DANGWA"TRANSPORTATION"CO.,"INC."and"THEODORE"LARDIZABAL"y"MALECDAN,"
petitioners,# vs.# COURT" OF" APPEALS," INOCENCIA" CUDIAMAT," EMILIA" CUDIAMAT"
BANDOY," FERNANDO" CUDLAMAT," MARRIETA" CUDIAMAT," NORMA" CUDIAMAT,"
DANTE" CUDIAMAT," SAMUEL" CUDIAMAT" and" LIGAYA" CUDIAMAT," all" Heirs" of" the"
late"Pedrito"Cudiamat"represented"by"Inocencia"Cudiamat,"respondents.#
October#7,#1991#
REGALADO,#J'
" gravely#injured#victim#immediately#to#the#hospital#for#medical#treatment#is#a#patent#
Doctrine:"Civil"Law;"Contract"of"carriage;"Case"at"bar;"The#victim#in#the#case#at#bar,#by#
stepping#and#standing#on#the#platform#of#the#bus,#is#already#considered#a#passenger#and#
is#entitled#to#all#the#rights#and#protection#pertaining#to#such#a#contractual#relation#
Common"Carrier" Dangwa#Transportation#Co.#
Passenger" Pedrito#Cudiamat#
Driver" Lardizabal#
Problem" Bus#was#at#full#stop#when#the#victim#Cudiamat#boarded#it.#Driver#
prematurely# stepped# on# the# accelerator# without# waiting# for#
passenger#to#first#secure#seat.#Victim#fell#from#the#platform#of#the#
bus#and#was#run#over#by#the#rear#right#tires#of#the#vehicle.#
Who"won" Passenger#
EMERGENCY:"
• SC#decides#to#believe#CA#facts#because#the#evidence#is#more#persuasive.#
• Bus#was#at#full#stop#when#the#victim#Pedrito#Cudiamat#boarded#the#same.#
• Evidently,#the#incident#took#place#due#to#the#gross#negligence#of#the#appelleeSdriver#
in#prematurely#stepping#on#the#accelerator#and#in#not#waiting#for#the#passenger#to#
first#secure#his#seat#especially#so#when#we#take#into#account#that#the#platform#of#the#
bus#was#at#the#time#slippery#and#wet#because#of#a#drizzle.#
• Trial#court#rules#for#Dangwa;#Pedrito#is#negligent.##
• CA# reverses.# Dangwa# is# negligent# (bus# at# full# stop# when# Pedrito# boarded;# did# not#
exhibit# extraordinary# diligence# at# that# point;# did# not# bring# Pedrito# to# hospital#
within#a#reasonable#time)#
• SC#sides#with#CA#
• It# is# the# duty# of# common# carriers# of# passengers,# including# common# carriers# by#
railroad#train,#streetcar,#or#motorbus,#to#stop#their#conveyances#a#reasonable#length#
of#time#in#order#to#afford#passengers#an#opportunity#to#board#and#enter,#and#they#
are# liable# for# injuries# suffered# by# boarding# passengers# resulting# from# the# sudden#
starting#up#or#jerking#of#their#conveyances#while#they#are#doing#so#
4"
o GPT:#by#stopping,#bus#offers#services#to#public.#Should#have#exercised#EO#
diligence#at#that#point.#It#did#not.#Instead#it#accelerated,#causing#Pedrito#to#
fall#and#be#crushed#under#the#rear#wheels.#
• It#is#not#negligence#per'se,'or#as#a#matter#of#law,#for#one#attempt#to#board#a#train#or#
streetcar#which#is#moving#slowly.#An#ordinarily#prudent#person#would#have#made#
the#attempt#board#the#moving#conveyance#under#the#same#or#similar#circumstances.#
The#fact#that#passengers#board#and#alight#from#slowly#moving#vehicle#is#a#matter#of#
common#experience#
o GPT:#even#assuming#that#the#bus#was#moving,#it#was#moving#slowly.#Court#
rules# that# a# reasonable# person# would# board# a# slow# moving# vehicle.#
Pedrito#not#negligent.#In#fact,#CC’s#need#to#exhibit#EO#diligence#even#in#that#
case.#
• By#contract#of#carriage,#the#carrier#assumes#the#express#obligation#to#transport#the#
passenger#to#his#destination#safely#and#observe#extraordinary#diligence#with#a#due#
regard# for# all# the# circumstances,# and# any# injury# that# might# be# suffered# by# the#
passenger#is#right#away#attributable#to#the#fault#or#negligence#of#the#carrier.##
• The# circumstances# under# which# the# driver# and# the# conductor# failed# to# bring# the#
and#incontrovertible#proof#of#their#negligence.#It#defies#understanding#and#can#even#
be#stigmatized#as#callous#indifference.#
• SC#affirms#CA.#Dangwa#negligent.#Pay#heirs#of#Pedrito.#
COMPLETE"
FACTS:"
1985,"Benguet"
Injured"Party’s"Version:"
• Allegedly," Lardizabal# was# driving# a# passenger# bus# belonging# to# Dangwa# in# a#
reckless# and# imprudent# manner# and# without# due# regard# to# traffic# rules# and#
regulations# and# safety# to# persons# and# property,# it# ran# over# its# passenger,# Pedrito#
Cudiamat.##
• Instead#of#bringing#Pedrito#immediately#to#the#nearest#hospital,#the#said#driver,#in#
utter# bad# faith# and# without# regard# to# the# welfare# of# the# victim,# first# brought# his#
other# passengers# and# cargo# to# their# respective# destinations# before# banging# said#
victim#to#the#Lepanto#Hospital#where#he#expired.#
Dangwa’s"Version:"
• Dangwa#alleges#that#they#had#observed#and#continued#to#observe#the#extraordinary#
diligence# required# in# the# operation# of# the# transportation# company# and# the#
supervision#of#the#employees#
• Alleged#that#it#was#the#victim's#own#carelessness#and#negligence#which#gave#rise#to#
the#subject#incident.#
"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
Lower"Courts"
• Trial# Court:# Dangwa# wins.# Cudiamat# Negligent.# BUT# Dangwa# must# pay# Cudiamat#
heirs#(equitable#considerations)#
• CA:#Reversed.#Dangwa#loses.#It#is#negligent.##
" "
Issue:" WON# the# CA# erred# in# reversing# the# decision# of# the# trial# court# and# in# finding#
petitioners#negligent#and#liable#for#the#damages#claimed.#(NO)"
Held:# WHEREFORE,# subject# to# the# above# modifications,# the# challenged# judgment# and#
resolution#of#respondent#Court#of#Appeals#are#hereby#AFFIRMED#in#all#other#respects.#
SO#ORDERED.#
Ratio:"SC"decides"to"review"the"facts"because"the"lower"court"and"the"CA"disagreed."
Instant"case"falls"under"the"exception"to"the"GR"that"the"SC"is"not"a"trier"of"facts.""
Trial#Court#
• This# Court# is# satisfied# that# Pedrito# Cudiamat# was# negligent# in# trying# to# board# a#
moving#vehicle,#especially#with#one#of#his#hands#holding#an#umbrella.#And,#without#
having#given#the#driver#or#the#conductor#any#indication#that#he#wishes#to#board#the#
bus.##
• But# defendants# can# also# be# found# wanting# of# the# necessary# diligence.# In# this#
connection,# it# is# safe# to# assume# that# when# the# deceased# Cudiamat# attempted# to#
board#defendants'#bus,#the#vehicle's#door#was#open#instead#of#being#closed#
CA#
• Testimony#of#appellees'#own#witness#in#the#person#of#Vitaliano#Safarita,#it#is#evident#
that#the#subject#bus"was"at"full"stop"when"the"victim"Pedrito"Cudiamat"boarded#
the#same#as#it#was#precisely#on#this#instance#where#a#certain#Miss#Abenoja#alighted#
from#the#bus.#
• Evidently,#the#incident#took#place#due#to#the#gross#negligence#of#the#appelleeSdriver"
in" prematurely" stepping" on" the" accelerator" and" in" not" waiting" for" the"
passenger" to" first" secure" his" seat# especially# so# when# we# take# into# account# that#
the"platform"of"the"bus"was"at"the"time"slippery"and"wet"because"of"a"drizzle"
SC"sides"with"CA."
• Testimonies# show# that# the# place# of# the# accident# and# the# place# where# one# of# the#
passengers#alighted#were#both#between#Bunkhouses#53#and#54,#hence#the#finding#of#
the#Court#of#Appeals#that#the#bus#was#at#full#stop#when#the#victim#boarded#the#same#
is#correct.##
• They#further#confirm#the#conclusion#that#the#victim"fell"from"the"platform"of"the"
bus"when"it"suddenly"accelerated"forward"and"was"run"over"by"the"rear"right"
5"
tires"of"the"vehicle,#
Corollary" to" their" extraordinary" diligence" requirement," CC’s" are" required" to"
exhibit"such"diligence"when"at"full"stop."
• The#contention#of#petitioners#that#the#driver#and#the#conductor#had#no#knowledge#
that# the# victim# would# ride# on# the# bus,# since# the# latter# had# supposedly# not#
manifested#his#intention#to#board#the#same,#does#not#merit#consideration.#
• When"the"bus"is"not"in"motion"there"is"no"necessity"for"a"person"who"wants"to"
ride" the" same" to" signal" his" intention" to" board." A" public" utility" bus," once" it"
stops,"is"in"effect"making"a"continuous"offer"to"bus"riders.""
• Hence,"it"becomes"the"duty"of"the"driver"and"the"conductor,"every"time"the"bus"
stops," to" do" no" act" that" would" have" the" effect" of" increasing" the" peril" to" a"
passenger" while" he" was" attempting" to" board" the" same.# The" premature"
acceleration"of"the"bus"in"this"case"was"a"breach"of"such"duty."
• It# is# the# duty# of# common# carriers# of# passengers,# including# common# carriers# by#
railroad#train,#streetcar,#or#motorbus,#to#stop#their#conveyances#a#reasonable#length#
of#time#in#order#to#afford#passengers#an#opportunity#to#board#and#enter,#and#they#
are# liable# for# injuries# suffered# by# boarding# passengers# resulting# from# the# sudden#
starting#up#or#jerking#of#their#conveyances#while#they#are#doing#so#
Such"duty"extends"to"those"passengers"who"board"and"alight"slow"moving"CC’s"
• It#is#not#negligence#per'se,'or#as#a#matter#of#law,#for#one#attempt#to#board#a#train#or#
streetcar#which#is#moving#slowly.#An#ordinarily#prudent#person#would#have#made#
the#attempt#board#the#moving#conveyance#under#the#same#or#similar#circumstances.#
The" fact" that" passengers" board" and" alight" from" slowly" moving" vehicle" is" a"
matter"of"common"experience#
• The" victim" herein," by" stepping" and" standing" on" the" platform" of" the" bus," is"
already" considered" a" passenger" and" is" entitled" all" the" rights" and" protection"
pertaining" to" such" a" contractual" relation.#Hence,#it#has#been#held#that#the#duty#
which#the#carrier#passengers#owes#to#its#patrons#extends#to#persons#boarding#cars#
as#well#as#to#those#alighting#therefrom.#
Cites"Civil"Code"
• Common# carriers,# from# the# nature# of# their# business# and# reasons# of# public# policy,#
are# bound# to# observe# extraordinary# diligence# for# the# safety# of# the# passengers#
transported#by#the#according#to#all#the#circumstances#of#each#case.##
• A#common#carrier#is#bound#to#carry#the#passengers#safely#as#far#as#human#care#and#
foresight#can#provide,#using#the#utmost#diligence#very#cautious#persons,#with#a#due#
regard#for#all#the#circumstances.#
Presumption"of"Negligence"explained"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• In# an# action# based# on# a# contract# of# carriage,# the# court# need# not# make# an# express#
finding# of# fault# or# negligence# on# the# part# of# the# carrier# in# order# to# hold# it#
responsible#to#pay#the#damages#sought#by#the#passenger.##
• By#contract#of#carriage,#the#carrier#assumes#the#express#obligation#to#transport#the#
passenger#to#his#destination#safely#and#observe#extraordinary#diligence#with#a#due#
regard# for# all# the# circumstances,# and# any# injury# that# might# be# suffered# by# the#
passenger#is#right#away#attributable#to#the#fault#or#negligence#of#the#carrier.##
• This# is# an# exception# to# the# general# rule# that# negligence# must# be# proved,# and# it# is#
therefore#incumbent#upon#the#carrier#to#prove#that#it#has#exercised#extraordinary#
diligence#as#prescribed#in#Articles#1733#and#1755#of#the#Civil#Code.#
Not" immediately" attending" to" Pedrito’s" injury" is" further" proof" of" Dangwa’s"
negligence"
• The# circumstances# under# which# the# driver# and# the# conductor# failed# to# bring# the#
gravely#injured#victim#immediately#to#the#hospital#for#medical#treatment#is#a#patent#
and#incontrovertible#proof#of#their#negligence.#It#defies#understanding#and#can#even#
be#stigmatized#as#callous#indifference.#
• The#vacuous#reason#given#by#petitioners#that#it#was#the#wife#of#the#deceased#who#
caused#the#delay#was#tersely#and#correctly#confuted#by#respondent#court:#
• ..#The#pretension#of#the#appellees#that#the#delay#was#due#to#the#fact#that#they#had#to#
wait#for#about#twenty#minutes#for#Inocencia#Cudiamat#to#get#dressed#deserves#scant#
consideration.#It#is#rather#scandalous#and#deplorable#for#a#wife#whose#husband#is#at#
the# verge# of# dying# to# have# the# luxury# of# dressing# herself# up# for# about# twenty#
minutes#before#attending#to#help#her#distressed#and#helpless#husband#
Further,# it# cannot# be# said# that# the# main# intention# of# petitioner# Lardizabal# in# going# to#
Bunk#70#was#to#inform#the#victim's#family#of#the#mishap,#since#it#was#not#said#bus#driver#
nor#the#conductor#but#the#companion#of#the#victim#who#informed#his#family#thereof.#
# 3#LA#MALLORCA#V.#CA,#179#SCRA#95*#SRAZON#
LA" MALLORCA," petitioner," vs." HONORABLE" COURT" OF" APPEALS," MARIANO"
BELTRAN,"ET"AL.,"respondents.#
" can#be#liable#under#quasi#delict.#Damages#back#to#3,000.00.#
DOCTRINE:" Carrier2passenger'relationship'continues'until'the'passenger'has'been'landed'
at'the'port'of'destination'and'has'left'the'vessel2owner’s'premises"
" •
Common"Carrier" Pambusco#bus#owned#and#operated#by#La#Mallorca#
Passenger" Mariano#Beltran#&#Family.#Daughter#!#child#Raquel."
Problem" While#Mariano#was#on#the#running#board#of#the#bus#waiting#for#the#
conductor# to# hand# him# his# bayong,# the# bus# suddenly# started#
moving#forward.#In#the#course#of#such#movement,#it#ran#over#and#
killed#the#child#Raquel.#Skull#crushed.#
Who"won" Beltran# won.# Carrier# liable,# but# to# a# lower# amount# than# what# CA#
awarded#because#Beltran#did#not#appeal#the#award#of#lower#court#
6"
"
EMERGENCY" DIGEST:" Mariano# Beltran# and# his# family# boarded# the# Pambusco# bus#
owned#and#operated#by#La#Mallorca#bound#for#Anao,#Mexico,#Pampanga.#After#about#an#
hour’s#trip,#the#bus#reached#Anao,#and#Beltran#family#unloaded#the#bus.#Mariano#led#his#
companions#to#a#shaded#spot#on#the#left#pedestrians#side#of#the#road#about#four#or#five#
meters#away#from#the#vehicle.#Afterwards,#he#returned#to#the#bus#in#controversy#to#get#
his#other#bayong,#which#he#had#left#behind,#but#in#so#doing,#his#daughter#Raquel#followed#
him,#unnoticed#by#her#father.#
#
While#Mariano#Beltran#was#on#the#running#board#of#the#bus#waiting#for#the#conductor#to#
hand#him#his#bayong#which#he#left#under#one#of#its#seats#near#the#door,#the#bus,#whose#
motor#was#not#shut#off#while#unloading,#suddenly#started#moving#forward,#evidently#to#
resume#its#trip,#notwithstanding#the#fact#that#the#conductor#has#not#given#the#driver#the#
customary# signal# to# start,# since# said# conductor# was# still# attending# to# the# baggage# left#
behind#by#Mariano#Beltran.#Incidentally,#when#the#bus#was#again#placed#into#a#complete#
stop,#it#had#travelled#about#ten#meters#from#the#point#where#the#plaintiffs#had#gotten#off.#
#
In"the"course"of"such"movement"by"the"bus,"it"ran"over"and"killed"the"child"Raquel.##
TRIAL" COURT" RULING:#found#La#Mallorca#liable#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage#and#
sentenced# it# to# pay# P3,000.00# for# the# death# of# the# child# and# P400.00# as# compensatory#
damages#representing#burial#expenses#and#costs.##
#
On#appeal#to#CA,#La#Mallorca#claimed#that#there#could#not#be#a#breach#of#contract#in#the#
case,#for#the#reason#that#when#the#child#met#her#death,#she#was#no#longer#a#passenger#of#
the# bus# involved# in# the# incident# and,# therefore,# the# contract# of# carriage# had# already#
terminated.##
CA" RULING:" Although" the" CA" sustained" this" theory," it" nevertheless" found" La"
Mallorca" guilty" of" quasiadelict# and# held# the# latter# liable# for# damages,# for# the#
negligence#of#its#driver,#in#accordance#with#Article#2180#of#the#Civil#Code.#And,#the#Court#
of# Appeals# not" only# found# La# Mallorca# liable,# but# increased# the# damages# awarded# to#
P6,000.00,#instead#of#P3,000.00#granted#by#the#trial#court.#
#
SC"RULING:#held#that#the#bus#failed#to#exercise#the#utmost#diligence#required#of#a#"very#
cautions#person"#required#by#Article#1755#of#the#Civil#Code#to#be#observed#by#a#common#
carrier# in# the# discharge# of# its# obligation# to# transport# safely# its# passengers.# It# also# held#
that#assuming#arguendo#that#it#cannot#be#held#liable#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage,#it#
"
COMPLETE"DIGEST:"
On# December# 20,# 1953,# at# about# noontime,# plaintiffs,# husband# and# wife,# together#
with#their#minor#daughters,#namely,#Milagros,#13#years#old,#Raquel,#about#4½#years#
old,#and#Fe,#over#2#years#old,#boarded#the#Pambusco#Bus#No.#352,#bearing#plate#TPU#
No.#757#(1953#Pampanga),#owned#and#operated#by#the#defendant,#at#San#Fernando,#
Pampanga,#bound#for#Anao,#Mexico,#Pampanga.#
• At#the#time,#they#were#carrying#with#them#four#pieces#of#baggages#containing#their#
personal#belonging.#The#conductor#of#the#bus,#who#happened#to#be#a#halfSbrother#of#
plaintiff#Mariano#Beltran,#issued#three#tickets#covering#the#full#fares#of#the#plaintiff#
and# their# eldest# child,# Milagros.# No" fare" was" charged" on" Raquel" and" Fe," since"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
both" were" below" the" height" at" which" fare" is" charged" in" accordance" with" the"
appellant's"rules"and"regulations."
• After# about# an# hour's# trip,# the# bus# reached# Anao# whereat# it# stopped# to# allow# the#
passengers#bound#therefor,#among#whom#were#the#plaintiffs#and#their#children#to#
get#off.#Mariano#led#his#companions#to#a#shaded#spot#on#the#left#pedestrians#side#of#
the#road#about#four#or#five#meters#away#from#the#vehicle.#Afterwards,"he"returned"
to" the" bus" in" controversy" to" get" his" other" bayong," which" he" had" left" behind,"
but"in"so"doing,"his"daughter"Raquel"followed"him,"unnoticed"by"her"father."
• While"said"Mariano"Beltran"was"on"the"running"board"of"the"bus"waiting"for"
the"conductor"to"hand"him"his"bayong"which"he"left"under"one"of"its"seats"near"
the" door," the" bus," whose" motor" was" not" shut" off" while" unloading," suddenly"
started"moving"forward,"evidently"to"resume"its"trip,"notwithstanding"the"fact"
that" the" conductor" has" not" given" the" driver" the" customary" signal" to" start,"
since"said"conductor"was"still"attending"to"the"baggage"left"behind"by"Mariano"
Beltran.# Incidentally,# when# the# bus# was# again# placed# into# a# complete# stop,# it# had#
travelled#about#ten#meters#from#the#point#where#the#plaintiffs#had#gotten#off.#
• Sensing# that# the# bus# was# again# in# motion,# Mariano# Beltran# immediately# jumped#
from#the#running#board#without#getting#his#bayong#from#the#conductor.#He#landed#
on#the#side#of#the#road#almost#in#front#of#the#shaded#place#where#he#left#his#wife#and#
children.#At" that" precise" time," he" saw" people" beginning" to" gather" around" the"
body"of"a"child"lying"prostrate"on"the"ground,"her"skull"crushed,"and"without"
life.#The#child#was#none#other#than#his#daughter#Raquel,#who#was#run#over#by#the#
bus#in#which#she#rode#earlier#together#with#her#parents.#
• The# trial# court# found# defendant# liable# for# breach# of# contract# of# carriage# and#
sentenced# it# to# pay# P3,000.00# for# the# death# of# the# child# and# P400.00# as#
compensatory#damages#representing#burial#expenses#and#costs.#
# plaintiffs'# daughter,# was# caused# by# the# negligence# and# want# of# exercise# of# the#
ISSUE:" Whether# or# not# the# contract# of# carriage# already# ceased# at# the# time# of# the#
accident?#NO#
# the# driver,# even# before# receiving# the# proper# signal# from# the# conductor,# and# while#
HELD:" The" decision# of# the# Court# of# Appeals# is# hereby# modified# by# sentencing,# the#
petitioner#to#pay#to#the#respondents#Mariano#Beltran,#et#al.,#the#sum#of#P3,000.00#for#the#
death#of#the#child,#Raquel#Beltran,#and#the#amount#of#P400.00#as#actual#damages.#
" good#father#of#the#family#in#the#selection#and#supervision#of#its#employees.#And#this#
RATIO:""
• It#may#be#pointed#out#that#although#it#is#true#that#respondent#Mariano#Beltran,#his#
wife,#and#their#children#(including#the#deceased#child)#had#alighted#from#the#bus#at#
a# place# designated# for# disembarking# or# unloading# of# passengers,# it# was# also#
established#that#the#father#had#to#return#to#the#vehicle#(which#was#still#at#a#stop)#to#
get#one#of#his#bags#or#bayong#that#was#left#under#one#of#the#seats#of#the#bus.#There"
can"be"no"controversy"that"as"far"as"the"father"is"concerned,"when"he"returned"
to" the" bus" for" his" bayong" which" was" not" unloaded," the" relation" of" passenger"
and" carrier" between" him" and" the" petitioner" remained" subsisting.# For,# the#
relation#of#carrier#and#passenger#does#not#necessarily#cease#where#the#latter,#after#
alighting# from# the# car,# aids# the# carrier's# servant# or# employee# in# removing# his#
baggage#from#the#car."
• It" has" been" recognized" as" a" rule" that" the" relation" of" carrier" and" passenger"
does"not"cease"at"the"moment"the"passenger"alights"from"the"carrier's"vehicle"
7"
at" a" place" selected" by" the" carrier" at" the" point" of" destination," but" continues"
until"the"passenger"has"had"a"reasonable"time"or"a"reasonable"opportunity"to"
leave" the" carrier's" premises." And," what" is" a" reasonable" time" or" a" reasonable"
delay"within"this"rule"is"to"be"determined"from"all"the"circumstances."
• In#the#present#case,#the#father#returned#to#the#bus#to#get#one#of#his#baggages#which#
was#not#unloaded#when#they#alighted#from#the#bus.#Raquel,#the#child#that#she#was,#
must# have# followed# the# father.# However,# although# the# father# was# still# on# the#
running#board#of#the#bus#awaiting#for#the#conductor#to#hand#him#the#bag#or#bayong,#
the# bus# started# to# run,# so# that# even# he# (the# father)# had# to# jump# down# from# the#
moving#vehicle.#It#was#at#this#instance#that#the#child,#who#must#be#near#the#bus,#was#
run#over#and#killed.#In"the"circumstances,"it"cannot"be"claimed"that"the"carrier's"
agent" had" exercised" the" "utmost" diligence"" of" a" "very" cautions" person""
required"by"Article"1755"of"the"Civil"Code"to"be"observed"by"a"common"carrier"
in"the"discharge"of"its"obligation"to"transport"safely"its"passengers."In#the#first#
place,#the#driver,#although#stopping#the#bus,#nevertheless#did#not#put#off#the#engine.#
Secondly,# he# started# to# run# the# bus# even# before# the# bus# conductor# gave# him# the#
signal# to# go# and# while# the# latter# was# still# unloading# part# of# the# baggages# of# the#
passengers# Mariano# Beltran# and# family.# The" presence" of" said" passengers" near"
the"bus"was"not"unreasonable"and"they"are,"therefore,"to"be"considered"still"as"
passengers" of" the" carrier," entitled" to" the" protection" under" their" contract" of"
carriage."
• But#even#assuming#arguendo#that#the#contract#of#carriage#has#already#terminated,#
herein#petitioner#can#be#held#liable#for#the#negligence#of#its#driver,#as#ruled#by#the#
Court#of#Appeals,#pursuant#to#Article#2180#of#the#Civil#Code.#
• The#plaintiffs#sufficiently#pleaded#the#culpa#or#negligence#upon#which#the#claim#was#
predicated#when#it#was#alleged#in#the#complaint#that#"the#death#of#Raquel#Beltran,#
utmost#diligence#of#a#very#cautious#person#on#the#part#of#the#defendants#and#their#
agent."#This#allegation#was#also#proved#when#it#was#established#during#the#trial#that#
there#were#still#persons#on#the#running#board#of#the#bus#and#near#it,#started#to#run#
off#the#vehicle.#The#presentation#of#proof#of#the#negligence#of#its#employee#gave#rise#
to#the#presumption#that#the#defendant#employer#did#not#exercise#the#diligence#of#a#
presumption,# as# the# Court# of# Appeals# found,# petitioner# had# failed# to# overcome.#
Consequently,# petitioner# must# be# adjudged# peculiarily# liable# for# the# death# of# the#
child#Raquel#Beltran.#
• The#increase#of#the#award#of#damages#from#P3,000.00#to#P6,000.00#by#the#Court#of#
Appeals,#however,#cannot#be#sustained.#Generally,#the#appellate#court#can#only#pass#
upon# and# consider# questions# or# issues# raised# and# argued# in# appellant's# brief.#
Plaintiffs# did# not# appeal# from# that# portion# of# the# judgment# of# the# trial# court#
awarding#them#on#P3,000.00#damages#for#the#death#of#their#daughter.#Neither#does#
it# appear# that,# as# appellees# in# the# Court# of# Appeals,# plaintiffs# have# pointed# out# in#
their#brief#the#inadequacy#of#the#award,#or#that#the#inclusion#of#the#figure#P3,000.00#
was#merely#a#clerical#error,#in#order#that#the#matter#may#be#treated#as#an#exception#
to# the# general# rule.5# Herein# petitioner's# contention,# therefore,# that# the# Court# of#
Appeals# committed# error# in# raising# the# amount# of# the# award# for# damages# is,#
evidently,#meritorious.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
# 4#ABOITIZ#SHIPPING#V.#CA,#179#SCRA#95*#SSANTOS#
ABOITIZ" SHIPPING" CORPORATION,"petitioner,## vs.# HON." COURT" OF" APPEALS,"
ELEVENTH" DIVISION," LUCILA" C." VIANA," SPS." ANTONIO" VIANA" and" GORGONIA"
VIANA,"and"PIONEER"STEVEDORING"CORPORATION,"respondents.#
Doctrine:* The' rule' is' that' the' relation' of' carrier' and' passenger' continues' until' the'
passenger'has'been'landed'at'the'port'of'destination'and'has'left'the'vessel'owner's'dock'or'
premises.'''
Common" Aboitiz#Shipping#Corp.#
Carrier"
Passenger" Anacleto#Viana"
Problem" VIANA# who# had# already# disembarked# went# back# to# the# ship# because# he#
forgot#his#cargoes.#While#he#pointed#to#the#crew#where#his#cargoes#were#
located,# the# crane# operated# by# Pioneer# Stevedoring# hit# him,# pinning# him#
between#the#side#of#the#vessel#and#the#crane.#He#died#3#days#later.#
Who"won" Passenger#Viana,#although#SC#held#Viana#as#contributorily#negligent#
ER:"
1. ANACLETO# VIANA# boarded# a# vessel# owned# by# ABOITIZ# SHIPPING# CORP.# it# was#
bound#for#manila"
2. At#the#pier,#the#passengers#disembarked,#a#gangplank#was#provided#to#connect#the#
side#of#the#vessel#with#the#pier.#ANACLETO#did#not#use#this#plank#but#disembarked#
on#the#third#deck#which#was#on#the#level#with#the#pier.#"
3. Thereafter,#PIONEER#STEVEDORING#took#over#the#control#of#the#cargoes#loaded#on#
the#vessel#pursuant#to#a#memorandum#of#agreement#between#them#and#ABOITIZ."
4. 1" hour" after" the" passengers" had" disembarked," PIONEER" started" to" operate" a"
crane"to"get"the"cargo."ANACLETO"VIANA"who"had"already"disembarked"went"
back" to" the" ship" cause" he" remembered" that" some" of" his" cargoes" was" still"
loaded"in"the"vessel.""
5. He"pointed"to"the"crew"of"the"said"vessel"to"the"place"where"his"cargoes"were"
loaded"that"the"crane"hit"him,"pinning"him"between"the"side"of"the"vessel"and"
the"crane."He"died"after"3"days."
6. Heirs#of#VIANAS#filed#a#complaint#for#breach#of#contract#against#ABOITIZ.#ABOITIZ#
pointed# to# PIONEER:# it# was# their# employee,# and# the# vessel# was# under# their#
exclusive#control.#"
7. Trial# Court# ordered# ABOITIZ# to# pay,# PIONEER# to# reimburse# ABOITIZ.# CA# affirmed#
but#absolved#PIONEER#from#liability.#"
8. ABOITIZ# contends# that# since# an# hour# has# passed# from# when# the# ship# arrived#
ANACLETO#is#not#anymore#a#passenger."
9. ISSUE:#IS#HE#A#PASSENGER?#"
10. SC#!##YES.#ABOITIZ#is#liable.#It#did#not#prove#that#PIONEER#was#negligent.#The#rule#
is#that#the#relation#of#carrier#and#passenger#continues#until#the#passenger#has#been#
landed# at# the# port# of# destination# and# has# left# the# vessel# owner's# dock# or#
8"
premises.##Once# created,# the# relationship# will# not# ordinarily# terminate# until# the#
passenger# has,# after# reaching# his# destination,# safely# alighted# from# the# carrier's#
conveyance# or# had# a# reasonable# opportunity# to# leave# the# carrier's# premises.# All#
persons# who# remain# on# the# premises# a# reasonable# time# after# leaving# the#
conveyance# are# to# be# deemed# passengers,# and# what# is# a# reasonable# time# or# a#
reasonable# delay# within# this# rule# is# to# be# determined# from# all# the# circumstances,#
and# includes# a# reasonable# time# to# see# after# his# baggage# and# prepare# for# his#
departure."#The#carrierSpassenger#relationship#is#not#terminated#merely#by#the#fact#
that#the#person#transported#has#been#carried#to#his#destination#if,#for#example,#such#
person#remains#in#the#carrier's#premises#to#claim#his#baggage."
11. That# reasonableness# of# time# should# be# made# to# depend# on# the# attending#
circumstances# of# the# case,# such# as# the# kind# of# common# carrier,# the# nature# of# its#
business,# the# customs# of# the# place,# and# so# forth,# and# therefore# precludes# a#
consideration# of# the# time# element#per' se#without# taking# into# account# such# other#
factors.##
12. The# primary# factor# to# be# considered# is# the# existence# of# a# reasonable# cause# as# will#
justify#the#presence#of#the#victim#on#or#near#the#petitioner's#vessel.#We#believe#there#
exists#such#a#justifiable#cause.#
13. Even# if# he# had# already# disembarked# an# hour# earlier,# his# presence# in# ABOITZ’#
premises# was# not# without# cause.# The# victim# had# to# claim# his# baggage# which# was#
possible#only#one#(1)#hour#after#the#vessel#arrived#since#it#was#admittedly#standard#
procedure# in# the# case# of# petitioner's# vessels# that# the# unloading# operations# shall#
start# only# after# that# time.# Consequently,# under# the# foregoing# circumstances,# the#
victim#Anacleto#Viana#is#still#deemed#a#passenger#of#said#carrier#at#the#time#of#his#
tragic#death.#
FACTS:""
• Anacleto#Viana#boarded#the#vessel#M/V#Antonia,#owned#by#ABOITIZ,#at#the#port#at#
San# Jose,# Occidental# Mindoro,# bound# for# Manila,# having# purchased# a# ticket# (No.#
117392)#in#the#sum#of#P23.10#(Exh.#'B').#"
• On# May# 12,# 1975,# said# vessel# arrived# at# Pier# 4,# North# Harbor,# Manila,# and# the#
passengers#therein#disembarked,#a#gangplank#having#been#provided#connecting#the#
side#of#the#vessel#to#the#pier."
• Instead# of# using# said# gangplank# Anacleto# Viana# disembarked# on# the# third# deck#
which#was#on#the#level#with#the#pier.#"
• After# said# vessel# had# landed,# the# Pioneer# Stevedoring# Corporation# took# over# the#
exclusive#control#of#the#cargoes#loaded#on#said#vessel#pursuant#to#a#Memorandum#
of# Agreement# (Exh.# '2')# between# the# Pioneer# Stevedoring# Corporation# and# Aboitiz#
Shipping#Corporation."
• The# crane# owned# PIONEER# party# defendant# and# operated# by# its# crane# operator#
Alejo# Figueroa# was# placed# alongside# the# vessel# and# one# (1)# hour# after# the#
passengers# of# said# vessel# had# disembarked,# it# started# operation# by# unloading# the#
cargoes#from#said#vessel.#While#the#crane#was#being#operated,#Anacleto#Viana#who#
had#already#disembarked#from#said#vessel#obviously#remembering#that#some#of#his#
cargoes#were#still#loaded#in#the#vessel,#went#back#to#the#vessel,#and#it#was#while"he"
was" pointing" to" the" crew" of" the" said" vessel" to" the" place" where" his" cargoes"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
were"loaded"that"the"crane"hit"him,"pinning"him"between"the"side"of"the"vessel"
and" the" crane.# He# was# thereafter# brought# to# the# hospital# where# he# later# expired#
three#(3)#days#thereafter,#the#cause#of#his#death#according#to#the#Death#Certificate#
being# "hypostatic# pneumonia# secondary# to# traumatic# fracture# of# the# pubic# bone#
lacerating#the#urinary#bladder"#]"
• For# his# hospitalization,# medical,# burial# and# other# miscellaneous# expenses,#
Anacleto's#wife,#spent#a#total#of#P9,800.00.#"
• Viana#who#was#only#forty#(40)#years#old#when#he#met#said#fateful#accident#was#in#
good#health.#His#average#annual#income#as#a#farmer#or#a#farm#supervisor#was#400#
cavans#of#palay#annually.#He#supported#his#parents."
• The#Vianas#filed#a#complaint#for#damages#against#ABOITIZ#for#breach#of#contract#of#
carriage."
• Aboitiz#denied#responsibility#contending#that#at#the#time#of#the#accident,#the#vessel#
was# completely# under# the# control# of# PIONEER# Stevedoring# Corporation# # as# the#
exclusive#stevedoring#contractor#of#Aboitiz,#which#handled#the#unloading#of#cargoes#
from#the#vessel#of#Aboitiz.#It#is#also#averred#that#since#the#crane#operator#was#not#an#
employee#of#Aboitiz,#the#latter#cannot#be#held#liable#under#the#fellowSservant#rule."
• TRIAL#COURT#ordered#ABOITIZ#to#pay#VIANAS.#PIONEER#was#ordered#to#reimburse#
ABOITIZ."
• Both# Aboitiz# and# Pioneer# filed# separate# motions# for# reconsideration# wherein# they#
similarly# raised# the# trial# court's# failure# to# declare# that# Anacleto# Viana# acted# with#
gross#negligence#despite#the#overwhelming#evidence#presented#in#support#thereof.#"
• In# addition,# Aboitiz# alleged,# in# opposition# to# Pioneer's# motion,# that# under# the#
memorandum# of# agreement# the# liability# of# Pioneer# as# contractor# is# automatic# for#
any#damages#or#losses#whatsoever#occasioned#by#and#arising#from#the#operation#of#
its#arrastre#and#stevedoring#service."
• The#trial#court#absolved#Pioneer#from#liability#for#failure#of#the#Vianas#and#Aboitiz#
to#preponderantly#establish#a#case#of#negligence#against#the#crane#operator#which#
the#court#a'quo#ruled#is#never#presumed,#aside#from#the#fact#that#the#memorandum#
of#agreement#supposedly#refers#only#to#Pioneer's#liability#in#case#of#loss#or#damage#
to# goods# handled# by# it# but# not# in# the# case# of# personal# injuries,# and,# finally# that#
Aboitiz# cannot# properly# invoke# the# fellowSservant# rule# simply# because# its# liability#
stems#from#a#breach#of#contract#of#carriage.##
• ABOITIZ# appealed# to# CA.# CA# affirmed# trial# court# except# as# to# the# amount# of#
damages.#
ISSUE:"W/N"ABOITIZ"is"liable?"–"YES"ABOITIZ"liable"
HELD:"Affirmed."
RATIO:"
At# threshold,# it# is# to# be# observed# that# both# the# trial# court# and# respondent# Court# of#
Appeals# found# the# victim# Anacleto# Viana# guilty# of# contributory# negligence,# but# holding#
that#it"was"the"negligence"of"Aboitiz"in"prematurely"turning"over"the"vessel"to"the"
arrastre" operator" for" the" unloading" of" cargoes" which" was" the" direct," immediate"
and"proximate"cause"of"the"victim's"death."
9"
I.#ABOITIZ#contends#that#since#one#(1)#hour#had#already#elapsed#from#the#time#Anacleto#
Viana#disembarked#from#the#vessel#and#that#he#was#given#more#than#ample#opportunity#
to#unload#his#cargoes#prior#to#the#operation#of#the#crane,#his#presence#on#the#vessel#was#
no#longer#reasonable#and#he#consequently#ceased#to#be#a#passenger.#Corollarily,#it#insists#
that#the#doctrine#in#La'Mallorca'vs.'Court'of'Appeals,'et'al.#"is#not#applicable#to#the#case#at#
bar.#
The#rule#is#that#the#relation#of#carrier#and#passenger#continues#until#the#passenger#has#
been# landed# at# the# port# of# destination# and# has# left# the# vessel# owner's# dock# or#
premises.##Once# created,# the# relationship# will# not# ordinarily# terminate# until# the#
passenger# has,# after# reaching# his# destination,# safely# alighted# from# the# carrier's#
conveyance#or#had#a#reasonable#opportunity#to#leave#the#carrier's#premises.#All#persons#
who# remain# on# the# premises# a# reasonable# time# after# leaving# the# conveyance# are# to# be#
deemed#passengers,#and#what#is#a#reasonable#time#or#a#reasonable#delay#within#this#rule#
is# to# be# determined# from# all# the# circumstances,# and# includes# a# reasonable# time# to# see#
after# his# baggage# and# prepare# for# his# departure." # The# carrierSpassenger# relationship# is#
not# terminated# merely# by# the# fact# that# the# person# transported# has# been# carried# to# his#
destination# if,# for# example,# such# person# remains# in# the# carrier's# premises# to# claim# his#
baggage.#
It# was# in# accordance# with# this# rationale# that# the# doctrine# in# the# aforesaid# case# of# La#
Mallorca#was#enunciated,#to#wit:#
It# has# been# recognized# as# a# rule# that# the# relation" of" carrier" and" passenger"
does" not" cease" at" the" moment" the" passenger" alights" from" the" carrier's"
vehicle" at" a" place" selected" by" the" carrier" at" the" point" of" destination," but"
continues"until"the"passenger"has"had"a"reasonable"time"or"a"reasonable"
opportunity" to" leave" the" carrier's" premises." And," what" is" a" reasonable"
time" or" a" reasonable" delay" within" this" rule" is" to" be" determined" from" all"
the" circumstances.# Thus,# a# person# who,# after# alighting# from# a# train,# walks#
along# the# station# platform# is# considered# still# a# passenger.# So# also,# where# a#
passenger#has#alighted#at#his#destination#and#is#proceeding#by#the#usual#way#to#
leave# the# company's# premises,# but# before# actually# doing# so# is# halted# by# the#
report#that#his#brother,#a#fellow#passenger,#has#been#shot,#and#he#in#good#faith#
and#without#intent#of#engaging#in#the#difficulty,#returns#to#relieve#his#brother,#
he# is# deemed# reasonably# and# necessarily# delayed# and# thus# continues# to# be# a#
passenger# entitled# as# such# to# the# protection# of# the# railroad# company# and# its#
agents.#
In# the# present# case,# the# father# returned# to# the# bus# to# get# one# of# his# baggages#
which# was# not# unloaded# when# they# alighted# from# the# bus.# Racquel,# the# child#
that#she#was,#must#have#followed#the#father.#However,#although#the#father#was#
still#on#the#running#board#of#the#bus#waiting#for#the#conductor#to#hand#him#the#
bag#or#bayong,#the#bus#started#to#run,#so#that#even#he#(the#father)#had#to#jump#
down#from#the#moving#vehicle.#It#was#at#this#instance#that#the#child,#who#must#
be# near# the# bus,# was# run# over# and# killed.# In# the# circumstances,# it# cannot# be#
claimed#that#the#carrier's#agent#had#exercised#the#'utmost#diligence'#of#a#'very#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
cautious#person'#required#by#Article#1755#of#the#Civil#Code#to#be#observed#by#a#
common# carrier# in# the# discharge# of# its# obligation# to# transport# safely# its#
passengers.# ...# The# presence# of# said# passengers# near# the# bus# was# not#
unreasonable# and# they# are,# therefore,# to# be# considered# still# as# passengers# of#
the#carrier,#entitled#to#the#protection#under#their#contract#of#carriage.##
It#is#apparent#from#the#foregoing#that#what#prompted#the#Court#to#rule#as#it#did#in#said#
case# is# the# fact# of# the# passenger's# reasonable# presence# within# the# carrier's# premises."
That" reasonableness" of" time" should" be" made" to" depend" on" the" attending"
circumstances" of" the" case," such" as" the" kind" of" common" carrier," the" nature" of" its"
business," the" customs" of" the" place," and" so" forth," and" therefore" precludes" a"
consideration" of" the" time" element"per* se"without" taking" into" account" such" other"
factors.# It# is# thus# of# no# moment# whether# in# the# cited# case# of#La'Mallorcathere# was# no#
appreciable# interregnum# for# the# passenger# therein# to# leave# the# carrier's# premises#
whereas#in#the#case#at#bar,#an#interval#of#one#(1)#hour#had#elapsed#before#the#victim#met#
the#accident.#The"primary"factor"to"be"considered"is"the"existence"of"a"reasonable"
cause" as" will" justify" the" presence" of" the" victim" on" or" near" ABOITIZ's" vessel." We"
believe"there"exists"such"a"justifiable"cause."
It# is# of# common# knowledge# that,# by" the" very" nature" of" ABOITIZ's" business" as" a"
shipper," the" passengers" of" vessels" are" allotted" a" longer" period" of" time" to"
disembark" from" the" ship" than" other" common" carriers" such" as" a" passenger" bus."
With# respect# to# the# bulk# of# cargoes# and# the# number# of# passengers# it# can# load,# such#
vessels# are# capable# of# accommodating# a# bigger# volume# of# both# as# compared# to# the#
capacity#of#a#regular#commuter#bus.#Consequently,#a#ship#passenger#will#need#at#least#an#
hour# as# is# the# usual# practice,# to# disembark# from# the# vessel# and# claim# his# baggage#
whereas# a# bus# passenger# can# easily# get# off# the# bus# and# retrieve# his# luggage# in# a# very#
short# period# of# time.# Verily,# ABOITIZ# cannot# categorically# claim,# through# the# bare#
expedient# of# comparing# the# period# of# time# entailed# in# getting# the# passenger's# cargoes,#
that#the#ruling#in#La'Mallorca#is#inapplicable#to#the#case#at#bar.#On#the#contrary,#if#we#are#
to# apply# the# doctrine# enunciated# therein# to# the# instant# petition,# we# cannot# in# reason#
doubt# that# the# victim# Anacleto# Viana# was# still# a# passenger# at# the# time# of# the# incident.#
When" the" accident" occurred," the" victim" was" in" the" act" of" unloading" his" cargoes,"
which"he"had"every"right"to"do,"from"ABOITIZ's"vessel."As"earlier"stated,"a"carrier"
is"duty"bound"not"only"to"bring"its"passengers"safely"to"their"destination"but"also"
to"afford"them"a"reasonable"time"to"claim"their"baggage."
It#is#not#definitely#shown#that#one#(1)#hour#prior#to#the#incident,#the#victim#had#already#
disembarked#from#the#vessel.#ABOITIZ#failed#to#prove#this.#What#is#clear#to#us#is#that#at#
the# time# the# victim# was# taking# his# cargoes,# the# vessel# had# already# docked# an# hour#
earlier.#In#consonance#with#common#shipping#procedure#as#to#the#minimum#time#of#one#
(1)#hour#allowed# for# the#passengers# to# disembark,# it# may#be#presumed# that# the# victim#
had#just#gotten#off#the#vessel#when#he#went#to#retrieve#his#baggage.#Yet,#even#if#he#had#
already#disembarked#an#hour#earlier,#his#presence#in#ABOITZ’#premises#was#not#without#
cause.#The#victim#had#to#claim#his#baggage#which#was#possible#only#one#(1)#hour#after#
the#vessel#arrived#since#it#was#admittedly#standard#procedure#in#the#case#of#ABOITIZ's#
vessels# that# the# unloading# operations# shall# start# only# after# that# time.# Consequently,#
10"
under# the# foregoing# circumstances,# the# victim# Anacleto# Viana# is# still# deemed# a#
passenger#of#said#carrier#at#the#time#of#his#tragic#death.#
II.#Under#the#law,#common#carriers#are,#from#the#nature#of#their#business#and#for#reasons#
of# public# policy,# bound# to# observe# extraordinary# diligence# in# the# vigilance# over# the#
goods# and# for# the# safety# of# the# passengers# transported# by# them,# according# to# all# the#
circumstances#of#each#case.##More#particularly,#a#common#carrier#is#bound#to#carry#the#
passengers# safely# as# far# as# human# care# and# foresight# can# provide,# using# the# utmost#
diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# a# due# regard# for# all# the# circumstances.##Thus,#
where#a#passenger#dies#or#is#injured,#the#common#carrier#is#presumed#to#have#been#at#
fault# or# to# have# acted# negligently.# This# gives# rise# to# an# action# for# breach# of# contract# of#
carriage#where#all#that#is#required#of#plaintiff#is#to#prove#the#existence#of#the#contract#of#
carriage#and#its#nonSperformance#by#the#carrier,#that#is,#the#failure#of#the#carrier#to#carry#
the#passenger#safely#to#his#destination,#which,#in#the#instant#case,#necessarily#includes#its#
failure# to# safeguard# its# passenger# with# extraordinary# diligence# while# such# relation#
subsists.#
The#presumption#is,#therefore,#established#by#law#that#in#case#of#a#passenger's#death#or#
injury# the# operator# of# the# vessel# was# at# fault# or# negligent,# having# failed# to# exercise#
extraordinary# diligence,# and# it# is# incumbent# upon# it# to# rebut# the# same.# This# is# in#
consonance# with# the# avowed# policy# of# the# State# to# afford# full# protection# to# the#
passengers# of# common# carriers# which# can# be# carried# out# only# by# imposing# a# stringent#
statutory# obligation# upon# the# latter.# Concomitantly,# this# Court# has# likewise# adopted# a#
rigid# posture# in# the# application# of# the# law# by# exacting# the# highest# degree# of# care# and#
diligence#from#common#carriers,#bearing#utmost#in#mind#the#welfare#of#the#passengers#
who#often#become#hapless#victims#of#indifferent#and#profitSoriented#carriers.#We#cannot#
in#reason#deny#that#ABOITIZ#failed#to#rebut#the#presumption#against#it.#Under#the#facts#
obtaining# in# the# present# case,# it# cannot# be# gainsaid# that# ABOITIZ# had# inadequately#
complied#with#the#required#degree#of#diligence#to#prevent#the#accident#from#happening.#
As" found" by" the" Court" of" Appeals," the" evidence" does" NOT" show" that" there" was" a"
cordon"of"drums"around"the"perimeter"of"the"crane,"as"claimed"by"ABOITIZ.#It#also#
adverted#to#the#fact#that#the#alleged#presence#of#visible#warning#signs#in#the#vicinity#was#
disputable# and# not# indubitably# established.# Thus,# we# are# not# inclined# to# accept#
ABOITIZ's# explanation# that# the# victim# and# other# passengers# were# sufficiently# warned#
that# merely# venturing# into# the# area# in# question# was# fraught# with# serious# peril.#
Definitely,#even#assuming#the#existence#of#the#supposed#cordon#of#drums#loosely#placed#
around# the# unloading# area# and# the# guard's# admonitions# against# entry# therein,# these#
were#at#most#insufficient#precautions#which#pale#into#insignificance#if#considered#visSaS
vis# the# gravity# of# the# danger# to# which# the# deceased# was# exposed.# There# is# no# showing#
that# ABOITIZ# was# extraordinarily# diligent# in# requiring# or# seeing# to# it# that# said#
precautionary#measures#were#strictly#and#actually#enforced#to#subserve#their#purpose#of#
preventing# entry# into# the# forbidden# area.# By# no# stretch# of# liberal# evaluation# can# such#
perfunctory# acts# approximate# the# "utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons"# to# be#
exercised#"as#far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide"#which#is#required#by#law#of#
common#carriers#with#respect#to#their#passengers.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
While"the"victim"was"admittedly"contributorily"negligent,"still"ABOITIZ's"aforesaid"
failure"to"exercise"extraordinary"diligence"was"the"proximate"and"direct"cause"of,"
because" it" could" definitely" have" prevented," the" former's" death.# Moreover,# in#
paragraph#5.6#of#its#petition,#at#bar,#ABOITZ#has#expressly#conceded#the#factual#finding#
of# respondent# Court# of# Appeals# that# ABOITIZ# did# not# present# sufficient# evidence# in#
support# of# its# submission# that# the# deceased# Anacleto# Viana# was# guilty# of# gross#
negligence.##
No#excepting#circumstance#being#present,#we#are#likewise#bound#by#respondent#court's#
declaration#that#there#was#no#negligence#on#the#part#of#PIONEER,#a#confirmation#of#the#
trial# court's# finding# to# that# effect,# hence# our# conformity# to# Pioneer's# being# absolved# of#
any#liability.#
As#correctly#observed#by#both#courts,#Aboitiz#joined#Pioneer#in#proving#the#alleged#gross#
negligence# of# the# victim,# hence# its# present# contention# that# the# death# of# the# passenger#
was#due#to#the#negligence#of#the#crane#operator#cannot#be#sustained#both#on#grounds,#of#
estoppel# and# for# lack# of# evidence# on# its# present# theory.# Even# in# its# answer# filed# in# the#
court#below#it#readily#alleged#that#Pioneer#had#taken#the#necessary#safeguards#insofar#as#
its#unloading#operations#were#concerned,#a#fact#which#appears#to#have#been#accepted#by#
the#plaintiff#therein#by#not#impleading#Pioneer#as#a#defendant,#and#likewise#inceptively#
by# Aboitiz# by# filing# its# thirdSparty# complaint# only# after# ten# (10)# months# from# the#
institution# of# the# suit# against# it.# Parenthetically,# Pioneer# is# not# within# the# ambit# of# the#
rule# on# extraordinary# diligence# required# of,# and# the# corresponding# presumption# of#
negligence# foisted# on,# common# carriers# like# Aboitiz.# This,# of# course,# does# not# detract#
from#what#we#have#said#that#no#negligence#can#be#imputed#to#Pioneer#but,#that#on#the#
contrary,# the# failure# of# Aboitiz# to# exercise# extraordinary# diligence# for# the# safety# of# its#
passenger#is#the#rationale#for#our#finding#on#its#liability.#
# 5#PAL#V.#CA,#226#SCRA#423*#SSUPERABLE#
PHILIPPINE"AIRLINES,"INC."v"COURT"OF"APPEALS"and"PEDRO"ZAPATOS;"
September"15,"1993"(NONS)"
KEYWORD:"diverted#PAL#plane,#had#to#disembark#in#Cotabato#instead#of#
Ozamis#
DIVISION:"First#Division#
PONENTE:#Bellosillo##
#
Common" Philippine#Airlines#
Carrier"
Passenger" Pedro#Zapatos#
Problem" Plane#can’t#land#in#Ozamis#because#of#wet#runway,#and#
proceeded#to#Cotabato.#Zapatos#was#supposed#to#disembark#
in#Ozamis.#
Who"won" Passenger#(Zapatos)#but#damages#reduced#
#
11"
#
EMERGENCY#RECIT#
Pedro#Zapatos#was#on#board#a#PAL#flight#(CebuSOzamisSCotabato)#and#he#was#
supposed#to#disembark#in#Ozamis.#However,#the#plane#can’t#land#because#of#the#
weather#conditions#so#the#plane#continued#on#to#Cotabato.#There,#the#diverted#
passengers,#including#Zapatos,#was#given#the#option#to#either#take#a#flight#
leaving#that#day#or#stay#in#Cotabato#and#wait#for#the#next#flight#2#days#from#that#
day.#Zapatos#was#not#able#to#take#the#flight.#He#demanded#priority#in#
accommodation#and#was#denied.#He#was#given#a#free#ticket#to#Iligan,#but#instead#
of#using#it,#he#bought#another#ticket#to#go#to#Iligan#and#from#there#proceeded#by#
land#and#water#to#finally#arrive#in#Ozamis.#There,#he#filed#a#complaint#for#
damages#based#on#breach#of#contract#of#carriage.#The#CFI#and#CA#ruled#in#favor#
of#Zapatos,#finding#that#PAL#was#negligent.##
#
ISSUE:#Whether#PAL#was#negligent#
#
Yes,#PAL#was#negligent.#While#it#is#true#that#the#diversion#was#due#to#inclement#
weather,#nonetheless,#such#occurrence#did#not#terminate#PAL’s#contract#with#
its#passengers.#The"contractual"relation"between"the"passenger"and"the"
carrier"continues"until"the"latter"has"been"landed"at"the"port"of"
destination"and"has"left"the"carrier’s"premises."Hence,"PAL"necessarily"
would"still"have"to"exercise"extraordinary"diligence"in"safeguarding"the"
comfort,"convenience"and"safety"of"its"stranded"passengers"until"they"
have"reached"their"final"destination.#Yet,#PAL#grossly#failed#considering#the#
then#ongoing#battle#between#government#forces#and#Muslim#rebels#in#Cotabato#
City#and#the#fact#that#the#Zapatos#was#a#stranger#to#the#place.#PAL#failed#to#
provide#comfort#and#convenience#to#Zapatos#while#he#was#stranded#in#Cotabato#
City,#which#it#should#have#done#so#as#part#of#its#contract#to#deliver#passengers#
safely#to#their#destination.#Because#of#this#PAL#is#liable.#However,#the#other#
basis#of#damages#was#deleted#because#there#was#no#sufficient#basis#for#it.##
#
#
FACTS:##
• On#August#2,#1976,#Pedro#Zapatos,#along#with#21#other#passengers,#
boarded#Philippine#Airlines#Flight#477#in#Cebu#bound#for#Ozamis#City.#
The#route#was#CebuSOzamisSCotabato.#
• When#the#flight#was#supposed#to#land#in#Ozamis,#the#pilot#learned#that#
the#airport#was#closed#due#to#heavy#rains#and#inclement#weather#15#
minutes#before#landing#in#Ozamis.#The#plane#just#proceeded#to#
Cotabato#City.#
• When#the#plane#landed#in#Cotabato,#the#passengers#were#informed#by#
the#PAL#Station#Agent#that#they#have#two#options:#(1)#go#back#to#Cebu#
on#Flight#560#on#Aug.#2#and#take#another#flight#to#Ozamis#on#Aug.#4,#OR#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
(2)#remain#in#Cotabato#and#take#the#next#available#flight#bound#for#
Ozamis#on#August#5.#
o As#for#Option#1,#the#flight#will#just#make#a#stopSover#in#Cebu.#
There#are#only#6#seats#available,#and#that#the#basis#for#priority#
would#be#the#checkSin#sequence#at#Cebu.#
• Zapatos#chose#to#go#with#Option#1#but#didn’t#make#it#to#the#list#because#
he#was#passenger#9#on#the#list.#His#demands#to#board#the#flight#went#
unheeded,#and#the#PAL#Station#Agent#stated#that#the#diversion#was#due#
to#force#majeure.##
• Zapatos#tried#to#stop#the#departure#of#Flight#560,#but#was#unable#to#do#
so.#His#belongings,#including#a#camera#for#Mrs.#Fe#Obid#of#Gingoog#City#
(from#Miwa#of#Japan)#were#on#that#flight#and#he#never#recovered#them#
(worth#P2,000.00).#
• Zapatos#was#given#a#free#ticket#to#Iligan,#but#he#received#it#under#
protest.#Zapatos#was#then#left#at#the#airport#and#could#not#hitch#a#ride#
in#the#Ford#Fiera#loaded#with#PAL#personnel.#Zapatos#never#received#
assistance—transportation,#food#or#hotel—from#PAL#while#he#was#in#
Cotabato#City.##
• On#Aug.#3,#Zapatos#bought#a#PAL#ticket#to#Iligan#City,#and#he#informed#
PAL#personnel#that#as#he’s#filing#a#case#against#them,#he#wouldn’t#use#
his#free#ticket.#To#reach#Ozamis#City,#he#hired#a#car#from#Iligan#Airport#
to#Kolambugan,#Lanao#Del#Norte#and#from#there#crossed#the#bay#using#
a#launch#and#finally#arrived#in#Ozamis.##
• A#complaint#for#damages#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage#was#filed#by#
Zapatos#against#PAL#on#Nov.#25,#1976#before#the#CFI#(now#RTC)#of#
Misamis#Occidental,#Ozamis#City.##
• On#Jan.#13,#1977,#PAL#filed#an#answer,#denying#that#it#unjustifiably#
refused#to#accommodate#Zapatos.#It#alleged#that:#
o There#were#no#more#seats#in#Flight#560#and#the#first#6#
passengers#that#checked#in#on#Flight#477#chose#to#take#Flight#
560.##
o The#Station#Agent#explained#in#a#courteous#manner#why#PAL#
can’t#accommodate#Zapatos.##
o The#other#stranded#passengers#agreed#to#avail#of#the#options#
and#had#their#respective#tickets#exchanged#for#their#onward#
trips.##
o Only#Zapatos#demanded#priority#in#accommodation#and#that#
all#the#pieces#of#checkedSin#and#hand#carry#baggages#were#
removed#from#the#plane.##
o The#reason#for#the#pilot’s#inability#to#land#at#Ozamiz#City#
airport#was#because#the#runway"was"wet"due"to"rains"thus"
posing"a"threat"to"the"safety"of"both"passengers"and"
12"
aircraft;"and"this"should"be"considered"force"majeure,"
justifying"the"landing"in"Cotabato"and"not"Ozamis.##
• On#June#4,#1981,#the#CFI#ruled#in#favor#of#Zapatos.#He#was#awarded#
P5748.00#as#actual#damages,#P50,000.00#for#moral#damages,#
P10,000.00#exemplary#damages#and#P3,000#for#attorney’s#fees.##
• The#CA,#on#appeal,#affirmed#the#CFI#decision#(on#February#28,#1985).#
#
ISSUES:#(1)#Whether#the#CA#correctly#held#that#PAL#was#negligent#when#it#was#
not#alleged#in#the#complaint;#(2)#Whether#the#award#of#damages#was#proper#
#
#
HELD:#1."YES."2."SOME,"SINCE"PAL"WAS"NEGLIGENT,"BUT"OTHER"AWARD"
OF"DAMAGES"WAS"REDUCED."WHEREFORE,#the#decision#appealed#from#is#
AFFIRMED#with#modification#however#that#the#award#of#moral#damages#of#Fifty#
Thousand#Pesos#(P50,000.00)#is#reduced#to#Ten#Thousand#Pesos#(P10,000.00)#
while#the#exemplary#damages#of#Ten#Thousand#Pesos#(P10,000.00)#is#also#
reduced#to#Five#Thousand#Pesos#(P5,000.00).#The#award#of#actual#damages#in#
the#amount#of#Five#Thousand#Pesos#(P5,000.00)#representing#business#losses#
occasioned#by#private#respondent’s#being#stranded#in#Cotabato#City#is#deleted.#
#
RATIO:#
1."On"PAL’s"negligence"not"being"alleged"in"the"complaint"
• PAL’s#contention#that#its#negligence#(failure#to#attend#to#the#needs#of#
the#diverted#passengers,#and#the#denial#of#the#demand#for#priority)#was#
not#put#in#issue#in#the#complaint#is#wrong.##
• The#amended#complaint#touched#on#PAL’s#indifference#and#inattention#
to#his#predicament.#It#was#alleged#that#PAL#allowed#other#passengers#
to#take#Zapatos’#seat#in#the#PAL#plane#bound#for#Cebu,#leaving#him#
stranded#and#exposed#to#the#peril#and#danger#of#Muslim#rebels#
plundering#at#the#time,#which#entitles#Zapatos#to#damages.##
• According#to#Zapatos’#testimony:#
o He#was#the#last#passenger#left#in#the#terminal,#and#that#he#can’t#
find#transportation#to#bring#him#to#Cotabato#City.#He#was#able#
to#find#a#vehicle#at#around#7pm#which#brought#him#to#the#city.#
He#was#asked#who#he#was#and#what#he#was#doing#there.##
o According#to#his#conversation#with#the#manager,#the#manager#
told#him#that#it#was#not#their#fault#that#he#was#stranded.#After#
a#while,#he#saw#a#Ford#Fiera#loaded#with#PAL#personnel#and#he#
stopped#the#vehicle#to#ask#for#a#ride#to#Cotabato#City.#He#was#
not#accommodated.##
• (EVIDENCE#related)#PAL#did#not#object#to#the#introduction#of#evidence#
alleging#that#it#was#negligent#in#caring#for#its#stranded#passengers.#The#
rule#is#that#objection#must#be#made#at#the#time#the#evidence#being#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
objected#to#is#being#offered#or#when#the#question#to#the#witness#is#
being#asked/when#it#was#being#answered.#There#being#no#objection,#
such#evidence#becomes#property#of#the#case#and#all#the#parties#are#
amenable#to#any#favorable#or#unfavorable#effects#resulting#from#the#
evidence.#
• PAL#tried#to#rebut#the#testimony#(that#PAL#actually#helped#Zapatos!)#
but#it#failed#to#do#so.#In#fact,#Zapatos#was#able#to#state#that#PAL#did#not#
even#try#to#accommodate#him#while#he#was#in#Cotabato#City.###
• Having#joined#in#the#issue#over#the#alleged#lack#of#care#it#exhibited#
towards#its#passengers,#PAL#cannot#now#turn#around#and#feign#
surprise#at#the#outcome#of#the#case.#When#issues#not#raised#by#the#
pleadings#are#tried#by#express#or#implied#consent#of#the#parties,#they#
shall#be#treated#in#all#respects#as#if#they#had#been#raised#in#the#
pleadings.#
# had#to#wait#for#the#next#flight.#
2."On"the"damages"awarded"(and"common"carrier"related)"
• PAL#asserts#that#the#award#of#damages#was#improper.#
o The#diversion#of#the#flight#was#due#to#fortuitous#event,#thus#it#
was#not#charged#with#the#task#of#looking#after#the#passengers’#
comfort#and#convenience.#If#it#was#made#liable,#it#was#beyond#
its#duties#as#a#common#carrier.##
o Even#if#PAL#was#negligent,#PAL#cannot#be#liable#in#damages#in#
the#absence#of#fraud#or#bad#faith#since#(1)#Zapatos#failed#to#tell#
PAL#the#nature#of#his#trip#and#possible#business#losses;#and,#
(1)#Zapatos#should#be#blamed#because#he#unreasonably#
refused#to#use#the#free#ticket.#
• The#contract#of#air#carriage#is#a#peculiar#one.#Being#imbued#with#public#
interest,#the#law#requires#common#carriers#to#carry#the#passengers#
safely#as#far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide,#using#the#utmost#
diligence#of#very#cautious#persons,#with#due#regard#for#all#the#
circumstances.##
• In#Air'France'v.'Carrascoso,#the#SC#held#that#the#air#carrier#generates#a#
relation#attended#with#a#public#duty,#and#as#it'invites#people#to#avail#of#
the#comforts#and#advantages#it#offers.##
• While#it#is#true#that#the#diversion#was#due#to#inclement#weather,#
nonetheless,#such#occurrence#did#not#terminate#PAL’s#contract#with#its#
passengers.#Being#in#the#business#of#air#carriage#and#the#sole#one#to#
operate#in#the#country,#PAL#is#deemed#equipped#to#deal#with#situations#
as#in#the#case#at#bar.##
• The"contractual"relation"between"the"passenger"and"the"carrier"
continues"until"the"latter"has"been"landed"at"the"port"of"
destination"and"has"left"the"carrier’s"premises."Hence,"PAL"
necessarily"would"still"have"to"exercise"extraordinary"diligence"in"
13"
safeguarding"the"comfort,"convenience"and"safety"of"its"stranded"
passengers"until"they"have"reached"their"final"destination.##
• Yet,#PAL#grossly#failed#considering#the#then#ongoing#battle#between#
government#forces#and#Muslim#rebels#in#Cotabato#City#and#the#fact#that#
the#Zapatos#was#a#stranger#to#the#place.##
• As#the#CA#correctly#ruled,#it#has#not#been#disputed#by#PAL#that#Ozamis#
City#has#no#allweather#airport#and#has#to#cancel#its#flight#to#Ozamis#City#
or#bySpass#it#in#the#event#of#inclement#weather.##
o Knowing#this#fact,#it#becomes#the#duty#of#defendant#to#provide#
all#means#of#comfort#and#convenience#to#its#passengers#when#
they#would#have#to#be#left#in#a#strange#place#in#case#of#such#byS
passing.##
o No#evidence#was#presented#that#PAL#accommodated#the#7#
passengers#who#were#left#at#Cotabato#City#for#the#2#days#they#
o If#the#cause#of#nonSfulfillment#of#the#contract#is#due#to#a#
fortuitous#event,#it#has#to#be#the#sole#and#only#cause#(Art.#1755#
C.C.,#Art.#1733#C.C.)#Since"part"of"the"failure"to"comply"with"
the"obligation"of"common"carrier"to"deliver"its"passengers"
safely"to"their"destination"lay"in"PAL’s"failure"to"provide"
comfort"and"convenience"to"its"stranded"passengers"using"
extraaordinary"diligence,"the"cause"of"nonafulfillment"is"
not"solely"and"exclusively"due"to"fortuitous"event,"but"due"
to"something"which"PAL"could"have"prevented,"PAL"
becomes"liable"to"Zapatos."
• However,#there’s#no#basis#that#PAL#failed#to#inform#Zapatos#about#the#
fact#that#he#can’t#take#Flight#560.#It#was#proved#that#based#on#the#
report#that#the#Station#Agent#submitted#to#his#Branch#Manager#in#
Cotabato#City#on#Aug.#3,#1975#that#Zapatos#was#informed#of#PAL’s#
policies#on#his#nonSaccommodation.##
• The#report#an#entry#in#the#course#of#business#is#prima'facie#evidence#of#
the#facts#therein#stated.#Zapatos#did#not#offer#any#evidence#that#would#
have#controverted#the#report.#Also,#if#it#was#true#that#PAL#omitted#to#
inform#the#diverted#passengers#of#their#options,#the#other#passengers#
would#have#complained.#In#this#case,#only#Zapatos#complained.##
• Also,#it#should#be#noted#that#Zapatos’#demand#to#be#given#priority#in#
accommodation#was#unreasonable#considering#that#it#was#force#
majeure#that#caused#the#flight’s#diversion.#This#unreasonable#demand#
also#led#to#his#staying#longer#in#the#airport#than#necessary.#According#
to#his#testimony,#by#the#time#that#he#finished#arguing#with#the#PAL#
personnel,#he#was#the#only#one#left#out#of#16#passengers#who#had#to#
stay#in#Cotabato#City.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• There’s#also#no#evidence#to#support#that#PAL#employees#were#
disrespectful#and#inattentive#towards#Zapatos.#On#the#contrary,#
Zapatos#was#attended#to#not#only#by#the#personnel#of#PAL#but#also#by#
its#Manager.#
• Because#of#this,#the#award#of#P50,000.00#(unreasonably#excessive!)#in#
moral#damages#was#reduced#to#P10,000.00,#and#the#award#of##P10,000#
in#exemplary#damages#was#reduced#to#P5,000.00.#
• Moral#damages#are#not#intended#to#enrich#Zapatos.#They#are#awarded#
only#to#enable#the#injured#party#to#obtain#means,#diversion#or#
amusements#that#will#serve#to#alleviate#the#moral#suffering#he#has#
undergone#by#reason#of#the#defendant’s#culpable#action.#
• The#actual#damages#of#P5,000.00#representing#Zapatos’#alleged#
business#losses#due#to#his#stay#in#Cotabato#City#is#also#baseless.#
Zapatos’#testimony#that#he#had#a#scheduled#business#“transaction#of#
shark#liver#oil#supposedly#to#have#been#consummated#on#August#3,#
1975#in#the#morning”#and#that#“since#(private#respondent)#was#out#for#
nearly#two#weeks#I#missed#to#buy#about#10#barrels#of#shark#liver#oil,”#
are#purely#speculative.##
• Actual#or#compensatory#damages#cannot#be#presumed#but#must#be#
duly#proved#with#reasonable#degree#of#certainty.#A#court#cannot#rely#
on#speculation,#conjecture#or#guesswork#as#to#the#fact#and#amount#of#
damages,#but#must#depend#upon#competent#proof#that#they#have#
suffered#and#on#evidence#of#the#actual#amount#thereof.#
#
# 6#JAPAN#AIRLINES#V.#CA,#294#SCRA#19#–TANDOC#
Doctrine:'Adverse'weather'conditions'or'extreme'climatic'changes'are'some'of'the'perils'
involved' in' air' travel,' the' consequences' of' which' the' passenger' must' assume' or' expect.''
After'all,'common'carriers'are'not'the'insurer'of'all'risks'
Common"Carrier" Japan#Air#Lines#
Passenger" Enrique# Agana,# Maria# Angela# Nina# Agana,# Adelia# Francisco# and#
Jose#Miranda#
Problem" The# 2nd# leg# of# the# flight# from# JapanSManila# kept# getting# cancelled#
coz#NAIA#was#inaccessible#due#to#the#ash#fall#from#the#eruption#of#
Mt.#Pinatubo.#After#a#few#days,#JAL#refused#to#pay#for#the#hotel#and#
accommodation#expense#of#passengers#during#their#stay#in#Narita#
Japan.#
Who"won" JAL#was#not#held#liable#for#the#passengers’#living#expenses#while#in#
Japan.# But# JAL# was# liable# for# nominal# damages# coz# passengers#
were# obliged# to# make# the# necessary# flight# arrangements#
themselves#
14"
EMERGENCY:""
On# June# 13,# 1991,# Jose# Miranda,# et# al# rode# on# an# airplane# operated# by# Japan# Air# Lines#
(JAL).##The#flight#was#from#United#States#to#Manila#with#an#overnight#stopover#in#Narita,#
Japan.#JAL#bound#itself#to#pay#the#expenses#for#the#overnight#stay#in#Japan.#They#arrived#
in#Japan#on#June#14.#The#next#day,#they#went#to#the#airport#to#take#their#flight#to#Manila.#
However,#due#to#the#eruption#of#Mt.#Pinatubo,#NAIA#was#inaccessible#due#to#the#ash#fall.#
The# trip# to# Manila# was# suspended# indefinitely.# Their# flight# was# rebooked# to# June# 16.#
However,#to#their#dismay,#the#said#flight#was#cancelled.#JAL#also#informed#Miranda,#et#al#
that# it# would# not# shoulder# anymore# their# hotel# and# accommodation# expenses.# Hence#
they#were#forced#to#pay#said#expenses#which#they#incurred#from#June#16S21.#
1. W/on# JAL# should# be# held# liable# for# their# living# expenses# during# their#
unexpected# stay# in# Narita# since# airlines# have# the# obligation# to# ensure# the#
comfort#and#convenience#of#its#passengers.#Nope#
S# Accordingly,# there# is# no# question# that# when# a# party# is# unable# to# fulfill# his# obligation#
because#of#“force#majeure,”#the#general#rule#is#that#he#cannot#be#held#liable#for#damages#
for# nonSperformance.# Corollarily,# when# JAL# was# prevented# from# resuming# its# flight# to#
Manila# due# to# the# effects# of# Mt.# Pinatubo# eruption,# whatever# losses# or# damages# in# the#
form#of#hotel#and#meal#expenses#the#stranded#passengers#incurred,#cannot#be#charged#to#
JAL.##Yet#it#is#undeniable#that#JAL#assumed#the#hotel#expenses#of#respondents#for#their#
unexpected#overnight#stay#on#June#15,#1991.#
2.#W/on#JAL#should#be#totally#absolved#from#any#liability?##
Nope.#Nominal#damage#will#be#given#to#the#private#respondents#for#JAL’s#failure#to#look#
after# the# comfort# and# convenience# of# its# passengers# when# it# declassified# private#
respondents#from#“transit#passengers”#to#“new#passengers”##as#a#result#of#which#private#
respondents#were#obliged#to#make#the#necessary#arrangements#themselves#for##the#next#
flight#to#Manila##
COMPLETE"
FACTS:"
On#June#13,#1991,#private#respondent#Jose#Miranda#boarded#JAL#flight#No.#JL#001#in#San#
Francisco,#California#bound#for#Manila.###
On# the# same# day# private# respondents# Enrique# Agana,# Maria# Angela# Nina# Agana# and#
Adelia#Francisco#left#Los#Angeles,#California#for#Manila#via#JAL#flight#No.#JL#061.##(private#
respondents#for#brevity)#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
As#an#incentive#for#travelling#on#the#said#airline,#both#flights#were#to#make#an#overnight#
stopover# at# Narita,# Japan,# at# the# airlines’# expense,# thereafter# proceeding# to# Manila# the#
following#day.#
Upon# arrival# at# Narita,# Japan# on# June# 14,# 1991,# private# respondents# were# billeted# at#
Hotel#Nikko#Narita#for#the#night.###
The#next#day,#private#respondents,#on#the#final#leg#of#their#journey,#went#to#the#airport#to#
take#their#flight#to#Manila.###
However," due" to" the" Mt." Pinatubo" eruption," unrelenting" ashfall" blanketed" Ninoy"
Aquino" International" Airport" (NAIA)," rendering" it" inaccessible" to" airline" traffic.""
Hence,"private"respondents’"trip"to"Manila"was"cancelled"indefinitely."
To# accommodate# the# needs# of# its# stranded# passengers,# JAL" rebooked" all" the" Manilaa
bound" passengers#on#flight#No.#741#due#to#depart#on#June#16,#1991#and#also#paid#for#
the#hotel#expenses#for#their#unexpected#overnight#stay.#"
#On#June#16,#1991,#much#to#the#dismay#of#the#private#respondents,#their#long#anticipated#
flight#to#Manila#was#again"cancelled"due#to#NAIA’s#indefinite#closure.#
""At"this"point,"JAL"informed"the"private"respondents"that"it"would"no"longer"defray"
their"hotel"and"accommodation"expense"during"their"stay"in"Narita."
Since# NAIA# was# only# reopened# to# airline# traffic# on# June# 22,# 1991,# private# respondents#
were# forced# to# pay# for# their# accommodations# and# meal# expenses# from# their# personal#
funds#from#June#16#to#June#21,#1991.##Their#unexpected#stay#in#Narita#ended#on#June#22,#
1991#when#they#arrived#in#Manila#on#board#JL#flight#No.#741.#
ISSUES:#
1. WON" JAL" should" be" held" liable" for" their" living" expenses" during" their"
unexpected"stay"in"Narita"since"airlines"have"the"obligation"to"ensure"the"
comfort"and"convenience"of"its"passengers?"Nope"
2. WON" JAL" should" be" totally" absolved" from" any" liability?" Nope.# Nominal#
damage#will#be#given#to#the#private#respondents#for#JAL’s#failure#to#look#after#
the# comfort# and# convenience# of# its# passengers# when# it# declassified# private#
respondents# from# “transit# passengers”# to# “new# passengers”# # as# a# result# of#
which#private#respondents#were#obliged#to#make#the#necessary#arrangements#
themselves#for##the#next#flight#to#Manila##
RATIO:#
1.#We#are#not#unmindful#of#the#fact#that#in#a#plethora#of#cases#we#have#consistently#ruled#
that# a# contract# to# transport# passengers# is# quite# different# in# kind# and# degree# from# any#
15"
other# contractual# relation.# # It# is# safe# to# conclude# that# it# is# a# # relationship# imbued# with#
public# interest.# # Failure# on# the# part# of# the# common# carrier# to# live# up# to# # the# exacting#
standards#of##care#and#diligence#renders#it#liable#for#any#damages#that#may#be#sustained#
by# its# passengers.# # However,# this# is# not# to# say# that# common# carriers# are# absolutely#
responsible# for# all# injuries# or# damages# even# if# the# same# were# caused# by# a# fortuitous#
event.##To#rule#otherwise#would#render#the#defense#of#“force#majeure,”#as#an#exception#
from#any#liability,#illusory#and#ineffective.#
Accordingly,# there# is# no# question# that# when# a# party# is# unable# to# fulfill# his# obligation#
because#of#“force#majeure,”#the#general#rule#is#that#he#cannot#be#held#liable#for#damages#
for# nonSperformance.# Corollarily,# when# JAL# was# prevented# from# resuming# its# flight# to#
Manila# due# to# the# effects# of# Mt.# Pinatubo# eruption,# whatever# losses# or# damages# in# the#
form#of#hotel#and#meal#expenses#the#stranded#passengers#incurred,#cannot#be#charged#to#
JAL.##Yet#it#is#undeniable#that#JAL#assumed#the#hotel#expenses#of#respondents#for#their#
unexpected#overnight#stay#on#June#15,#1991.#
Admittedly,# to# be# stranded# for# almost# a# week# in# a# foreign# land# was# an# exasperating#
experience#for#the#private#respondents.##To#be#sure,#they#underwent#distress#and#anxiety#
during#their#unanticipated#stay#in#Narita,#but#their#predicament#was#not#due#to#the#fault#
or#negligence#of#JAL#but#the#closure#of#NAIA#to#international#flights.###Indeed,#to#hold#JAL,#
in# the# absence# of# bad# faith# or# negligence,# liable# for# the# amenities# of# its# stranded#
passengers#by#reason#of#a#fortuitous#event#is#too#much#of#a#burden#to#assume.#
Furthermore," it" has" been" held" that" airline" passengers" must" take" such" risks"
incident" to" the" mode" of" travel." In" this" regard," adverse" weather" conditions" or"
extreme" climatic" changes" are" some" of" the" perils" involved" in" air" travel," the"
consequences"of"which"the"passenger"must"assume"or"expect.""After"all,"common"
carriers"are"not"the"insurer"of"all"risks."
2.# We# are# not# prepared,# however,# to# completely# # absolve# petitioner# JAL# from# any#
liability.#It#must#be#noted#that#private#respondents#bought#tickets#from#the#United#States#
with# Manila# as# their# final# destination.# While" JAL" was" no" longer" required" to" defray"
private"respondents’"living"expenses"during"their"stay"in"Narita"on"account"of"the"
fortuitous" event," JAL" had" the" duty" to" make" the" necessary" " " arrangements" to"
transport" private" respondents" on" the" first" available" connecting" flight" to" Manila.#
Petitioner#JAL#reneged#on#its#obligation#to#look#after#the#comfort#and#convenience#of#its#
passengers#when#it#declassified#private#respondents#from#“transit#passengers”#to#“new#
passengers”# # as# a# result# of# which# private# respondents# were# obliged# to# make# the#
necessary#arrangements#themselves#for##the#next#flight#to#Manila.##Private"respondents"
were"placed"on"the"waiting""list""from"June"20"to"June"24.""To"assure"themselves"of"
a"seat"on"an"available""flight,"they""were"compelled"to"stay"in"the"airport"the"whole"
day" of" June" 22," 1991" and" it" was" only" at" 8:00" p.m." of" the" aforesaid" date" that" they"
were"advised"that"they"could"be"accommodated"in"said"flight"which"flew"at"about"
9:00"a.m."the"next"day.#
We#are#not#oblivious#to#the#fact#that#the#cancellation#of#JAL#flights#to#Manila#from#June#
15# to# June# 21,# 1991# caused# considerable# disruption# in# passenger# booking# and#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
reservation.##In#fact,#it#would#be#unreasonable#to#expect,#considering#NAIA’s#closure,#that#
JAL#flight#operations#would#be#normal#on#the#days#affected.#Nevertheless,#this#does#not#
excuse#JAL#from#its#obligation#to#make#the#necessary#arrangements#to#transport#private#
respondents#on#its#first#available#flight#to#Manila.#After#all,#it#had#a#contract#to#transport#
private#respondents#from#the#United#States#to#Manila#as#their#final#destination.#
Consequently,# the# award# of# nominal# damages# is# in# order.# # Nominal# damages# are#
adjudicated#in#order#that#a#right#of#a#plaintiff,#which#has#been#violated#or#invaded#by#the#
defendant,#may#be#vindicated#or#recognized#and#not#for#the#purpose#of#indemnifying#any#
loss#suffered#by#him.#The#court#may#award#nominal#damages#in#every#obligation#arising#
from#any#source#enumerated#in#Article#1157,#or#in#every#case#where#any#property#right#
has#been#invaded.#
# 7#BACHELOR#EXPRESS,#INC.#V.#CA,#188#SCRA#216*#STIU#
Doctrine:" In'order'that'a'common'carrier'may'be'absolved'from'liability'in'case'of'force'
majeure,' it' is' not' enough' that' the' accident' was' caused' by' force' majeure.' The' common'
carrier'must'still'prove'that'it'was'not'negligent'in'causing'the'injuries'resulting'from'such'
accident.##
Rephrased:# A' common' carrier' must' prove' both' force' majeure' and' extraordinary'
diligence'to'avoid'liability.#
Common"Carrier" Bachelor#Express#
Passenger" Ornominio#and#Narcisa#
Problem" Stabbing# incident# inside# the# bus,# leading# to# a# commotion# and# a#
stampede,#killing#Ornomio#and#Narcisa#in#the#proce#
Who"won" Passengers#(heirs)#
" and#that#presumably'out#of#fear#and#moved#by#that#human#instinct#of#selfSpreservation,#
ER:# Ornominio# and# Narcisa# were# passengers# in# a# bus# by# Bachelor# Express# en# route# to#
Cagayan#de#Oro.#While#the#bus#was#in#Butuan,#it#picked#up#a#passenger#and#15#minutes#
thereafter,# one# of# its# other# passengers# stabbed# a# PC# soldier,# causing# commotion# and#
panic.#The#other#passengers#pushed#and#shoved#their#way#out#of#the#lone#exit#of#the#bus#
and# Ornominio# and# Narcisa# died# as# a# result# of# this# stampede.# The# heirs# of# Ornominio#
and# Narcisa# filed# a# complaint# for# a# sum# of# money# against# Bachelor# and# driver# Rivera.#
The# RTC,# siding# with# Bachelor# that# the# incident# was# a# fortuitous# event,# dismissed# the#
complaint.# The# CA# reversed# and# held# Bachelor# and# Rivera# solidarily# liable,# prompting#
the#latter#to#elevate#the#case#to#the#SC.#Can"Bachelor"be"held"liable?"Yes."The#SC#agreed#
with#Bachelor#that#the#stabbing#was#a#fortuitous#event,#but#ruled#that#a#fortuitous#event,#
alone,# is# not# enough# to# absolve# a# common# carrier# from# liability# –# the# common# carrier#
must#also#show#that#it#exercised#extraordinary#diligence#under#the#circumstances.#Here,#
The# SC# agreed# with# the# findings# of# the# CA# that# 1)# the# bus# driver# did# not# immediately#
stop#the#bus#at#the#height#of#the#commotion;#2)#the#bus#was#speeding#from#a#full#stop;#3)#
the# victims# fell# from# the# bus# door# when# it# was# opened# or# gave# way# while# the# bus# was#
still# running;# 4)# the# conductor# panicked# and# blew# his# whistle# after# people# had# already#
fallen#off#the#bus;#5)#and#the#bus#was#not#properly#equipped#with#doors#in#accordance#
16"
with# law.# Thus,# Bachelor# failed# to# overcome# the# presumption# of# fault# and# negligence#
found#in#the#law.#Passengers#win.#
COMPLETE"
Facts:#On#1#August#1930,#Bus"No."800#owned#by#Bachelor#Express,#Inc."(Bachelor)"and#
driven#by#Cresencio#Rivera#(Rivera)#was#the#situs#of#a#stampede,#resulting#in#the#death#
of#passengers#Ornominio#Beter#and#Narcisa#Rautraut.#
S#The#bus#came#from#Davao#on#its#way#to#Cagayan#de#Oro.#While#passing#through#Butuan#
City,# the# bus# picked# up# a# passenger.# About# 15# minutes# later,# a# passenger# at# the# rear"
portion# suddenly# stabbed# a# PC# soldier,# causing# commotion# and# panic# among# the#
passengers.#When#the#bus#stopped,#passengers#Ornominio#and#Narcisa#were#found#lying#
down#the#road#dead.#The#passenger#assailant#tried#to#escape#but#was#killed#by#the#police.##
S# The# heirs# (parents)# of# Ornominio# and# Narcisa,# filed# a# complaint# for# sum# of# money#
against#Bachelor,#its#alleged#owner#Samson#Yasay,#and#driver#Rivera.#
S#Bachelor#denied#liability#for#the#death#the#passengers,#arguing#that#Rivera#was#able#to#
transport# his# passengers# safely# to# their# respective# places# of# destination# except#
Ornominio# and# Narcisa,# who# jumped# off# the# bus# without# the# knowledge# and# consent,#
much#less,#the#fault#of#the#driver#and#conductor.#Moreover,#the#incident#was#not#a#traffic#
or#vehicular#accident,#such#that#it#was#beyond#Bachelor’s#control.##
S# The# trial# court# dismissed# the# complaint,# but# the# CA# reversed# and# held# Bachelor# and#
Rivera#solidarily#liable.#
S# Bachelor# appealed# and# maintained# that# that# proximate# cause# was# the# act# of# the#
passenger# who# ran# amuck# and# stabbed# another# passenger# of# the# bus.# The# stabbing#
incident# triggered# off# the# commotion# among# the# passengers# who# pushed# one# another#
Narcisa#and#Ornominio#jumped#off#the#bus#while#the#bus#was#still#running#resulting#in#
their#untimely#death.#
Issue:" Was" the" stabbing" a" fortuitous" event?" In" the" affirmative," did" Bachelor"
exercise"extraordinary"diligence?"Yes"and"no."
Held:#(1)#In#case#of#death#of#or#injuries#to#passengers,#common#carriers#are#presumed#to#
have# been# at# fault# or# to# have# acted# negligently,# unless# they# prove# that# they# observed#
extraordinary#diligence#as#prescribed#in#Articles#1733#and#1755.#
!# Here,# Ornominio# and# Narcisa# were# passengers# of# Bachelor# and,# while# passengers#
therein,#suffered#injuries#which#caused#their#death.#Consequently,#Bachelor#is'presumed#
to# have# acted# negligently# unless# it# can# prove# that# it# had# observed# extraordinary#
diligence.#
#(2)# Except# in# cases# expressly# specified# by# law,# or# when# it# is# otherwise# declared# by#
stipulations,# or# when# the# nature# of# the# obligation# requires# the# assumption# of# risk,# no#
person# shall# be# responsible# for# those# events# which# could# not# be# foreseen,# or# which#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
though#foreseen,#were#inevitable.#
S#A#caso#fortuito#presents#the#following#essential#characteristics:#(1)#The#cause#
of#the#unforeseen#and#unexpected#occurrence,#or#of#the#failure#of#the#debtor#to#
comply#with#his#obligation,#must#be#independent#of#the#human#will.#(2)#It#must#
be#impossible#to#foresee#the#event#which#constitutes#the#caso#fortuito,#or#if#it#
can# be# foreseen,# it# must# be# impossible# to# avoid.# (3)# The# occurrence# must# be#
such# as# to# render# it# impossible# for# the# debtor# to# fulfill# his# obligation# in# a#
normal# manner.# And# (4)# the# obligor# (debtor)# must# be# free# from# any#
participation#in#the#aggravation#of#the#injury#resulting#to#the#creditor.##
S#Some#extraordinary#circumstance#independent#of#the#will#of#the#obligor#or#of#
his#employees#is#an#essential#element#of#a#caso#fortuito.##
!#Here,#the#running#amuck#of#the#passenger#was#the#proximate#cause#of#the#incident#as#
it#triggered#off#panic#among#the#passengers#such#that#the#passengers#started#running#to#
the#sole#exit#shoving#each#other,#resulting#in#the#falling#off#the#bus#by#passengers#Narcisa#
and#Ornominio#causing#them#fatal#injuries.#The#sudden#act#of#the#passenger#who#stabbed#
another#passenger#in#the#bus#is#within#the#context#of#force'majeure.#
#(4)# [IMPORTANT]# However,# in# order# that# a# common# carrier# may# be# absolved# from#
liability#in#case#of#force'majeure,#it#is#not#enough#that#the#accident#was#caused#by#force'
majeure.# The# common# carrier# must# still# prove# that# it# was# not# negligent# in# causing# the#
injuries#resulting#from#such#accident.##
S#For#the#defense#of#force#majeure#or#act#of#God#to#prosper,#the#accident#must#
be#due#to#natural#causes#and#exclusively'without'human'intervention.#
!# Here,# as# found# by# the# CA,# the# negligence# of# Bachelor,# through# its# employees,# was#
exemplified#by#the#driver's#belated#stop#and#the#reckless#opening#of#the#doors#of#the#bus#
while# the# same# was# travelling# at# an# appreciably# fast# speed.# At# the# same# time,# the#
common# carrier# itself# acknowledged,# through# its# administrative# officer,# Granada,# that#
the# bus# was# commissioned# to# travel# and# take# on# passengers# and# the# public# at# large,#
while# equipped# with# only# a# solitary# door# for# a# bus# its# size# and# loading# capacity,# in#
contravention#of#rules#and#regulations#provided#for#under#the#Land#Transportation#and#
Traffic#Code.#
!# The# lower# court# concluded# that# the# door# of# the# bus# was# closed;# secondly,# the# two#
deceased,#jumped#out#of#the#window,#leading#it#to#conclude#that#Bachelor#is#not#liable#for#
their# deaths.# But# there# is# nothing# in# the# record# to# support# the# conclusion# that# the#
solitary#door#of#the#bus#was#locked#as#to#prevent#the#passengers#from#passing#through.#
Cullano,# testifying# for# the# defense,# clearly# stated# that# the# conductor# opened# the# door#
when#the#passengers#were#shouting#that#the#bus#stop#while#they#were#in#a#state#of#panic.#
Beter#categorically#stated#that#she#actually#saw#her#son#fall#from#the#bus#as#the#door#was#
forced#open#by#the#force#of#the#onrushing#passengers.#
# 8#FORTUNE#EXPRESS,#INC.#V.#CA,#305#SCRA#14#–PUNO#
17"
Fortune" Express," Inc." v." Court" of" Appeals," Paulie" U." Caorong," and" minor" children"
Yasser" King" Caorong," Rose" Heinni" and" Prince" Alexander," all" surnamed" Caorong,"
and"represented"by"their"mother"Paulie"U."Caorong"
G.R.#NO.#119756#18#March#1999#
Mendoza,#J.##
Key#Words:#Ambush#of#Bus,#Passenger#died,#Carrier#liable#
#
Doctrine:#a'common'carrier'is'responsible'for'injuries'suffered'by'a'passenger'on'account'
of' the' willful' acts' of' other' passengers,* if* the* employees* of* the* common* carrier* could*
have*prevented*the*act*the*exercise*of*the*diligence*of*a*good*father*of*a*family.*
"
Common"Carrier" Fortune#Express#Inc.#
Passenger" Atty.#Talib#Caorong#(deceased#passenger,#represented#by#Heirs)#
Problem" 3# armed# Maranaos# pretended# to# be# passengers# &# seized# the# bus.#
Passengers# were# allowed# to# step# out.# Maranaos# then# started#
pouring# gasoline# inside# the# bus.# Atty.# Caorong# went# back# to# the#
bus#to#retrieve#something.#He#saw#that#they#were#pouring#gasoline#
over#the#driver.#He#pleaded#for#them#to#stop.#He#was#shot.#
Who"won" Passenger#(Heirs)#
#
EMERGENCY"RECIT"
Atty.#Talib#Caorong,#37#years#old,#a#lawyer#of#the#Department#of#Agrarian#Reform,#was#
killed#in#an#ambush#of#the#Fortune#Express#bus#where#he#was#a#passenger.#Heirs#filed#a#
complaint#for#damages#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage.#They#claimed#that#Fortune#did#
not# exercise# the# required# degree# of# diligence# as# a# common# carrier.# The# RTC# ruled# in#
favour# of# Fortune.# The# CA# reversed.# The# SC# decided# that# there# was# a# breach# of# the#
contract#of#carriage,#the#ambush#was#not#a#case#of#Force#Majeure,#Atty.#Caorong#was#not#
guilty# of# contributory# negligence# and# that# Fortune# was# liable# for# damages.# The# bus#
company#knew#of#the#threats#but#did#not#do#anything#to#protect#its#passengers.#It#did#not#
exercise#the#required#degree#of#diligence#mandated#by#law.#
#
FACTS"
On#18#November#1989,#a#Fortune#Bus#met#an#accident#with#a#jeep#in#Kauswagan#Lanao#
Del# Norte# which# resulted# to# the# death# of# several# passengers# including# two# Maranaos.#
Upon# investigation,# Crisanto# Generalao,# a# volunteer# field# agent# of# the# Constabulary#
Regional#Security#Unit#No.#10#found#out#that#the#driver#of#the#jeep#was#a#Maranao#and#
that#certain#Maranaos#were#planning#to#take#revenge#on#Fortune#by#burning#some#of#its#
buses.#He#reported#this#to#Diosdado#Bravo,#Operations#Manager#of#Fortune,#who#assured#
him#that#the#necessary#precautions#to#insure#the#safety#of#lives#and#property#were#taken.#
#
Four# days# later,# three" armed" Maranaos" pretended" to" be" passengers" and" seized"
another"Fortune"bus"where"Atty."Caorong"was"a"passenger.#The#leader#of#the#group#
ordered#that#the#bus#be#stopped#on#the#side#of#the#highway#then#shot#the#driver#on#the#
arm#so#that#he#slumped#in#the#driver’s#seat.#The#passengers#were#allowed#to#step#out#of#
the# bus# and# go# to# the# bushes# some# distance# from# the# highway.# The" Maranaos" then"
started"pouring"gasoline"inside"the"bus.#
#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 18"
#
Atty."Caorong"went"back"to"the"bus"to"retrieve"something"from"the"overhead"rack." The#seizure#of#the#bus#by#the#armed#assailants#was#NOT#a#fortuitous#event.##
At"that"time"Atty."Caorong"saw"that"one"man"was"pouring"gasoline"over"the"driver" #
and"he"pleaded"with"the"man"not"to"burn"the"driver."During"this"time,"the"driver" Art.#1174#of#the#Civil#Code#defines#a#fortuitous#even#as#an#occurrence#which#could#not#be#
was"able"to"climb"out"of"the"window"but"Atty."Caorong"was"already"shot."The"bus" foreseen#or#which#though#foreseen,#is#inevitable.##To#be#considered#as#force#majeure,#it#is#
was"then"burned." necessary#that:##
# (1) the# cause# of# the# breach# of# the# obligation# must# be# independent# of#
Some#passengers#were#able#to#pull#Atty.#Caorong#out#of#the#burning#bus#and#rush#him#to# thehuman#will;##
Mercy#Community#Hospital#in#Iligan#City.#He"died"while"undergoing"operation." (2) the#event#must#be#either#unforeseeable#or#unavoidable;#
# (3) the#occurrence#must#be#such#as#to#render#it#impossible#for#the#debtor#
RTC:"Favored"Fortune"Bus" to#fulfill#the#obligation#in#a#normal#manner;#and##
Heirs# filed# a# suit# for# breach# of# contract# of# carriage# with# the# RTC# Iligan# City.# The# Trial# (4) the# obligor# must# be# free# of# participation# in,# or# aggravation# of,# the#
court#dismissed#the#complaint#saying#that#the#law#does#not#require#common#carriers#to# injury#to#the#creditor.###
install# security# guards# in# its# buses# for# the# protection# and# safety# of# its# passengers.# The# The# absence# of# any# of# the# requisites# mentioned# above# would# prevent# the#
diligence#demanded#by#law#does#not#include#the#posting#of#security#guards#in#buses.#It#is# obligor#from#being#excused#from#liability.#(Yobido#v#CA)#
an#obligation#that#properly#belongs#to#the#State.## #
# For# example,# a# common# carrier# was# liable# for# its# failure# to# take# the# necessary#
It#classified#the#death#of#Atty.#Caorong#as#an#unexpected#and#unforeseen#occurrence#over# precautions#against#an#approaching#typhoon,#of#which#it#was#warned.#(Vasquez#v#CA)#
which#Fortune#had#no#control.#It#said#that#the#evidence#clearly#shows#that#the#Maranaos# #
did#not#have#the#least#intention#of#harming#any#of#the#passengers#since#they#ordered#all# This#factor#of#unforeseeablility#(the#second#requisite#for#an#event#to#be#considered#force#
the#passengers#to#alight#and#set#fire#on#the#bus#only#after#all#the#passengers#were#out#of# majeure)#is#lacking.##Despite#the#report#of#PC#agent#Generalao#that#the#Maranaos#were#
danger.## planning# to# burn# some# of# Fortune’s# buses# and# the# assurance# of# Fortune’s# Operations#
# Manager#(Diosdado#Bravo)#that#the#necessary#precautions#would#be#taken,#nothing#was#
CA:"Favored"Heirs"of"Atty."Caorong" really#done#by#Fortune#to#protect#the#safety#of#passengers.#
On#appeal,#the#CA#reversed.#It#held#that#no" available" safeguards" were" taken" despite" #
the"information"provided"by"the"Constabulary.#For#example,#it#said#that#there#was#no# NO#CONTRIBUTORY#NEGLIGENCE#
frisking# performed.# If# this# was# performed# the# handguns# and# especially# the# gallon# of# Atty.# Caorong# was# not# guilty# of# contributory# negligence.# He# was# allowed# by# the# armed#
gasoline# used# by# the# felons# all# of# which# were# brought# inside# the# bus# would# have# been# men#to#retrieve#whatever#he#needed#from#the#bus.#What#apparently#angered#them#was#
discovered,#thus#preventing#the#burning#of#the#bus#and#the#fatal#shooting#of#the#victim.# his#attempt#to#help#the#driver#of#the#bus#by#pleading#for#his#life.##He#was#playing#the#role#
# of#the#Good#Samaritan.#Certainly,#this#act#cannot#be#considered#an#act#of#negligence,#let#
ISSUE:"W/N"Fortune"Express"Inc."breached"its"Contract"of"Carriage" alone#recklessness.#
# #
HELD:"Yes." AWARD#
# The#following#were#granted#as#recoverable#damages:#
RATIO:# Art.# 1763# of# the# Civil# Code# provides# that# a# common# carrier# is# responsible# for# 1. Indemnity#for#death#S#P50,000#(per#Art.#1764#in#re#Art.#2206)#
injuries#suffered#by#a#passenger#on#account#of#the#wilful#acts#of#other#passengers,*if*the* 2. Actual#Damages#–#P30,000#(for#the#wake#and#burial#per#Art.#2199)#
employees* of* the* common* carrier* could* have* prevented* the* act* the* exercise* of* the* 3. Moral#Damages#–#P100,000#(per#Art.#2006)#
diligence*of*a*good*father*of*a*family.# 4. Exemplary#Damages#–#P100,000#(per#Art.#2232)#
# 5. Attorney’s#Fees:#P50,000#(per#Art.#2208)#
BREACH#OF#CONTRACT#OF#CARRIAGE# 6. Compensation#for#Loss#of#Earning#Capacity#–#P2,121,404.90#
Because# of# the# negligence# of# petitioner’s# employees,# the# seizure# of# the# bus# by# 7. Costs#of#Suit#
Mananggolo# and# his# men# was# made# possible.# Had# Fortune# and# its# employees# been#
vigilant# they# would# not# have# failed# to# see# that# the# malefactors# had# a# large# quantity# of#
gasoline#with#them.##Under#the#circumstances,#simple#precautionary#measures#to#protect# # 9#GILLACO#V.#MRR,#97#PHIL#884#–SANCHEZ#
the# safety# of# passengers,# such# as# frisking# passengers# and# inspecting# their# baggages,#
preferably#with#nonSintrusive#gadgets#such#as#metal#detectors,#before#allowing#them#on# Doctrine:##
board#could#have#been#employed#without#violating#the#passenger’s#constitutional#rights.# 1.# EXTENT# OF# CARRIERS'# LIABILITY.S# While' a' passenger' is' entitled' to' protection' from'
# personal' violence' by' the' carrier' or' its' agents' or' employees,' since' the' contract' of'
NOT#A#FORTUITOUS#EVENT# transportation'obligates'the'carrier'to'transport'a'passenger'safely'to'his'destination,'the'
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
responsibility' of' the' carrier' extends' only' to' those' acts' that' the' carrier' could' foresee' or'
avoid'through'the'exercise'of'the'degree'of'care'and'diligence'required'of'it.#
2.# RULE# UNDER# THE# CIVIL# CODE# OF# 1889.SThe' old' Civil' Code' of' 1889' did' not' impose'
upon'carriers'absolute'liability'for'assaults'of'their'employees'upon'the'passenger.#
3.# CARRIER# Is# EXEMPT# FROM# LIABILITY# FOR# ACTS# NOT# DONE# IN# LINE# OF# DUTY.S#
Where' the' crime' was' committed' by' a' train' guard' who' had' no' duties' to' discharge' in'
connection'with'the'transportation'of'the'victim,'the'crime'stands'on'the'
# of# transportation# obligates# the# carrier# to# transport# a# passenger# safely# to# his#
Common"Carrier" Manila#Rail#Road#(MRR)#
Passenger" Lieutenant#Tomas#Gillaco#
Problem" An# offSduty# TRAIN# GUARD# of# MRR# SHOT# Gillaco# due# to# a# long#
standing#personal#grudge#
Who"won" CC# MRR,# there’s# no# way# MRR# could# foresee# or# avoid# the# incident#
by#exercising#extraordinary#diligence#
" 1946.]#
ER:" GILLACO# was# a# passenger# of# Manila# Rail# Road# from# Calamba# to# Manila.# The# train#
stopped# at# Paco# station.# DEVESA,# a# train# guard# of# MRR# assigned# at# the# ManilaSSan#
Fernando#La#Union#line,#was#waiting#for#the#train#to#transport#him#to#Tutuban#station.#
DEVESA#SHOT#GILLACO#upon#seeing#him#at#the#train#coach#(due#to#a#personal#grudge).#
GILLACO#died.#His#wife#sued#MRR#and#the#CFI#granted#her#4,000#pesos#as#damages.#MRR#
appeals.##
Issue:#WON#MRR#is#liable#as#a#common#carrier#for#the#act#of#its#employees.#NO!#Ratio:##
[1]# The# responsibility# extends# only# to# those# that# the# carrier# could# foresee# or# avoid#
through# the# exercise# of# the# degree# of# care# and# diligence# required# of# it.# MRR# had# no#
means#to#foresee#the#personal#grudge#between#GILLACO#and#DEVESA.##
[2]#DEVESA#is#to#be#treated#as#a#stranger#or#a#coSpassenger#because#his#duty#has#not#yet#
started#at#the#Paco#station.#He’s#only#on#his#way#to#work#when#he#shot#GILLACO.#
FACTS:"
" At# 7:30# AM# of# April# 1,# 1946,# Lieutenant# Tomas# Gillaco# was# a# passenger# of# Manila#
Railroad#from#Calamba#to#Manila.#
" When# the# train# reached# Paco# station,# Emilio# Devesa,# a# TRAIN# GUARD# of# MRR#
assigned#in#the#ManilaSSan#Fernando#La#Union#line,#while#waiting#to#be#transported#
to# Tutuban# station,# SHOT# Gillaco# with# his# carbine# furnished# by# MRR# to# him.# This#
was#because#Devesa#had#a#long" standing" personal" grudge#against#Gillaco#dating#
back#during#the#Japanese#occupation.#
" Gillaco#died.#Devesa#was#convicted#of#homicide.#
" The#wife#of#Gillaco#sued#MRR#for#the#death#of#Tomas.#The#CFI#of#Laguna#sentenced#
MRR#to#pay#the#wife#4,000#pesos#as#damages.#
" MRR#appeals#the#finding#of#the#CFI.#
ISSUE:"WON#MRR#is#liable#as#a#common#carrier#for#the#act#of#its#employee.#(NO.#It#is#not#
liable.)#
19"
HELD:" Wherefore,#the#judgment#appealed#from#is#reversed#and#the#complaint#ordered#
dismissed,#without#costs.#So#ordered.#
RATIO:"
" There#can#be#no#quarrel#with#the#principle#that#a#passenger#is#entitled#to#protection#
from#personal#violence#by#the#carrier#or#its#agents#or#employees,#since#the#contract#
destination.# But# under# the# law# of# the# case,# this" responsibility" extends" only" to"
those" that" the" carrier" could" foresee" or" avoid" through" the" exercise" of" the"
degree"of"care"and"diligence"required"of"it."
" The# old# Civil# Code# of# 1889# did# not# impose# upon# carriers# absolute# liability# for#
assaults#of#their#employees#upon#the#passenger.#[Carlo:#The#old#Civil#Code#was#used#
because# the# NCC# took# effect# on# August# 30,# 1950.# The# shooting# incident# was# on#
o But#as#can#be#inferred#from#the#previous#jurisprudence#of#this#Court,#the#
Civil#Code#of#1889#did#not#impose#such#absolute#liability#(Lasam#vs.#Smith,#
supra).# The# liability# of# a# carrier# as# an# insurer# was# not# recognized# in# this#
jurisdiction.#
" The"act"of"guard"Devesa"in"shooting"passenger"Gillaco"(because"of"a"personal"
grudge" nurtured" against" the" latter" since" the" Japanese" occupation)" was"
entirely"unforseeable"by"the"Manila"Railroad"Co.""
" The" latter" had" no" means" to" ascertain" or" anticipate" that" the" two" would" meet,"
nor" could" it" reasonably" foresee" every" personal" rancor" that" might" exist"
between" each" one" of" its" many" employees" and" any" one" of" the" thousands" of"
eventual"passengers"riding"in"its"trains."
" Finally,# when# the# crime# took# place,# DEVESA# had# no# duties# to# discharge# in#
connection#with#the#transportation#of#GILLACO#from#Calamba#to#Laguna.#
o Devesa"had"only"been"waiting"to"be"transported"to"Tutuban"station,"
where"his"duty"will"start."At"this"point"in"time,"he"is"to"be"treated"as"a"
stranger"or"coapassenger"in"relation"to"Gillaco."
o A#carrier#is#exempt#from#liability#for#acts#not#done#in#line#of#duty.#
# 10#MARANAN#V.#PEREZ,#20#SCRA#412*#SNATHAN#ODUCADO#
ANTONIA"MARANAN"v.#PASCUAL"PEREZ,"ET"AL"
G.R.#No.#LS22272#S#June#26,#1967#
BENGZON,'J.P.,'J.'
#
DOCTRINE:#Because'of'Art.'1759,'it'is'enough'that'the'assault'happens'within'the'course'
of'the'employee's'duty.''Excess'of'authority'or'in'disobedience'of'the'carrier's'orders'is'not'
a'defense.#
Common"Carrier" Taxicab#Company#owned#and#operated#by#Pascual#Perez#
Driver" Valenzuela#
Passenger" Rogelio#Corachea#
Problem" Passenger#Corachea#was#stabbed#and#killed#by#the#taxicab#driver#
Who"won" Passenger#Corachea#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 20"
#
" " He# was# therefore# acting# within# his# scope# of# duty# when# it# was#
Emergency"Recit:" committed."
Corachea# was# stabbed# and# killed# by# the# taxicab# driver,# Valenzuela.# Perez# owns# and# • Gillaco*case"was"decided"under"the"provisions"of"the"Civil"Code"of"1889"
operates#the#taxicab#company.##Valenzuela#was#found#guilty.#While#the#criminal#case#was# " Old#Civ#Code#did#not#impose#upon#CC#absolute#liability#for#the#safety#
pending,#Maranan#(Corachea’s#mother)#filed#for#damages#against#Perez#and#Valenzuela.## of#passengers#against#willful#assaults#or#negligent#acts#committed#by#
Perez# claimed# that# it# was# a# caso' fortuito,# hence# the# CC# is# not# liable.# TC# ruled# against# their#employees.#
Perez#and#dismissed#the#damages#case#against#Valenzuela." ISSUE:" WON" Perez," as" the" " #It#is#true#that#Art.#1105#of#the#old#Civ#Code#and#Art.#1174#of#the#new#
operator,"should"be"held"liable"to"the"acts"committed"by"its"employee,"Valenzuela." Civ#Code,#clearly#removed#the#case#where#the#law#expressly#provides#
YES.#Perez,#as#the#operator,#should#be#held#liable#to#the#acts#committed#by#its#employee,# for#liability#in#spite#of#the#occurrence#of#force#majeure.#
Valenzuela.# It# is# enough# that# the# assault# happens# within# the# course# of# the# employee's# • New" Civil" Code" expressly" imposes" liability" to" common" carriers" for"
duty.##Excess#of#authority#or#in#disobedience#of#the#carrier's#orders#is#not#a#defense.#It#is# assaults"committed"by"its"employees"
the#carrier's#strict#obligation#to#select#its#drivers#and#similar#employees#with#due#regard# " Art.#1759#of#the#New#Civil#code#states#that,##
not#only#to#their#technical#competence#and#physical#ability,#but#also,#no#less#important,# Common#carriers#are#liable#for#the#death#of#or#injuries#to#passengers#
to# their# total# personality,# including# their# patterns# of# behavior,# moral# fibers,# and# social# through# the# negligence# or# willful# acts# of# the# former's# employees,#
attitude." although# such# employees# may# have# acted# beyond# the# scope# of# their#
" authority#or#in#violation#of#the#orders#of#the#common#carriers.#
Facts:" " Basis#of#Carriers#liability#rests,#on#two#views,#either#on##
1.# Rogelio# Corachea# was# a# passenger# in# a# taxicab# (owned# and# operated# by# Pascual# o (1)#the#doctrine#of#respondeat'superior'or##
Perez)#when#he#was#stabbed#and#killed#by#the#driver,#Simeon#Valenzuela.## o (2)" the" principle" that" it" is" the" carrier's"implied* duty*to"
• Valenzuela,# was# found# guilty# by# the# CFI# of# Batangas# and# was# sentenced# to# transport"the"passenger"safely"
imprisonment#as#well#as#to#indemnify#the#heirs#of#Corachea.# " First# view# ,# which# is# the# minority# view,# is# that# CC# is# only# liable# if#
2.#While#Valenzuela’s#appeal#is#pending#in#the#CA,#Atonia#Maranan,#mother#of#Corachea,# committed#within#the#scope#of#his#duties.#
filed#for#damages#against#Perez#(Operator)#and#Valenzuela# " Second"view,"upheld"by"the"majority,"it"is"enough"that"the"assault"
• Valenzuela#and#Perez#argued#that#it#was#selfSdefense#since#Corachea#assaulted# happens" within" the" course" of" the" employee's" duty." " Excess" of"
the#driver#by#stabbing#him#from#behind." authority" or" in" disobedience" of" the" carrier's" orders" is" not" a"
• Perez#further#claimed#that#it#was#a#caso'fortuito,#hence#the#CC#is#not#liable." defense."
3.# The# trial# court# ruled# against# Perez# and# dismissed# the# case# against# Valenzuela# • As" can" be" gleaned" from" Art." 1759," the" Civil" Code" of" the" Philippines"
(damages#case).## evidently"follows"the"rule"based"on"the"second"view"
" " Explained#in#Texas'Midland*v.'Monroe,"
Issue:" # (1)#the#special"undertaking"of"the"carrier"requires"that"it"
W/N#Perez,#as#the#operator,#should#be#held#liable#to#the#acts#committed#by#its#employee,# furnish" its" passenger" that" full" measure" of" protection"
Valenzuela.#YES.# afforded" by" the" exercise" of" the" high" degree" of" care"
" prescribed" by" the" law,"inter* alia*from" violence" and"
Held:" insults"at"the"hands"of"strangers"and"other"passengers,"
Wherefore,# with# the# modification# increasing# the# award# of# actual# damages# in# plaintiff's# but"above"all,"from"the"acts"of"the"carrier's"own"servants"
favor#to#P6,000,#plus#P3,000.00#moral#damages,#with#legal#interest.# charged"with"the"passenger's"safety;"
" # #(2)#said#liability#of#the#carrier#for#the#servant's#violation#of#
Ratio:" duty#to#passengers,#is#the#result#of#the#former’s#confiding#in#
• Defendant’s"reliance"on"ruling"enunciated"in"Gillaco*v.*Manila*Railroad*Co." the#servant's#hands#the#performance#of#his#contract#to#safely#
" In# that# case,# the# Court# held# that# the# carrier# is# under# no# absolute# transport# the# passenger,# delegating# therewith# the# duty# of#
liability#for#assaults#of#its#employees#upon#the#passengers." protecting# the# passenger# with# the# utmost# care# prescribed#
" However,# the# facts# are# very# different.# In# the#Gillaco'case,# the# by#law;#and"
passenger#was#killed#outside#the#scope#and#the#course#of#duty#of#the# # (3)# as" between" the" carrier" and" the" passenger," the"
guilty#employee." former" must" bear" the" risk" of" wrongful" acts" or"
" In#this#case,#the#killing#was#perpetrated#by#the#driver#of#the#very#cab# negligence" of" the" carrier's" employees" against"
transporting#the#passenger,#in#whose#hands#the#carrier#had#entrusted# passengers,"since"it,"and"not"the"passengers,"has"power"
the#duty#of#executing#the#contract#of#carriage.#" to"select"and"remove"them."
#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
It# is# the# carrier's# strict# obligation# to# select# its# drivers# and# similar# employees# with# due#
regard# not# only# to# their# technical# competence# and# physical# ability,# but# also,# no# less#
important,# to# their# total# personality,# including# their# patterns# of# behavior,# moral# fibers,#
and#social#attitude.#
# 11#MANILA#RAILROAD#V.#BALLESTEROS,#16#SCRA#641*#SBASCARA#
Common"Carrier" Manila'Railroad'Company’s'bus#
Driver" Anastacio'
Auditor"of"bus" Dionisio#Abello#
Passenger" Ballesteros,'Camayo'and'Reyes#
Problem" CC’s'bus'collided'with'a'freight'truck,'which'swerved'to'the'middle'of'
the'road'as'it'tried'to'avoid'potholes'on'the'right'lane.#The'Left'front'
fender'and'left'side'of'the'freight'truck'smashed'the'left'side'of'the'
bus'resulting'in#injuries'to'Ballesteros,'et'al.#
Who"won" Passengers'Ballesteros,'Camayo'and'Reyes#
ER:"Ballesteros,"Camayo"and""Reyes#were#passengers#of#Manila"Railroad"Company’s"
bus.# The# driver# of# the# bus# was# Anastacio.# While# Anastacio# was# replacing# a# defective#
spark# plug,# # Abello,# (an# auditor# assigned# to# Manila# Railroad# by# the# General# Auditing#
Office)#took#the#wheel#and#told#the#driver#to#sit#somewhere#else.#A"freight"truck"driven"
by"Marcial"Nocum""bound"for"Manila,"in"trying"to"evade"several"holes"on"the"right"
lane,"where"his"truck"was"running,"swerved"his"truck"towards"the"middle"part"of"
the" road" and" in" so" doing," the" left" front" fender" and" left" side" of" the" freight" truck"
smashed"the"left"side"of"the"bus"resulting"in"extensive"damages"to"the"body"of"the"
bus" and" injuries" to" Ballesteros," et" al.#Manila#Railroad#Company#was#adjudged#to#pay#
damages#to#Ballesteros#et#al.##
Whether*or*not*Dionisio*Abello*acted*with*reckless*negligence*while*driving*Manila*
Railroad’s*bus*at*the*time*of*the*accidentE*YES#The#negligence#of#Marcial#Nocum#does#
not#relieve#Manila#Railroad#from#liability.#Dionisio#Abello#was#likewise#reckless#when#he#
was#driving#the#bus#at#the#rate#of#from#40#to#50#kilometers#per#hour#on#a#bumpy#road#at#
the#moment#of#the#collision.''
Whether* or* not* Manila* Railroad* may* be* held* liable* on* account* of* such* negligence,*
considering* that* he* was* not* its* employee.EYES.# This# defense# was# correctly# overruled#
by#the#trial#court,#considering#the#provisions#of#Article#1763#of#the#Civil#Code#and#section#
48#(b)#of#the#Motor#Vehicle#Law,#which#respectively#provide#as#follows:#Art.#1763.#Of#the#
CC:#A'common'carrier'is'responsible'for'injuries'suffered'by'a'passenger'on'account'of'the'
wilfull' acts' or' negligence' of' other' passengers' or' of' strangers,' if* the* common* carrier's*
employees* through* the* exercise* of* the* diligence* of* a* good* father* of* a* family* could*
have*prevented*or*stopped*the*act*or*omission.#Sec.#48(b).#of#the#Motor#Vehicle#Law:#
No*professional*chauffeur*shall*permit*any'unlicensed'person'to'drive'the'motor'vehicle'
under'his'control,'or'permit'a'person,'sitting'beside'him'or'in'any'other'part'of'the'car,'to*
interfere*with*him*in*the*operation*of*the*motor*vehicle,*by*allowing*said*person*to*
21"
take*hold*of*the*steering*wheel,'or'in'any'other'manner'take'part'in'the'manipulation'or'
control'of'the'car.'
• Macaria" Ballesteros," Timoteo" Camayo" and" " Jose" Reyes# were# passengers# of#
Manila"Railroad"Company’s"bus.#The#driver#of#the#bus#was#Anastacio.##
• In# Bayombong,# Nueva# Vizcaya,# Anastacio# stopped# the# bus# and# got# off# to# replace# a#
defective# spark# plug.# While# he# was# thus# engaged,# Dionisio# Abello,# an# auditor#
assigned#to#Manila#Railroad#by#the#General#Auditing#Office,#took#the#wheel#and#told#
the#driver#to#sit#somewhere#else.##
• With# Abello# driving,# the# bus# proceeded# on# its# way,# from# time# to# time# stopping# to#
pick#up#passengers.#Anastacio#tried#twice#to#take#the#wheel#back#but#Abello#would#
not#relinquish#it.##
• Then,#while#the#bus#was#negotiating#between#Km.#posts#328#and#329#(in#Isabela)#a#
freight#truck#driven#by#Marcial#Nocum##bound#for#Manila,#was#also#negotiating#the#
same#place.##
• When"these"two"vehicles"were"about"to"meet"at"the"bend"of"the"road,""Marcial"
Nocum,"in"trying"to"evade"several"holes"on"the"right"lane,"where"his"truck"was"
running," swerved" his" truck" towards" the" middle" part" of" the" road" and" in" so"
doing,"the"left"front"fender"and"left"side"of"the"freight"truck"smashed"the"left"
side" of" the" bus" resulting" in" extensive" damages" to" the" body" of" the" bus" and"
injuries"to"seventeen"of"its"passengers,"..."including"Ballesteros,"et"al"
• Manila#Railroad#Company#was#adjudged#to#pay#damages#in#the#following#amounts:#
P2,400# to# Macaria# Ballesteros;# P4,000# to# Timoteo# Camayo;# P3,000# to# Jose# Reyes:#
and#P2,000,#plus#P1,000#as#attorney's#fees,#to#Julian#Maimban,#Jr.#in#a#civil#case#filed#
before#the#CFI#Manila#
• Manila#Railroad#appealed#from#the#judgment,#but#upon#motion#by#the#Ballesteros,#et#
al.,# the# trial# court# dismissed# the# appeal# on# the# ground# that# it# was# manifestly# and#
palpably#frivolous#and#interposed#ostensibly#to#delay#the#settlement#of#the#just#and#
reasonable#claims#of#Ballesteros#et#al.#which#have#been#pending#since#1958#
• Manila# Railroad# moved# to# reconsider,# and# upon# denial# of# its# motion# instituted# in#
this# Court# the# instant# petition" for" mandamus# to# set# aside# the# order# of# dismissal#
and#to#order#respondent#court#to#give#due#course#to#the#appeal.#
• In" filing" the" petition" directly" with" this" Court" (SC),# Manila# Railroad# evidently#
intended# to# raise# only# questions# of# law# in# the# appeal# contemplated,# since# under#
Rule#41,#section#15,#"when#erroneously#a#motion#to#dismiss#an#appeal#is#granted#or#
a#record#on#appeal#is#disallowed#by#the#trial#court,#a#proper#petition#for#mandamus'
may# be# filed# in# the# appellate# court;"# and# under# section# 17(6)# of# the# Judiciary# Act#
this# Court# may# review# on# appeal# only# questions# of# law# in# civil# cases# decided# by#
inferior#courts#unless#the#value#in#controversy#exceeds#P200,000.#
Issues:""
Whether' or' not' Dionisio' Abello' acted' with' reckless' negligence' while' driving' Manila'
Railroad’s'bus'at'the'time'of'the'accident2'YES'
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
Whether' or' not' Manila' Railroad' may' be' held' liable' on' account' of' such' negligence,'
considering'that'he'was'not'its'employee.2YES'
Held/Ratio:"
• The# issues# proposed# to# be# taken# up# on# appeal,# as# set# forth# in# the# petition,# are#
whether#or#not#Dionisio#Abello#acted#with#reckless#negligence#while#driving#Manila#
Railroad’s#bus#at#the#time#of#the#accident,#and#whether#or#not#Manila#Railroad#may#
be# held# liable# on# account# of# such# negligence,# considering# that# he# was# not# its#
employee.#
o #These#are#no#longer#justiciable#questions#which#would#justify#our#issuing#
the#peremptory#writ#prayed#for.#The#first#is#a#question#of#fact#on#which#the#
affirmative# finding# of# respondent# court# is# not# reviewable# by# Us;# and# the#
second# is# one# as# to# which# there# can# be# no# possible# doubt# in# view# of# the#
provisions#of#the#Civil#Code#and#of#the#Motor#Vehicle#Law#
o There#would#be#no#point#in#giving#the#appeal#due#course.#
• The#Trial#Court#rejected#Manila#Railroad’s#contention#that#the#negligence#of#Marcial#
Nocum# could# not# be# imputed# to# it# and# relieved# it# from# liability.# It# found# that#
Dionisio# Abello# "was# likewise# reckless# when# he# was# driving# the# bus# at# the# rate# of#
from#40#to#50#kilometers#per#hour#on#a#bumpy#road#at#the#moment#of#the#collision."#
• Another#defense#put#up#by#Manila#Railroad#is#that#since#Abello#was#not#its#employee#
it#should#not#be#held#responsible#for#his#acts.#This#defense#was#correctly#overruled#
by#the#trial#court,#considering#the#provisions#of#Article#1763#of#the#Civil#Code#and#
section#48#(b)#of#the#Motor#Vehicle#Law,#which#respectively#provide#as#follows:#
o Art.' 1763.' A' common' carrier' is' responsible' for' injuries' suffered' by' a'
passenger'on'account'of'the'wilfull'acts'or'negligence'of'other'passengers'or'
of'strangers,'if'the'common'carrier's'employees'through'the'exercise'of'the'
diligence' of' a' good' father' of' a' family' could' have' prevented' or' stopped' the'
act'or'omission.#
o Sec.'48(b).'No'professional'chauffeur'shall'permit'any'unlicensed'person'to'
drive'the'motor'vehicle'under'his'control,'or'permit'a'person,'sitting'beside'
him'or'in'any'other'part'of'the'car,'to'interfere'with'him'in'the'operation'of'
the'motor'vehicle,'by'allowing'said'person'to'take'hold'of'the'steering'wheel,'
or'in'any'other'manner'take'part'in'the'manipulation'or'control'of'the'car.#
It#appears#further,#and#so#the#trial#court#found,#that#there#were#negotiations#between#the#
parties# to# compromise# the# case,# as# a# result# of# which# Ballesteros# et# al# considerably#
reduced#their#claims#to#the#amounts#subsequently#awarded#in#the#judgment;#that#Manila#
Railroad#had#in#fact#settled#the#claims#of#the#other#passengers#who#were#also#injured#in#
the#same#accident#and#even#the#claim#for#damages#filed#in#another#action#by#the#owner#
of# the# freight# truck;# and# that# the# Government# Corporate# Counsel# himself,# who#
represents# herein# Manila# Railroad,# rendered# two# separate# opinions# wherein,# after#
analyzing#the#facts#and#the#law#applicable,#he#reached#the#conclusion#that#the#acts#of#the#
bus#personnel,#particularly#"in#allowing#Mr.#Abello#to#drive#despite#two#occasions#when#
the# bus# stopped# and# the# regular# driver# could# have# taken# over,# constitute# reckless#
imprudence# and# wanton# injurious# conduct# on# the# part# of# the# MRR# employees."# On# the#
basis#of#those#opinions#the#Government#Corporate#Counsel#advised#Manila#Railroad#that#
22"
the#offer#of#the#claimants#was#reasonable#and#should#be#accepted.#His#advice,#however,#
was#not#favorably#acted#upon,#Manila#Railroad#obviously#preferring#to#litigate.#
# 12#VDA.#DE#ABETO#V.#PAL,#115#SCRA#489*#SRESPICIO#
Common"Carrier" Philippine#Airlines#
Passenger" Judge#Quirico#Abeto#
Problem" PAL#airplane#bound#for#Manila#deviated#from#its#prescribed#route#
and#CRASHED!#Everyone#died!#
Who"won" Conrada#Vda.#de#Abeto#(wife#of#Judge#Abeto)#
Emergency"
Judge#Abeto#boarded#PAL#from#Iloilo#to#Manila.#It#crashed#in#Mindoro.##The#Widow#and#
Children# sought# compensation# from# PAL.# PAL# defense:# the# airplane# was# airworthy,#
properly# inspected,# no# fault# on# the# pilot,# and# while# there# is# diversion# of# route,# it# is#
warranted#by#bad#weather.#Is" PAL" liable?" yes.#As#a#common#carrier,#it#is#presumed#to#
be#at#fault#when#mishaps#happen.#Testimonies#show#that#the#tragedy#would#have#been#
averted#had#the#pilot#not#diverted#from#the#designated#course.#
Facts"
• 1960,#Judge#Quirico#Abeto,#boarded#the#Philippine#Air#Lines#at#Iloilo#City#for#Manila.#
After#three#weeks,#it#was#ascertained#that#the#plane#crashed#at#Mt.#Baco,#Province#of#
Mindoro.# All# the# passengers,# including# Judge" Abeto," must" have" been" killed"
instantly"and"their"remains"were"scattered"all"over"the"area.##
• PlaintiffSappellee#Conrada#Vda.#de#Abeto#was#appointed#administratrix#of#the#estate#
of#Judge#Abeto.#The#other#Viuda#and#Children#are#the#children#of#the#deceased.##
• When#PAL#would#not#hear#demands#for#settlement#of#damages,#Viuda#and#Children#
and#Childred#were#compelled#to#hire#counsel#for#the#institution#and#prosecution#of#
this#case.#
• PAL#tried#to#prove#that#the#plane#crash#at#Mt.#Baco#was#beyond#the#control#of#the#
pilot.##
o The# plane# at# the# time# of# the# crash# was# airworthy# for# the# purpose# of#
conveying# passengers# across# the# country# as# shown# by# the# certificate# of#
airworthiness#issued#by#the#Civil#Aeronautics#Administration#(CAA).##
o There# was# navigational# error# but# no# negligence# or# malfeasance# on# the#
part#of#the#pilot.##
o The# plane# had# undergone# 1,822# preS# flight# checks,# 364# thorough# checks,#
957#terminating#checks#and#501#after#maintenance#checks.#These#checks#
were#part#of#the#quality#control#operation#of#defendant#airline##
o Further," deviation" from" its" prescribed" route" was" due" to" the" bad"
weather"conditions"between"Mt."Baco"and"Romblon"and"strong"winds"
which"caused"the"plane"to"drift"to"Mt."Baco.""
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• Under" the" circumstances," PAL" argues" that" the" crash" was" a" fortuitous" event"
and,"therefore,"PAL"cannot"be"held"liable"under"the"provisions"of"Article"1174"
of" the" New" Civil" Code.# Besides,# PAL# tried# to# prove# that# it# had# exercised# all# the#
cares,#skill#and#diligence#required#by#law#on#that#particular#flight#in#question.#
Issue:" Whether" or" not" the" defendant" is" liable" for" violation" of" its" contract" of"
carriage."PAL"IS"LIABLE"
Ratio"
• The#provisions#of#the#Civil#Code#on#this#question#of#liability#are#clear#and#explicit.##
• Article# 1733# binds# common# carriers,# "from# the# nature# of# their# business# and# by#
reasons#of#public#policy,#...#to#observe#extraordinary#diligence#in#the#vigilance#...#for#
the#safety#of#the#passengers#transported#by#them#according#to#all#the#circumstances#
of#each#case."##
• Article#1755#establishes#the#standard#of#care#required#of#a#common#carrier,#which#
is,#"to#carry#the#passengers#safely#as#far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide,#
using# the# utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# due# regard# for# all# the#
circumstances."##
• Article# 1756# fixes# the# burden# of# proof# by# providing# that# "in# case# of# death# of# or#
injuries# to# passengers,# common# carriers# are# presumed# to# have# been# at# fault# or# to#
have# acted# negligently,# unless# they# prove# that# they# observed# extraSordinary#
diligence#as#prescribed#in#Articles#1733#and#1755."##
• Lastly,# Article# 1757# states# that# "the# responsibility# of# a# common# carrier# for# the#
safety#of#passengers#...#cannot#be#dispensed#with#or#lessened#by#stipulation,#by#the#
posting#of#notices,#by#statements#on#tickets,#or#otherwise."#
• The"prescribed"airway"of"plane"PIaC133"that"afternoon"of"November"23,"1960,"
with" Capt." de" Mesa," as" the" pilot," was" IloiloaRomblonaManila," denominated" as"
airway""Amber"l,""and"the"prescribed"elevation"of"the"flight"was"6,000"ft.""
• The" fact" is," the" plane" did" not" take" the" designated" route" because" it" was" some"
30"miles"to"the"west"when"it"crashed"at"Mt."Baco."#
• According" to" defendant's" witness," Ramon" A." Pedroza,# Administrative"
Assistant" of" the" Philippine" Air" Lines," Inc.," this" tragic" crash" would" have" not"
happened"had"the"pilot"continued"on"the"route"indicated.##
• And,# Assistant# Director# Cesar# Mijares# of# the# Civil# Aeronautics# Administration#
testified#that#the#pilot#of#said#plane#was#"off#course."#
o It# is# clear# that# the# pilot# did# not# follow# the# designated# route# for# his# flight#
between# Romblon# and# Manila.# The# weather# was# clear# and# he# was#
supposed# to# cross# airway# "Amber# I"# over# Romblon;# instead,# he# made# a#
straight#flight#to#Manila#in#violation#of#air#traffic#rules.#
• At# any# rate,# in# the# absence# of# a# satisfactory# explanation# by# PAL# as# to# how# the#
accident#occurred,#the#presumption#is,#it#is#at#fault.#
• In# an# action# based# on# a# contract# of# carriage,# the# court# need# not# make# an# express#
finding# of# fault# or# negligence# on# the# part# of# the# carrier# in# order# to# hold# it#
responsible#to#pay#the#damages#sought#for#by#the#passenger.##
• By" the" contract" of" carriage," the" carrier" assumes" the" express" obligation" to"
transport" the" passenger" to" his" destination" safely" and" to" observe"
extraordinary"diligence"with"a"due"regard"for"all"the"circumstances,"and"any"
23"
injury" that" might" be" suffered" by" the" passenger" is" right" away" attributable" to"
the" fault" or" negligence" of" the" carrier" (Art." 1756," New" Civil" Code)." This" is" an"
exception" to" the" general" rule" that" negligence" must" be" proved.# (Batangas#
Transportation#Company#vs.#Caguimbal,#22#SCRA#171.)#
# 13#PAL#V.#NLRC,#124#SCRA#583#–AQUINO#
PHILIPPINE" AIRLINES," INC." and" CAPT." JAIME" H." MANZANO," petitioners," vs."
NATIONAL"LABOR"RELATIONS"COMMISSION"and"SALVADOR"GEMPIS,"respondents."
Emergency"Facts:"
Nature" of" the" Not#your#typical#Transpo#Case.#This#is#actually#a#labor#case.#
case"
Common"Carrier" Philippine#Airlines#
Problem" Captain# Salvador# Gempis# forced# 2# First# Officers# to# drink# at# the#
coffee# shop# of# the# Triton# Hotel# at# Cebu,# 6# bottles# of# beer# each,#
within# thirty# minutes,# with# full# knowledge# that# the# 2# affected# coS
pilots#have#flight#duties#the#next#day.#
Who"won" Philippine#Airlines#
Salvador# Gempis,# a# PAL# pilot,# forced# two# other# pilots# to# drink# even# though# they# had#
flight#duties#the#next#day.#When#the#latter#were#not#able#to#consume#the#beer#within#the#
time#limit#imposed,#Gempis#hit#them#in#the#stomach.#PAL#filed#with#the#Ministry#of#Labor#
an# application# for# clearance# to# terminate# Gempis.# Gempis# in# turn# filed# a# complaint# for#
illegal#dismissal.#NLRC#ruled#that#a#6Smonth#suspension#was#more#appropriate.#PAL#filed#
a#case#before#the#SC#questioning#the#NLRC#decision.#
Doctrine:#
The#business#of#petitioner#Philippine#Airlines#is#such#that#whenever#a#passenger#
dies# or# is# injured# the# presumption# is,# it# is# at# fault# notwithstanding# the# fact# that# it# has#
exercised#due#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#family#in#the#selection#and#supervision#of#its#
employees.#Thus,#extraordinary#measures#and#diligence#should#be#exercised#by#it#for#the#
safety#of#its#passengers#and#their#belongings.#Needless#to#state,#a#pilot#must#be#sober#all#
the# time# for# he# may# be# called# upon# to# fly# a# plane# even# before# his# regular# scheduled#
hours,#otherwise#so#many#lives#will#be#in#danger#if#he#is#drunk.#It#would#be#unjust#for#an#
employer#like#herein#petitioner#PAL#to#be#compelled#to#continue#with#the#employment#
of#a#person#whose#continuance#in#the#service#is#obviously#inimical#to#its#interests.#
Facts:"
• Salvador# Gempis,# a# YSS11# pilot# of# PAL# with# the# rank# of# captain,# filed# with# the#
Ministry#of#Labor#a#complaint#against#PAL#for#illegal#suspension#and#dismissal.#
• The# next# day# PAL# filed# with# the# same# office# an# application# for# clearance# to#
terminate#the#employment#of#Gempis#because#of:#
1. Serious#misconduct#and##
2. Violation#of#the#liquor#ban#and#company#policies.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• The# charge# of# PAL# against# Gempis# was# “serious# misconduct# (abuse# of# authority)”#
for#forcing"First"Officers"A."Barcebal"and"J."Ranches"to"drink"at"the"coffee"shop"
of"the"Triton"Hotel"at"Cebu,"six"(6)"bottles"of"beer"each,"within"thirty"minutes.##
o Unable#to#consume#the#bottles#of#beer#within#the#time#limit#set#by#private#
respondent# Salvador# Gempis,# the# two# pilots# were# ordered# to# stand# erect#
and# were# hit# on# the# stomach# by# private# respondent.# The" incident"
occurred"with"the"full"knowledge"of"Gempis"that"the"two"(2)"affected"
coapilots"have"flight"duties"the"next"day""
• NLRC#decision:##
o The# decision# of# the# Committee# on# appeal# which# recommended# the#
termination# which# is# an# increase# in# the# original# penalty# of# demotion# in#
rank#and#pay#of#complainant,#unjustified#and#oppressive#if#not#void#
o To#impose#the#penalty#of#dismissal#for#violation#of#the#liquor#ban#which#is#
applicable# to# all# pilots# of# Company,# the# Committee# should# have# likewise#
recommended# the# investigation# of# all# personnel# involved# in# the# drinking#
session.#
o “Moreover,#we#do#not#clearly#see#that#the#presence#of#a#complainant#posed#
a# serious# and# imminent# threat# to# the# property# of# PAL# in# order# to# justify#
the# preventive# suspension# imposed# upon# the# former# x# x# x# Gempis# did#
commit#abuse#of#authority#amounting#to#gross#misconduct#x#x#x#
o Finally,# there# was# the# investigation# conducted# by# the# investigating#
Committee#x#x#x#the#investigation#was#conducted#in#a#most#impartial#and#
regular#manner#x#x#x#we#find#that#the#penalty#of#demotion#for#a#period#of#
six# (6)# months# at# the# most# which# the# Labor# Arbiter# imposed# is# the#
commensurate#and#equitable#penalty#
" eye#
Issue:"Whether"or"not"NLRC"erred"in"its"decision."
Held:"Decision"of"the"NLRC"is"set"aside."
Ratio:""
• It#would#be#grossly#unfair#to#order#PAL#to#reinstate#him#back#to#his#work#as#pilot.##
o The# nature# of# employment# of# Gempis# necessitates# that# he# should# not#
violate# the# liquor# ban# as# provided# for# in# the# Basic# Operations# Manual# in#
order# to# protect# not# only# the# interest# of# the# company# but# the# public# as#
well.##
o Gempis#is#a#risk#and#liability#rather#than#an#asset#to#PAL.#
• Gempis#and#those#persons#he#abused#(F/Os#A.#Barcebal#and#J.#Ranches)#are#pilots.#
The#foremost#consideration#called#for#by#their#position#as#pilots#is#the#safety#of#the#
passengers.# This# is# so# because# the# duties# of# a# pilot# consist# of# handling# controls# of#
the#aircraft#and#to#ensure#that#the#flight#is#conducted#safely#and#economically.#
• NLRC"committed"a"grave"abuse"of"discretion"amounting"to"lack"of"jurisdiction"
in" not" imposing" the" appropriate" penalty" of" dismissal.# Under# these# facts,#
clearance#to#terminate#should#have#been#given#for#the#dismissal#of#Gempis.#
The" business" of" Philippine" Airlines" is" such" that" whenever" a" passenger" dies" or" is"
injured" the" presumption" is," it" is" at" fault" notwithstanding" the" fact" that" it" has"
24"
exercised" due" diligence" of" a" good" father" of" a" family" in" the" selection" and"
supervision"of"its"employees."Thus,"extraordinary"measures"and"diligence"should"
be"exercised"by"it"for"the"safety"of"its"passengers"and"their"belongings.#Needless#to#
state,# a# pilot# must# be# sober# all# the# time# for# he# may# be# called# upon# to# fly# a# plane# even#
before# his# regular# scheduled# hours,# otherwise# so# many# lives# will# be# in# danger# if# he# is#
drunk.#It#would#be#unjust#for#an#employer#like#herein#petitioner#PAL#to#be#compelled#to#
continue#with#the#employment#of#a#person#whose#continuance#in#the#service#is#obviously#
inimical#to#its#interests.#
# 14#PILAPIL#V.#CA,#180#SCRA#546#–BENEDICTO#
JOSE# PILAPIL,# petitioner,# vs. HON.# COURT# OF# APPEALS# and# ALATCO#
TRANSPORTATION#COMPANY,#INC.,#respondents.#G.R.#No.#52159#December#22,#1989#
PADILLA,#J"#
#
DOCTRINE:""When#the#violation#of#the#contract#is#due#to#the#willful#acts#of#strangers,#as#
in#Art.#1763,#the#degree#of#care#essential#to#be#exercised#by#the#common#carrier#for#the#
protection#of#its#passenger#is#only#that#of#a#good#father#of#a#family.#
#
Cause#of#Action:##Damages#
Key#Words:##left#eye##
Common"Carrier" ALATCO#Transportation#
Passenger" Jose#Pilapil#
Problem" A#stranger#on#the#road#threw#a#stone#on#the#bus#and#hit#Jose's#left#
Who"won" CC#Alatco#Transportation#
#
"
EMERGENCY"DIGEST:""Jose#Pilapil,#on#board#Alatco’s#bus#no.#409#was#hit#above#his##left#
eye# by# a# stone# hurled# by# an# unidentified# bystander.# Alatco’s# personnel# lost# no# time# in#
bringing# him# to# a# hospital,# but# eventually# Jose# partially# lost# his# left# eye’s# vision# and#
sustained#a#permanent#scar.##Jose#filed#an#action#for#recovery#of#damages#before#the#CFI#
of# Camarines# Sur# which# the# latter# granted.# On# appeal,# the# Court# of# Appeals# reversed.##
Issue:# # Whether# common# carriers# assume# risks# to# passengers# such# as# the# stoning# of# a#
stranger.##NO.##In#consideration#of#the#right#granted#to#it#by#the#public#to#engage#in#the#
business# of# transporting# passengers# and# goods,# a# common# carrier# does# not# give# its#
consent# to# become# an# insurer# of# any# and# all# risks# to# passengers# and# goods.# It# merely#
undertakes#to#perform#certain#duties#to#the#public#as#the#law#imposes,#and#holds#itself#
liable# for# any# breach.# # While# the# law# requires# the# highest# degree# of# diligence# from#
common#carriers#in#the#safe#transport#of#their#passengers#and#creates#a#presumption#of#
negligence# against# them,# it# does# not,# however,# make# the# carrier# an# insurer# of# the#
absolute#safety#of#its#passengers.#
#
Article# 1763.# A# common# carrier# is# responsible# for# injuries# suffered# by# a# passenger# on#
account# of# the# willful# acts# or# negligence# of# other# passengers# or# of# strangers,# if# the#
common#carrier's#employees#through#the#exercise#of#the#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#
family#could#have#prevented#or#stopped#the#act#or#omission.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 25"
#
# by#the#passenger#was#due#to#a#fortuitous#event.#In#this#case,#the#injury#sustained#by#
Under# the# above# provision,# a# tort# committed# by# a# stranger# which# causes# injury# to# a# the# Jose# was# not# due# to# any# defect# in# the# means# of# transport# or# in# the# method# of#
passenger#does#not#accord#the#latter#a#cause#of#action#against#the#carrier.#The#negligence# transporting#or#to#the#negligent#or#willful#acts#of#Alatco's#employees,#and#therefore#
for#which#a#common#carrier#is#held#responsible#is#the#negligent#omission#by#the#carrier's# involving#no#issue#of#negligence#in#its#duty#to#provide#safe#and#suitable#cars#as#well#
employees# to# prevent# the# tort# from# being# committed# when# the# same# could# have# been# as# competent# employees,# with# the# injury# arising# wholly# from# causes# created# by#
foreseen# and# prevented# by# them.# Further,# under# the# same# provision,# it# is# to# be# noted# strangers#over#which#the#carrier#had#no#control#or#even#knowledge#or#could#not#have#
that# when# the# violation# of# the# contract# is# due# to# the# willful# acts# of# strangers,# as# in# the# prevented,# the# presumption# is# rebutted# and# the# carrier# is# not# to# be# held# liable.# To#
instant#case,#the#degree#of#care#essential#to#be#exercised#by#the#common#carrier#for#the# rule#otherwise#would#make#the#common#carrier#the#insurer#of#the#absolute#safety#of#
protection#of#its#passenger#is#only#that#of#a#good#father#of#a#family.# its#passengers#which#is#not#the#intention#of#the#lawmakers.#
" #
COMPLETE"DIGEST" • While# as# a# general# rule,# common# carriers# are# bound# to# exercise# extraordinary#
Jose# Pilapil,# a# paying# passenger,# boarded# Alatco's# bus# bearing# No.# 409# at# San# Nicolas,# diligence#in#the#safe#transport#of#their#passengers,#it#would#seem#that#this#is#not#the#
Iriga#City#on#16#September#1971#at#about#6:00#P.M.#While#bus#No.#409#was#in#due#course# standard#by#which#its#liability#is#to#be#determined#when#intervening#acts#of#strangers#
negotiating#the#distance#between#Iriga#City#and#Naga#City,#upon#reaching#the#vicinity#of# is# to# be# determined# directly# cause# the# injury,# while# the# contract# of# carriage# Article#
the# cemetery# of# the# Municipality# of# Baao,# Camarines# Sur,# on# the# way# to# Naga# City,# an# 1763#governs:#
unidentified#man,#a#bystander#along#said#national#highway,#hurled#a#stone#at#the#left#side# #
of#the#bus,#which#hit#Jose#above#his#left#eye.#Altco's#personnel#lost#no#time#in#bringing#the# Article# 1763.# A# common# carrier# is# responsible# for# injuries# suffered# by# a# passenger# on#
Jose#to#the#provincial#hospital#in#Naga#City#where#he#was#confined#and#treated.# account# of# the# willful# acts# or# negligence# of# other# passengers# or# of# strangers,# if# the#
common#carrier's#employees#through#the#exercise#of#the#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#
Considering#that#the#sight#of#his#left#eye#was#impaired,#Jose#was#taken#to#Dr.#Malabanan# family#could#have#prevented#or#stopped#the#act#or#omission.#
of#Iriga#City#where#he#was#treated#for#another#week.#Since#there#was#no#improvement#in# #
his#left#eye's#vision,#Jose#went#to#V.#Luna#Hospital,#Quezon#City#where#he#was#treated#by# • Under#the#above#provision,#a#tort#committed#by#a#stranger#which#causes#injury#to#a#
Dr.#Capulong.#Despite#the#treatme,#Jose#lost#partially#his#left#eye's#vision#and#sustained#a# passenger# does# not# accord# the# latter# a# cause# of# action# against# the# carrier.# The#
permanent#scar#above#the#left#eye.# negligence#for#which#a#common#carrier#is#held#responsible#is#the#negligent#omission#
# by#the#carrier's#employees#to#prevent#the#tort#from#being#committed#when#the#same#
Jose#filed#an#action#for#recovery#of#damages#against#Alatco#before#the#CFI#of#Camarines# could# have# been# foreseen# and# prevented# by# them.# It# is# to# be# noted# that# when# the#
Sur,#Branch#I.#After#trial,#the#court#a#quo#rendered#judgment#ordering#Alatco#to#pay#Jose# violation# of# the# contract# is# due# to# the# willful# acts# of# strangers,# the# degree# of# care#
Pilapil#the#sum#of#P#10,000.00,#representing#actual#and#material#damages#for#causing#a# essential#to#be#exercised#by#the#common#carrier#for#the#protection#of#its#passenger#is#
permanent#scar#on#the#face#and#injuring#the#eyeSsight#of#the#plaintiff;#P#5,000.00,#to#the# only#that#of#a#good#father#of#a#family.#
as# moral# and# exemplary# damages;# reimbursement# of# medical# expenses# and# attorney's# #
fees;#and#to#pay#the#costs.##Alatco#appealed#to#the#CA.##CA#reversed#the#CFI#judgment.## Jose#has#charged#Alatco#of#negligence#on#the#ground#that#the#injury#complained#of#could#
# have# been# prevented# by# the# common# carrier# if# something# like# meshSwork# grills# had#
Issues:## covered# the# windows# of# its# bus.# # Although# the# suggested# precaution# could# have#
Whether# Alatco# is# liable# for# Jose's# injury# brought# about# by# the# stoning# of# the# bus# by# a# prevented# the# injury# complained# of,# the# rule# of# ordinary# care# and# prudence# is# not# so#
stranger.##S#NO# exacting# as# to# require# one# charged# with# its# exercise# to# take# doubtful# or# unreasonable#
# precautions#to#guard#against#unlawful#acts#of#strangers.#The#carrier#is#not#charged#with#
Held:"Judgment#of#CA#affirmed.# the# duty# of# providing# or# maintaining# vehicles# as# to# absolutely# prevent# any# and# all#
• While#the#law#requires#the#highest#degree#of#diligence#from#common#carriers#in#the# injuries#to#passengers.#Where#the#carrier#uses#cars#of#the#most#approved#type,#in#general#
safe# transport# of# their# passengers# and# creates# a# presumption# of# negligence# against# use# by# others# engaged# in# the# same# occupation,# and# exercises# a# high# degree# of# care# in#
them,#it#does#not,#however,#make#the#carrier#an#insurer#of#the#absolute#safety#of#its# maintaining#them#in#suitable#condition,#the#carrier#cannot#be#charged#with#negligence.#
passengers.# # It# is# clear# that# neither# the# law# nor# the# nature# of# the# business# of# a#
transportation# company# makes# it# an# insurer# of# the# passenger's# safety,# but# that# its#
liability#for#personal#injuries#sustained#by#its#passenger#rests#upon#its#negligence,#its# # 15#GACAL#V.#PAL,#183#SCRA#189*#SCHAN#
failure#to#exercise#the#degree#of#diligence#that#the#law#requires.##
# G.R.#No.#LS55300#
• The# presumption# of# fault# or# negligence# against# the# carrier# is# only# a# disputable# March#15,#1990#
presumption.#It#gives#in#where#contrary#facts#are#established#proving#either#that#the# FRANKLIN"G."GACAL"and"CORAZON"M."GACAL,"the"latter"assisted"by"her"husband,"
carrier#had#exercised#the#degree#of#diligence#required#by#law#or#the#injury#suffered# FRANKLIN" G." GACAL,# petitioners,## vs.# PHILIPPINE" AIR" LINES," INC.," and" THE"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
HONORABLE" PEDRO" SAMSON" C." ANIMAS," in" his" capacity" as" PRESIDING" JUDGE" of"
the"COURT"OF"FIRST"INSTANCE"OF"SOUTH"COTABATO,"BRANCH"I,#respondents.#
# • Petition#for#review#on#certiorari#of#decision#of#the#CFI#of#South#Cotabato,#Branch#1#
Common"Carrier" Philippine#Airlines#
Passenger" Plaintiffs#Spouses#Franklin#G.#Gacal#and#Corazon#M.#Gacal#
Problem" 10#minutes#into#the#flight,#the#MNLF#rebels#announced#the#hijack.#
When#plane#landed,#a#gunfight#ensued#which#forced#Corazon#Gacal#
to#jump#from#the#plane.#
Who"won" PAL.#Elements#of#force#majeure#were#present.#
# following# members# of# the# MNLF# were# with# them:# Macalinog,# Taurac# Pendatum#
EMERGENCY"RECIT"
" PAL’s# plane# was# supposed# to# fly# from# Davao# Airport# to# Manila.# Spouses# Gacal#
(Franklin#and#Corazon)#were#in#the#plane.##
" Passengers# of# PAL# did# not# know# that# the# other# passengers# were# members# of# the#
MNLF,# who# were# led# by# Commander# Zapata.# 10# minutes# into# the# flight,# the# rebels#
announced#the#hijack.##
" They# commanded# the# pilot# to# bring# the# plane# to# Libya,# however# pilot# said# that#
there#were#fuel#limitations.##
" They#commanded#the#pilot#to#bring#the#plane#to#Sabah#but#the#same#limitation#was#
present.##
" Finally,#they#decided#to#land#at#Zamboanga#Airport#for#refueling.##
" When#the#plane#began#to#taxi,#it#was#met#by#2#military#armored#cars,#with#machine#
guns#pointed#at#the#plane.##
" Rebels" demanded" that" the" DCaaircraft" take" them" to" Libya" and" that" they" be"
given"armalites"and"$375k."If"these"demands"weren’t"met,"they’d"blow"up"the"
plane.# Meanwhile,# the# passengers# were# only# given# food# a# few# days# after.# The#
relatives#of#the#rebels#visited#them#in#the#plane.##
" When# the# relatives# already# went# out,# an# armored# car# bumped# the# stairs.# Gunfight#
ensued.# As# a# result# of# the# gunfight,# Franklin# Gacal# was# not# injured.# However,#
Corazon" got" injured" and" had" to" be" hospitalized.#Gacals#filed#case#for#damages.#
Trial# court# dismissed# because# they# decided# that# the# damages# were# due# to# force#
majeure.#
ISSUE#–#Were#the#damages#caused#by#force#majeure?#YES!!!#
RATIO#–#Elements#of#force#majeure#(IIIF!!!)#
o the# cause# of# the# breach# of# the# obligation# must# be# independent# of# the#
human#will#
o the#event#must#be#either#unforeseeable#or#unavoidable#
o event#must#be#such#as#to#render#it#impossible#for#the#debtor#to#fulfill#his#
obligation#in#a#normal#manner#
o debtor#must#be#free#from#any#participation#in,#or#aggravation#of#the#injury#
to#the#creditor#
• These#elements#were#present.#PAL#did#not#participate#in#the#hijacking.#Also," while"
under" normal" circumstances," PAL" would" have" foreseen," it" was" impossible" in"
this" case" because" the" security" measures" were" being" handled" by" the" military"
(martial" law).# The# event# also# rendered# it# impossible# for# them# to# fulfill# their#
obligations.# Lastly,# “there# is# no# disputed# that# the# 4th# element# has# also# been#
satisfied.”#
#
26"
DETAILED#DIGEST#
FACTS#
dismissing#3#consolidate#cases#for#damages#
• Passengers#of#the#plane#
o Plaintiffs#Franklin#G.#Gacal#and#Corazon#M.#Gacal#(Franklin’s#wife)#
o Bonifacio#S.#Anislag#and#wife,#Mansueta#L.#Anislag#
o Late#Elma#de#Guzman#
• The# passengers# enumerated# above# were# not# aware# that# on# the# same# flight,# the#
(Commander# Zapata),# Nasser# Omar,# Liling# Pusuan# Radia,# Dimantong# Dimarosing,#
Mike#Randa#(Zapata,#et#al.).#They"were"armed"with"(3)"grenades,"(2)".45"caliber"
pistols,"and"(1)".22"caliber"pistol.#
• The#plane#was#supposed#to#fly#from#Davao#Airport#to#Manila.#However,#10#minutes#
into#the#flight,#the#rebels#announced#the#hijacking#of#the#plane#and#directed#its#pilot#
to#fly#to#Libya.#The#pilot#said#that#there#are#fuel#limitations#so#Zapata#told#the#pilot#
to# fly# Sabah.# The# pilot# still# said# that# there# are# fuel# limitations.# Therefore," they"
landed"at"Zamboanga"Airport"for"refueling"
• When# the# plane# began# to# taxi# at# the# runway,# it# was# met# by# 2# armored# cars# of# the#
military,#with#machine#guns#pointed#at#the#plane.#Therefore,#the#rebels#demanded#
that# the# DCSaircraft# take# them# to# Libya# with# the# president# of# PAL.# They# also#
demanded#that#they#be#given#$375,000#and#6#armalites.#If#the#demands#aren’t#met,#
they#would#blow#up#the#plane#
• Meanwhile,# passengers# were# not# given# food/water# and# it# was# only# on# May# 23#
(Sunday),#at#about#1pm#that#the#passengers#were#served#¼#slice#of#a#sandwich#and#
1/10#cup#of#PAL#water.#
• Relatives# of# the# hijackers# were# allowed# to# board.# Right# after# the# relatives# left,# an#
armored#car#bumped#the#stairs#so#a#gunfight" ensued" between" the" military" and"
the"hijackers."
o 10"passengers"died"
o 3"hijackers"died"
o 3"hijackers"captured"
• What#happened#because#of#the#firefight?#
o Plaintiff# City# Fiscal# Franklin# G.# Gacal# was# unhurt.# However,# Mrs." Gacal"
suffered" injuries" in" the" course" of" her" jumping" out" of" the" plane"
(reason"why"she"jumped:"plane"was"being"peppered"with"bullets"and"
2"hand"grenades"exploded"inside"the"plane).#
" Mrs.# Gacal# was# hospitalized# at# General# Santos# Doctors# Hospital#
for#2#days#
o Assistant# City# Fiscal# Bonifacio# S.# Anislag# also# escaped# unhurt.# However,#
his# wife# suffered# a# fracture# at# the# radial# bone# of# her# left# elbow.# She# was#
also#hospitalized#and#operated#on#
o Elma#de#Guzman#died#
• Hence,# action# of# damage# instituted# by# the# plaintiffs# demanding# damages# (actual#
damages,# hospital# and# medical# expenses,# loss# of# personal# belongings,# moral#
damages,#attorney’s#fees,#and#exemplary#damages)#
• Trial#court#dismissed#finding#that#the#damages#were#due#to#force#majeure.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• Spouses#Gacal#appealed#with#the#lower#court#on#pure#questions#of#law.#Petition#for#
review#on#certiorari#was#filed#with#this#court.##
• ARGUMENTS#
o Gacal"alleged"that"PAL"was"negligent"because"they"failed"to"frisk"the"
passengers"adequately"to"discover"the"hidden"weapons.#Also,#the#use#
of# metal# detector# could# have# been# sufficient# to# discover# potential#
skyjackers#
o PAL# alleged# that# it# has# exercised# the# utmost# diligence# of# a# very# cautious#
person#with#due#regard#to#all#circumstances,#but#the#security#checks#and#
measures# and# surveillance# precautions# were# performed# and# rendered#
solely# by# military# personnel# who# under# appropriate# authority# had#
assumed# exclusive# jurisdiction# over# the# same# in# all# airports# in# the#
Philippines#
# o These#events#rendered#it#impossible#for#PAL#to#perform#its#obligations#in#a#
# nominal#manner#and#obviously#it#cannot#be#faulted#with#negligence#in#the#
ISSUE" a# Whether# or# not# hijacking# or# air# piracy# during# martial# law# and# under# the#
circumstances#obtaining#herein,#is#a#caso#fortuito#or#force#majeure#which#would#exempt#
an#aircraft#from#payment#of#damages#to#its#passengers#whose#lives#were#put#in#jeopardy#
and#whose#personal#belongings#were#lost#during#the#incident.#YES,#CASO#FORTUITO!!!#
# respondent#PAL#from#the#payment#of#damages#to#its#passengers#who#suffered#death#
HELD"S#PREMISES#CONSIDERED,#the#petition#is#hereby#DISMISSED#for#lack#of#merit#and#
the# decision# of# the# Court# of# First# Instance# of# South# Cotabato,# Branch# I# is# hereby#
AFFIRMED.#
# #
RATIO"
• Under# the# Civil# Code,# common# carriers# are# required# to# exercise# extraordinary#
diligence# in# their# vigilance# over# the# goods# and# for# the# safety# of# passengers#
transported#by#them,#according#to#all#the#circumstances#of#each#case#(Article#1733)#
• They#are#presumed#at#fault#or#to#have#acted#negligently#whenever#a#passenger#dies#
or#is#injured#
• Source# of# a# common# carrier’s# legal# liability# is# the# contract# of# carriage# and# by#
entering# into# said# contract,# it# binds# itself# to# carry# the# passengers# safely# as# far# as#
human#care#and#foresight#can#provide#
• Thus,#no#person#shall#be#responsible#for#those#"events#which#could#not#be#foreseen#
or#which#though#foreseen#were#inevitable”#
o THIS" iS" SYNONYMOUS" WITH" CASO" FORTUITO," WHICH" IS" OF" THE"
SAME"SENSE"AS"FORCE"MAJEURE#
• In#order#to#constitute#a#caso#fortuito#or#force#majeure,#the#following#elements#must#
concur:#
o the# cause# of# the# breach# of# the# obligation# must# be# independent# of# the#
human#will#
o the#event#must#be#either#unforeseeable#or#unavoidable#
o event#must#be#such#as#to#render#it#impossible#for#the#debtor#to#fulfill#his#
obligation#in#a#normal#manner#
o debtor#must#be#free#from#any#participation#in,#or#aggravation#of#the#injury#
to#the#creditor#
• The# mere# difficulty# to# foresee# the# happening# is# not# impossibility# to# foresee# the#
same#
27"
• In#this#case,#
o Failure# to# transport# petitioners# because# of# the# skyjacking# incident# was#
without# any# connection# with# PAL,# hence# independent" of" the" will" of"
either"PAL/passengers#
o Under" normal" circumstances," PAL" might" have" foreseen" the"
skyjacking"incident,"which"could"have"been"avoided"had"there"been"a"
more" thorough" frisking" of" passengers" and" inspection" of" baggage,"
authorized"by"RA6235"
" BUT" the" incident" occurred" during" the" Martial" Law" where"
there"was"a"military"takeaover"of"airport"security"including"
the" frisking" of" passengers" and" the" inspection" of" their"
luggage"preparatory"to"boarding"domestic"and"international"
flights"
performance#of#duty#taken#over#by#the#Armed#Forces#of#the#Philippines#to#
the#exclusion#of#the#former#
o Finally,#there#is#no#dispute#that#the#fourth#element#has#also#been#satisfied.#
• Consequently# the# existence# of'force' majeure#has# been# established# exempting#
or#injuries#in#their#persons#and#for#loss#of#their#baggage.#
16#QUISUMBING#V.#CA,#189#SCRA#605*#SCORTEZ#
G.R.#No.#LS50076#September#14,#1990#
NORBERTO" QUISUMBING," SR.," and" GUNTHER" LOEFFLER"vs" COURT" OF" APPEALS"
and"PHILIPPINE"AIR"LINES,"INC.,"
"
Common"Carrier" Philippine#Airlines#
Passenger" Norberto#Quisumbing#Sr.#and#Gunther#Leoffler#
Problem" Plane# got# hijacked# on# its# way# to# Manila.# Exchange# of# gunshots#
ensued.# Zaldy# et# al.# declared# robbery# and# took# the# passengers’#
belongings.#
Who"won" PHILIPPINE# AIRLINES# (incident# was# force# majeure# and# PAL# was#
not#negligent)#
EMERGENCY"DIGEST:"
Quisumbing# et# al# were# passengers# in# one# of# PAL’s# plane.# Flight# was# from# Mactan# to#
Manila.# Inside# the# plane,# there’s# NBI# Agent# Villarin.# He# noticed# a# certain# “Zaldy”S# a#
suspect# in# killing# a# judge.# Zaldy# was# with# 3# other# people.# He# clarified# this# with# a#
stewardess#and#indeed,#it#was#Zaldy.#Villarin#asked#the#pilot#to#contact#NBI#in#Manila#and#
send#6#agents#for#help#but#the#pilot#said#that#he#can’t#because#it#would#be#heard#by#all#
ground#aircraft#stations.#They#talked#for#quite#some#time.#Then#while#talking,#Zaldy#&#co.#
walked# then# stood# behind# them.# Sensing# danger,# the# pilot# and# Villarin# ended# their#
conversation;#and#Zaldy#and#co.#went#back#to#their#seats#as#well.#Villarin#went#back#to#his#
seat# as# well.# Ugly# looks# were# exchanged# between# Villarin# and# Zaldy.# Soon" after," an"
exchange" of" gunshots" ensued." Zaldy" &" co." declared" robbery" and" took" the"
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 28"
#
passengers’" belongings." The" plane" eventually" landed" in" Manila." Zaldy" &" co." Villarin# scribbled# a# note# addressed# to# the# plane’s# pilot,# Capt.# Luis# Bonnevie,# Jr.# (THE#
managed"to"escape." PILOT)#requesting#him#to#contact#NBI#agents#in#Manila#to#send#about#6#agents##to#help#in#
# apprehending#Zaldy#
Quisumbing#et#al#were#demanding#indemnity#from#PAL#but#the#latter#denied#saying#that# • Upon# receipt# of# the# note# (about# 15mins# after# take# off),# the# pilot,# came# out# of#
they’re#not#liable.#This#prompted#Quisumbing#et#al#to#file#a#case#in#CFI#Rizal#to#recover# the#cockpit##
the#value#of#the#property#lost#and#as#well#as#damages.## o He#sat#beside#Villarin#at#the#rear#portion#of#the#plane#
CFI"RULING!#favored#PAL.#CFI#dismissed#their#complaint#ruling#that#they#(Quisumbing# o he# explained# that# he# couldn’t# send# the# message# because# it# would# be#
et#al)#didn’t#surrender#their#belonging#to#PAL#so#the#company#is#not#liable;#and#that#the# heard#by#all#ground#aircraft#stations#
robbery#was#force#majeure.#Quisumbing#et#al#appealed#to#CA.## • Villarin#told#the#pilot#of#the#danger#of#commission#of#violent#acts#on#board#the#
# plane#by#Zaldy#and#his#companions#
CA" RULING!AFFIRMED#CFI.#Favored#PAL.#According#to#CA,#“where#PAL#has#faithfully# #
complied#with#the#requirements#of#government#agencies#and#adhered#to#the#established# While#Villarin#and#the#pilot#were#talking#Zaldy#and#one#of#his#companions#walked#to#the#
procedures# and# precautions# of# the# airline# industry# at# any# particular# time,# its# failure# to# rear# and# stood# behind# them.# The# conversation# ended# so# the# pilot# went# back# to# the#
take#certain#steps#that#a#passenger#in#hindsight#believes#should#have#been#taken#is#not# cockpit.#Zaldy#and#company#went#back#to#their#seats#as#well#
the# negligence# or# misconduct# which# mingles# with# force# majeure# as# an# active# and# • After#a#few#minutes#they#once#again#went#at#the#rear#and#were#throwing#ugly#
cooperative#cause.#Under#the#circumstance#of#the#instant#case,#the#acts#of#the#airline#and# looks#at#VIllarin.##
its#crew#cannot#be#faulted#as#negligence”.#Quisumbing#et#al#appealed#to#SC.# • Villarin#sensed#danger#so#he#went#back#to#his#original#seat#across#the#aisle#on#
# the#2nd#to#the#last#seat#near#the#window#
ISSUE:#WON#the#hijacking#was#force#majeure#(YES);#and#W/N#PAL#was#negligent#(NO)# #
# Soon#after#an#exchange#of#gunshots#ensued#between#Villarin#and#Zaldy#&#company.#
HELD" &" RATIO:#petition#denied;#CA#is#AFFIRMED.#The#records#convinces#this#Court#of# • Zaldy#announced#to#everyone#that#it#was#a#holdSup#
the#correctness#of#the#essential#conclusion#of#both#the#trial#and#appellate#courts#that#the# • Ordered#the#pilot#not#to#send#SOS#
evidence#does#indeed#fail#to#prove#any#want#of#diligence#on#the#part#of#PAL,#or#that,#more# #
specifically,# it# had# failed# to# comply# with# applicable# regulations# or# universally# accepted# HoldSuppers#divested#the#passengers#of#their#belongings#
and#observed#procedures#to#preclude#hijacking;#and#that#the#particular#acts#singled#out# • Quisumbing# was# divested# of# jewelries# and# cash# amounting# to# P18,650# out# of#
by# the# petitioners# as# supposedly# demonstrative# of# negligence# were,# in# the# light# of# the# which#recoveries#were#made#amounting#to#P4,550#
circumstances# of# the# case,# not# in# truth# negligent# acts# "sufficient# to# overcome# the# force# • Loeffler#was#divested#of#a#wrist#watch,#cash,#and#wallet#which#is#P1,700#in#total#
majeure#nature#of#the#armed#robbery."#
• As#a#result,#Quisumbing#suffered#shock#because#a#gun#was#pointed#at#him#
#
#
COMPLETE"
Upon# landing# at# the# Manila# International# Airport,# Zaldy# and# company# succeeded# in#
#
escaping.#(YES,'THEY'GOT'AWAY.'@_@)#
FACTS:*
#
Norberto#Quisumbing#Sr.#and#Gunther#Leoffler#(QUISUMBING,#ET#AL)#were#passengers#
Quisumbing# et# al# made# demands# on# PAL# to# indemnify# them# for# their# loss# but# PAL#
in#Philippine#Airlines’#(PAL)#Fokker#“Friendship”#PICS536#plane#on#November#6,#1968#
refused#saying#that#they#are#not#liable,#in#law#or#in#fact.#
• Flight#was#from#Mactan#City#to#Manila# #
• They#left#Mactan#City#at#about#7:30pm# Quisumbing#et#al#filed#a#suit#against#PAL#in#the#Court#of#First#Instance,#Rizal#to#recover#
# the# value# of# the# property# lost# by# them# to# the# holdSuppers# as# well# as# moral# and#
An#NBI#agent,#Florencio#Villarin#(VILLARIN)#was#also#a#passenger#in#the#plane.## exemplary#damages,#attorney’s#fees,#and#litigation#expenses#
• After#the#plane#took#off,#he#noticed#a#certain#“ZALDY”# • They#contend#that#such#loss#is#a#result#of#breach#of#PAL’s#contractual#obligation#
o A#suspect#in#the#killing#of#a#Judge#Valdez# to# carry# them# and# their# belongings# to# Manila# without# loss# or# damage,# and#
" Zaldy#was#seated#at#front#seat#near#the#door#leading#to#the# constitutes# a# serious# dereliction# of# PAL’s# legal# duty# to# exercise# extraordinary#
cockpit#of#the#plane# diligence#in#the#vigilance#over#the#same#
o Villarin#checked#the#passenger’s#ticket#in#possession#of#a#stewardess,# • That#their#suit#was#instituted#pursuant#to#articles#1754,#1998,#2000,#2001#
Annie#Bontigao,#seated#at#the#last#seat#right#row# o In#relation#to#Art#2001:#act#of#armed#robbers#is#not#force#majeure#
" Revealed# that# Zaldy# used# one# of# his# aliases,# “CARDENTE”,# " the# 'use# of# arms'# or# 'irresistible# force'# was# not# taken#
which#is#known#to#VIllarin# advantage# of# by# said# armed# robbers# in# gaining# entrance# to#
o Villarin#found#out#that#Zaldy#had#3#companions#on#board#the#plane# defendant's#illSfated#
#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
o In# relation# to# Art# 1998:# it# is# not# essential# that# the# lost# effects# and#
belongings# of# plaintiffs# were# actually# delivered# to# defendant's# plane#
personnel#or#that#the#latter#were#notified#thereof#
# the"airline"and"its"crew"cannot"be"faulted"as"negligence."
PAL#filed#their#answer,#denying#its#liability#
• That#the#robbery#that#happened#was#force#majeure#
• Quisumbing#et#al#did#notify#PAL#or#its#employees#that#they#were#in#possession#
of#cash,#German#marks#and#valuable#jewelries#and#watches,#or#surrendered#the#
said#items#to#the#plane’s#crew#
# released" their" hostages" at" the" runway" end" near" the"
The#CFI#rendered#judgement#dismissing#the#complaint#
• Art#1998#denies#them#recourse#since#they#didn’t#surrender#their#belongings#to#
PAL’s#crew#
• armed#robbery#that#took#place#constitutes#force#majeure'thus,#PAL#is#not#liable##
o the#robbers"were"able"to"gain"entrance"to"the"plane"with"the"guns"
they"used"already"in"their"possession,"which"fact"could"not"have"
been"prevented"nor"avoided"by"PAL"since"it"was"not"authorized"
to"search"its"passengers"for"firearms"and"deadly"weapons#
# HELD:#petition#is#DENIED;#CA#decision#AFFIRMED#
Quisumbing# et# al# appealed# to# the# Court# of# Appeals,# which# affirmed# the# CFI# judgment#
(THIS'IS'IMPORTANT!)'
• The#robbery#is#force#majeure.#Hijackers"do"not"board"an"airplane"through"a"
blatant" display" of" firepower" and" violent" fury." Firearms," handagrenades,"
dynamite,"and"explosives"are"introduced"into"the"airplane"surreptitiously"
and"with"the"utmost"cunning"and"stealth,"although"there"is"an"occasional"
use" of" innocent" hostages" who" will" be" coldly" murdered" unless" a" plane" is"
given"to"the"hijackers'"complete"disposal.#
o The# objective# of# modernSday# hijackers# is# to# display# the# irresistible#
force#amounting#to#force#majeure#only#when#it#is#most#effective#and#
that#is#when#the#jetliner#is#winging#its#way#at#Himalayan#altitudes#and#
illSadvised# heroics# by# either# crew# or# passengers# would# send# the#
multiSmillion#peso#airplane#and#the#priceless#lives#of#all#its#occupants#
into#certain#death#and#destruction#
• PAL# could# not# be# faulted# for# want# of# diligence,# particularly# for# failing# to# take#
positive#measures#“to#implement#Civil#Aeronautics#Administration#regulations#
prohibiting#civilians#from#carrying#firearms#on#board#aircrafts;"#and#that#"the#
absence# of# coded# transmissions,# the# amateurish# behaviour# of# the# pilot# in#
dealing#with#the#NBI#agent,#the#allegedly#open#cockpit#door,#and#the#failure#to#
return# to# Mactan,# in# the# light# of# the# circumstances# of# the# case# ...,# were# not#
negligent# acts# sufficient# to# overcome# the# force# majeure# nature# of# the# armed#
robbery#
o We# are# not# in# the# least# bit# suggesting# that# the# Philippine# Airlines#
should# not# do# everything# humanly# possible# to# protect# passengers#
from#hijackers'#acts.#We#merely#state#that#where" PAL" has" faithfully"
complied" with" the" requirements" of" government" agencies" and"
adhered" to" the" established" procedures" and" precautions" of" the"
airline"industry"at"any"particular"time,"its"failure"to"take"certain"
steps" that" a" passenger" in" hindsight" believes" should" have" been"
29"
taken" is" not" the" negligence" or" misconduct" which" mingles" with"
force"majeure"as"an"active"and"cooperative"cause#
" Under" the" circumstance" of" the" instant" case," the" acts" of"
The" hijackers" had" already" shown" their" willingness" to"
kill." One" passenger" was" in" fact" killed" and" another"
survived" gunshot" wounds." The" lives" of" the" rest" of" the"
passengers" and" crew" were" more" important" than" their"
properties." Cooperation" with" the" hijackers" until" they"
South"Superhighway"was"dictated"by"the"circumstances."
#
#
ISSUE:*
W/N#the#hijacking#incident#constituted#force#majeure?#(YES,#it’s#foce#majeure)#
W/N#PAL#was#negligent#in#dealing#with#the#hijacking#incident?#(NO,#PAL#not#negligent)#
#
#
#
#
RATIO:#(SC'didn’t'really'say'much.'Refer'back'to'CA'decision'$)#
A#careful#analysis#of#the#records#convinces#this#Court#of#the#correctness#of#the#essential#
conclusion#of#both#the#trial#and#appellate#courts#that#the"evidence"does"indeed"fail"to"
prove" any" want" of" diligence" on" the" part" of" PAL," or" that," more" specifically," it" had"
failed"to"comply"with"applicable"regulations"or"universally"accepted"and"observed"
procedures" to" preclude" hijacking;" and" that" the" particular" acts" singled" out" by" the"
petitioners" as" supposedly" demonstrative" of" negligence" were," in" the" light" of" the"
circumstances" of" the" case," not" in" truth" negligent" acts" "sufficient" to" overcome" the"
force"majeure"nature"of"the"armed"robbery."""
#
The#Court#quite#agrees,#too,#with#CA’s#wry#observation#that#PAL's#"failure#to#take#certain#
steps#that#a#passenger#in#hindsight#believes#should#have#been#taken#is#not#the#negligence#
or#misconduct#which#mingles#with#force#majeure#as#an#active#and#cooperative#cause."#
#
No#success#can#therefore#attend#Quisumbing#et#al’s##appeal,#not#only#because#they#wish#
to#have#a#review#and#modification#of#factual#conclusions#of#the#Court#of#Appeals,#which#
established# and# uniformly# observed# axiom# proscribes,##but# also# because# those# factual#
conclusions#have#in#this#Court's#view#been#correctly#drawn#from#the#proofs#on#record.#
# 17#VDA.#DE#BATACLAN#V.#MEDINA,#102#PHIL#181#SCRUZ#NENZO##
EN#BANC#[G.R.#No.#LS10126.#October#22,#1957.]#
SALUD" VILLANUEVA" VDA." DE" BATACLAN" and" the" minors" NORMA,"
LUZVIMINDA,"ELENITA,"OSCAR"and"ALFREDO"BATACLAN,"represented"by"
their"Natural"guardian,"SALUD"VILLANUEVA"VDA."DE"BATACLAN,'plaintiffs2
appellants,#vs."MARIANO"MEDINA,'defendant2appellant.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 30"
#
" The#trip:#
DOCTRINE:"" • When:#Shortly#after#midnight,#on#September#13,#1952,##
PROXIMATE# CAUSE:" That# cause,# which,# in# natural# and# continuous# sequence,# • Vehicle" :# bus# No.# 30# of# the# Medina# Transportation,# operated# by# its# owner,#
unbroken#by#any#efficient#intervening#cause,#produces#the#injury,#and#without#which# defendant# Mariano# Medina,# under# a# certificate# of# public# convenience,# divern# by#
the#result#would#not#have#occurred.#('see'below'for'long'version')'' Conrado#Saylon#
o When#through#the#negligence#of#the#driver#a#vehicle#turn#turtles#and#causes# • Route:#left#the#town#of#Amadeo,#Cavite,#on#its#way#to#Pasay#City#
injuries# to# its# passengers# and# then# subsequently# the# bus# catches# fire,# the# #
driver’s# negligence# may# still# be# considered# the# proximate# cause# of# the# Passengers#(18):#
consequences#of#that#fire.' • Including#Driver#and#Conductor##
• Juan#Bataclan,#seated#beside#and#to#the#right#of#the#driver,##
Common"Carrier" Medina#Transportation#(owned#by:#Mariano#Medina,#defendant#)# • Felipe#Lara,#seated#to#the#right#of#Bataclan,##
Passenger" Juan#Bataclan# • another#passenger#apparently#from#the#Visayan#Islands#whom#the#witnesses#just#
Problem" Speeding# Bus!One# of# the# front# tires# burst,# driver# applied# the# called# Visaya,# apparently# not# knowing# his# name,# seated# on# the# left# side# of# the#
brakes# causing# the# vehicle# to# zigSzag# until# it# fell# into# a# canal# or# driver,#and##
ditch# on# the# right# side# of# the# road# and# turned# turtle.# Gasoline# • a#woman#named#Natalia#Villanueva,#seated#just#behind#the#four#last#mentioned.##
leaked.# Man# with# torch# came# to# help# but# accidentally# ignites# the# #
gasoline#fumes.# The"Incident":""
Who"won" Salud#Bataclan#(wife)#and#minor#children#(plaintiffs)# *
Tires"burst,"Bus"flips,"some"passengers"escape"leaving"4"behind.##
# #
ER" At"about"2":00"AM,"One"of"the"front"tires"burst"and"the"vehicle"began"to"zigazag"
FACTS:# Shortly# after# midnight,# Juan# Bataclan# (deceased)# was# on# a# bus# owned# by# until"it"fell"into"a"canal"or"ditch"on"the"right"side"of"the"road"and"turned"turtle.""
Medina# Transportation# (owned# by:# Mariano# Medina,# defendant# )# travelling# from# • Some#of#the#passengers#managed#to#leave#the#bus#the#best#way#they#could,#others#
Cavite# to# Pasay.# While# on# its# way,# the# driver# of# the# bus# was# speeding# through# and# had#to#be#helped#or#pulled#out,##
when#he#applied#the#brakes#(#after#the#tires#burst)#it#cause#the#bus#to#be#overturned.# o while#the#4#passengers#could#not#get#out:#
The#driver,#the#conductor,#and#some#passengers#were#able#to#free#themselves#from#the# " (trivia'alert:#these#first#3#were#seated#beside#the#driver)##
bus# except# Bataclan# (deceased)# and# 3# others.# The# 4# stranded# passengers# called# for# " Bataclan,##
help.#Help#arrived#soon#thereafter#and#as#it#was#dark,#the#villagers#brought#torch#with# " Lara##
them.# The# driver# and# the# conductor# failed# to# warn# the# wouldSbe# helpers# of# the# fact# " the#Visayan#and##
that# gasoline# has# spilled# from# the# overturned# bus# so# a# huge# fire# ensued# which# " Natalia#Villanueva#(was#seated#behind#the#3)##
engulfed# the# bus# thereby# killing# the# 4# passengers# trapped# inside.# It# was# also# found# #
later#in#trial#that#the#tires#of#the#bus#were#old.# Passengers" that" escape" bring" back" help" BUT,* one* with* a* TORCH*
" accidentally*ignites*some*gas*and*torches*the*bus*–*killing*the*4.*
ISSUE:"Whether# or# not# the# proximate# cause# of# the# death# of# Bataclan# et# al# was# their# #
burning#by#reason#of#the#torches#which#ignited#the#gasoline#(or#was#it#the#fire’s?).# o Some#of#the#passengers,#after#they#had#clambered#up#to#the#road,#heard#
" shouts#for#help#from#Bataclan#and#Lara,#who#said#that#they#could#not#get#
HELD:"The#driver’s#negligence#was#the#proximate#cause.#The#proximate#cause#was#the# out#of#the#bus.##
overturning#of#the#bus#which#was#caused#by#the#negligence#of#the#driver#because#he# " There,#is#nothing#in#the#evidence#to#show#whether#or#not#the#
was# speeding# and# also# he# was# already# advised# by# Medina# to# change# the# tires# yet# he# passengers# already# free# from# the# wreck,# including# the# driver#
did#not.#Such#negligence#resulted#to#the#overturning#of#the#bus.#The#torches#carried#by# and# the# conductor,# made# any# attempt# to# pull# out# or# extricate#
the# wouldSbe# helpers# are# not# to# be# blamed.# It# is# just# but# natural# for# the# villagers# to# and#rescue#the#four#passengers#trapped#inside#the#vehicle,#but#
respond#to#the#call#for#help#from#the#passengers#and#since#it#is#a#rural#area#which#did# calls# or# shouts# for# help# were# made# to# the# houses# in# the#
not# have# flashlights,# torches# are# the# natural# source# of# lighting.# Further,# the# smell# of# neighborhood.##
gas# could# have# been# all# over# the# place# yet# the# driver# and# the# conductor# failed# to# " After#half#an#hour,#came#about#ten#men,#one#of#them#carrying#a#
provide#warning#about#said#fact#to#the#villagers.# lighted#torch#
#
• (trivia' alert:' the' torch' was' made' of' bamboo' with' a'
FULL"CASE"
wick'on'one'end,'evidently'fueled'with'petroleum.)''
#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 31"
#
" These# men# presumably# approached# the# overturned# bus,# and# using# the# utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# a# due#
almost#immediately,#a#fierce#fire#started,#burning#the#bus#and# regard#for#all#the#circumstances."#
the#4#inside.## "ART." 1756.In# case# of# death# of# or# injuries# to# passengers,#
• It#would#appear#that#as#the#bus#overturned,#gasoline# common#carriers#are#presumed#to#have#been#at#fault#or#to#have#acted#
began# to# leak# on# the# side# of# the# chassis,# permeating# negligently,# unless# they# prove# that# they# observed# extraordinary#
the# body# of# the# bus# and# the# ground# under# and# diligence#as#prescribed#in#articles#1733#and#1755."#
around#it.## "ART."1759.#Common#carriers#are#liable#for#the#death#of#or#
• The#torch#had#lit#it.# injuries# to# passengers# through# the# negligence# or# wilful# acts# of# the#
# former's# employees,# although# such# employees# may# have# acted#
Wife"and"minor"children"file"suit;"they"win"with"lower"courts" beyond#the#scope#of#their#authority#or#in#violation#of#the#orders#of#the#
That#same#day,#the#charred#bodies#of#the#four#doomed#passengers#inside#the#bus#were# common#carriers.#
removed#and#duly#identified,#specially#that#of#Juan#Bataclan.## This# liability# of# the# common# carriers# does# not# cease# upon#
# proof#that#they#exercised#all#the#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#family#
By#reason#of#his#death,#his#widow,#Salud#Villanueva,#in#her#name#and#in#behalf#of#her# in#the#selection#and#supervision#of#their#employees."#
five#minor#children,#brought#the#present#suit## "ART." 1763.# A# common# carrier# is# responsible# for# injuries#
• to#recover#from#Mariano#Medina## suffered#by#a#passenger#on#account#of#the#wilful#acts#or#negligence#of#
• compensatory,#moral,#and#exemplary#damages#and#attorney's#fees## other#passengers#or#of#strangers,#if#the#common#carrier's#employees#
• amount#of#P87,150.## through#the#exercise#of#the#diligence#of#a#good#father#of#a#family#could#
# have#prevented#or#stopped#the#act#or#omission."#
Court#of#First#Instance#of#Cavite#found#for#Salud#(plaintiff),## #
o (trivia'alert':'the'CFI'awarded'not'only'damaged'(1k'php)'and'atty' Evidence"of"negligence":"testimony"of"speeding"+"air"time"of"bus""
fees'(600'php)'but'also'for'the'value'of'merchandise'(100'php)'–'the' #
SC'will'later'on'increase'this'to'6k+800+100)' Witnesses#testified#:##
# • at#the#time#of#the#blow#out,#the#bus#was#speeding#
The# plaintiffs# and# the# defendants# appealed# the# decision# to# the# Court# of# Appeals,# but# • from#the#point#where#one#of#the#front#tires#burst#up#to#the#canal#where#the#
the#latter#court#endorsed#the#appeal#to#us#because#of#the#value#involved#in#the#claim#in# bus#overturned#after#zigSzagging,#there#was#a#(trivia'alert)#distance#of#about#
the#complaint.# 150#meters.##
# o This# was# due# to# the# velocity# of# the# bus# at# the# time# (causing# it# to#
# tumble#so#far)#
ISSUE:"Whether# or# not# the# proximate# cause# of# the# death# of# Bataclan# et# al# was# their# "
burning#by#reason#of#the#torches#which#ignited#the#gasoline.# TOPIC"doctrines"
# #
HELD:" There# is# no# question# that# under# the# circumstances,# the# defendant# carrier# is# liable.# The#
# only#question#is#to#what#degree.##
Doctrines/"Codal"we"already"know" #
# CFI" said:" proximate" cause" of" death" =" the" fire." So" bus" liable" only" for"
"ART." 1733.# Common# carriers,# from# the# nature# of# their# injuries"caused"by"overturning"of"bus."So"DEATH"due"to"fire"not"included"
business# and# for# reasons# of# public# policy,# are# bound# to# observe# (because"it"was"the"fire’s"“fault”"daw)."
extraordinary# diligence# in# the# vigilance# over# the# goods# and# for# the# • The#trial#court#was#of#the#opinion#that#the#proximate#cause#of#the#death#of#
safety# of# the# passengers# transported# by# them,# according# to# all# the# Bataclan# was# not# the# overturning# of# the# bus,# but# rather,# the# fire# that#
circumstances#of#each#case.# burned#the#bus,#including#himself#and#his#coSpassengers#who#were#unable#
Such#extraordinary#diligence#in#the#vigilance#over#the#goods# to#leave#it;#"
is#further#expressed#in#articles#1734,#1735,#and#1745,#Nos.#5,#6,#and#7# • that# at# the# time# the# fire# started,# Bataclan,# though# he# must# have# suffered#
while# the# extraordinary# diligence# for# the# safety# of# the# passengers# is# physical# injuries,# perhaps# serious,# was# still# alive,# and# so# damages# were#
further#set#forth#in#articles#1755#and#1756."# awarded,#not#for#his#death,#but#for#the#physical#injuries#suffered#by#him.#"
"ART." 1755." A# common# carrier# is# bound# to# carry# the# • We#disagree."
passengers# safely# as# far# as# human# care# and# foresight# can# provide,# "
Damages;"carrier's"liability;"proximate"cause"defined.""
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• The#proximate#legal#cause#is#that#the#acting#first#and#producing#the#injury,#
either#immediately#or#by#setting#other#events#in#motion.,##
• all#constituting#a#natural#and#continuous#chain#of#events,##
• each#having#a#close#causal#connection#with#its#immediate#predecessor,##
• the# final# event# in# the# chain# immediately# affecting# the# injury# as# a# natural#
and#probable#result#of#the#cause#which#first#acted,##
• under# such# circumstances# that# the# person# responsible# for# the# first# event#
should,# as# ordinarily# prudent# and# intelligent# person,# have# reasonable#
ground#to#expect#at#the#moment#of#his#act#or#default#that#an#injury#to#some#
person#might#be#probably#result#therefrom."#
# o compensatory,#moral,#and#other#damages.##
Overturning"of"bus;"proximate"cause"of"death.""
o When#a#vehicle#turned#not#only#on#its#side#but#completely#on#its#
back,#the#leaking#of#the#gasoline#from#the#tank#was#not#unnatural#
or#unexpected;##
o that# the# coming# of# the# men# with# the# lighted# torch# was# in#
response# to# the# call# for# help,# made# not# only# by# the# passengers,#
but# most# probably# by# the# driver# and# the# conductor# themselves,#
and# that# because# it# was# very# dark# (about# 2:30# in# the# morning),#
the#rescuers#had#to#carry#a#light#with#them;#and#coming#as#they#
did#from#a#rural#area#where#the#lanterns#and#flashlights#were#not#
available,#they#had#to#use#a#torch#the#most#handy#and#available;#
and#what#was#more#natural,#that#said#rescuers#should#innocently#
approached# the# overtuned# vehicle# to# extend# the# aid# and# effect#
the#rescue#requested#from#them.##
o THUS# that# the# proximate# cause# of# the# death# of# Bataclan# was#
overturning#of#the#vehicle#thru#the#negligence#of#defendant#and#
his#agent.#
# o Had# he# changed# the# tires,# specially# those# in# front,# with# new#
How"the"chain"may"theoretically"be"broken"
" if# through# some# event,# unexpected# and# extraordinary,#
the#overturned#bus#is#set#on#fire,#say,#by#lightning,#or#if#
some# highwaymen# after# looting# the# vehicle# sets# it# on#
fire,# and# the# passenger# is# burned# to# death,# one# might#
still#contend#that#the#proximate#cause#of#his#death#was#
the#fire#and#not#the#overturning#of#the#vehicle.#
# against#him,#on#motion#of#the#fiscal#and#with#his#consent,#was#
Carrier's"negligence;"burning"of"the"bus.""
o The# burning# of# the# bus# wherein# some# of# the# passengers# were#
trapped# can# also# be# attributed# to# the# negligence# of# the# carrier,#
through#the#driver#and#conductor#who#were#on#the#road#walking#
back#and#forth.##
o They#should#and#must#have#known#that#in#the#position#in#which#
the# overtuned# bus# was,# gasoline# could# and# must# have# leaked#
from# the# gasoline# tank# and# soaked# the# area# in# and# around# the#
bus,#this#aside#from#the#fact#that#gasoline#when#spilled,#especially#
over# a# large# area,# can# be# smelt# and# detected# even# from# a#
distance,##
32"
o THUS#that# the# failure# of# the# driver# and# the# conductor# to# have#
cautioned# or# taken# steps# to# warn# the# rescuers# not# to# bring# the#
lighted#torch#too#near#the#bus,#constitute#negligence#on#the#part#
of#the#agents#of#the#carrier#under#the#provisions#of#the#Civil#Code,#
particularly,#Article#1733,#1759#and#1763#thereof.#
#
Damages"
#
Damages#:#(P6,000)#PESOS##
this#to#include##
Attorney's"fees":#(P800)#PESOS.##
Loss"of"the"merchandise#:#ONE#HUNDRED#(P100)#PESOS##
#
Some"odd"obiter"(?)"Stuff;"
#
There# is# one# phase# of# this# case# which# disturbs# if# it# does# not# shock# us.#
According#to#the#evidence,#one#of#the#passengers#who#was#hospitalized#while#
in#the#hospital,#was#visited#by#the#defendant#Mariano#Medina#
o and# in# the# course# of# his# visit,# she# overheard# him# speaking# to#
one# of# his# bus# inspectors,# telling# said# inspector# to# have# the#
tires# of# the# bus# changed# immediately# because# they# were#
already#old,#and#that#as#a#matter#of#fact,#he#had#been#telling#the#
driver# to# change# the# said# tires,# but# that# the# driver# did# not#
follow#his#instructions.##
#
If#this#be#true,#it#goes#to#prove#that#the#driver#had#not#been#diligent#and#had#
not#taken#the#necessary#precautions#to#insure#the#safety#of#his#passengers.##
ones,# as# he# had# been# instructed# to# do,# probably,# despite# his#
speeding,# as# we# have# already# stated,# the# blow# out# would# not#
have#occurred.##
o All# in# all,# there# is# reason# to# believe# that# the# driver# operated#
and#drove#his#vehicle#negligently,#resulting#in#the#death#of#four#
of#his#passengers,#physical#injuries#to#others,#and#the#complete#
loss# and# destruction# of# their# goods,# and# yet# the# criminal# case#
provisionally#dismissed,##
o because# according# to# the# fiscal,# the# witnesses# on#
whose# testimony# he# was# banking# to# support# the#
complaint,# either# failed# to# appear# or# were# reluctant#
to#testify.##
o But# the# record# of# the# case# before# us# shows# that#
several# witnesses,# passengers# in# that# bus,# willingly#
and#unhesitatingly#testified#in#court#to#the#effect#that#
the#said#driver#was#negligent.##
In# the# public# interest,# the# prosecution# of# said# erring# driver# should# be#
pursued,# this,# not# only# as# a# matter# of# justice,# but# for# the# promotion# of# the#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 33"
#
safety# of# passengers# on# public# utility# buses.# Let# a# copy# of# this# decision# be# Parang#bound#for#Davao#taking#along#six#passengers,#including#Lara.#VALENCIA"merely"
furnished#the#Department#of#Justice#and#the#Provincial#Fiscal#of#Cavite.# accommodated"them"and"did"not"charge"them"any"fee"for"the"service.#
#
The#pickSup#has#a#front#seat#where#the#driver#and#two#passengers#can#be#accommodated#
# 18#LARA#V.#VALENCIA,#104#PHIL#65#SDELA#PAZ# and#the#back#has#a#steel#flooring#enclosed#with#a#steel#walling#of#16#to#17#inches#tall#on#
the#sides#and#with#a#19#inches#tall#walling#at#the#back.##
LOURDES"J."LARA,"ET"AL.,#plaintiffsSappellants,##vs.#BRIGIDO"R."VALENCIA,#defendantS #
appellant.# Before# leaving# Parang,# the# sitting# arrangement# was# as# follows:# VALENCIA# was# at# the#
# wheel#and#seated#with#him#in#the#front#seat#were#Mrs.#Valencia#and#Nicanor#Quinain;#on#
DOCTRINE:# The# Driver# in# relation# to# accommodated# passengers# must# only# exert# the#back#of#the#pickSup#were#two#improvised#benches#placed#on#each#side,#and#seated#on#
ordinary#diligence.# the#right#bench#were#Ricardo#Alojipan#and#Antonio#Lagahit,#and#on#the#left#one#Bernardo#
NOT" a" Common" PickSup# and#Pastor#Geronimo.#A#person#by#the#name#of#Leoning#was#seated#on#a#box#located#on#
Carrier" the#left#side#while#in#the#middle#Lara#sat#on#a#bag.#
Driver" Brigido#Valencia# #
Passenger" Demetrio#Lara# Before#leaving#Parang,#defendant#invited#Lara#to#sit#with#him#on#the#front#seat#but#Lara#
Problem" Lara#accidentally#fell#while#seated#at#the#middle#of#back#portion#of# declined.# It# was# their# understanding# that# upon# reaching# barrio# Samoay,# Cotabato,# the#
open#pickSup#truck!#serious#injuries#!#died# passengers#were#to#alight#and#take#a#bus#bound#for#Davao,#but#when#they#arrived#at#that#
Who"won" Driver#VALENCIA# place,# only# Bernardo# alighted# and# the# other# passengers# requested# VALENCIA# to# allow#
# them# to# ride# with# him# up# to# Davao# because# there# was# then# no# available# bus# that# they#
Emergency#Digest# could#take#in#going#to#that#place.##
#
When#they#continued#their#trip,#the#sitting#arrangement#of#the#passengers#remained#the#
This#is#a#case#for#damages#arising#out#of#the#death#of#Lara.#Lara#was#working#in#Davao#to# same,#Lara#being#seated#on#a#bag#in#the#middle#with#his#arms#on#a#suitcase#and#his#head#
classify# the# logs# of# Valencia.# The# job# took# 6# days# during# which# he# contracted# malaria.# cove#red#by#a#jacket.##
Lara# was# in# a# hurry# to# get# home# and# asked# to# hitch# a# ride# with# Valencia.# Valencia# #
accommodated# him# and# other# passengers.# The" initial" agreement" was" that" the" Upon#reaching#Km.#96,#barrio#Catidtuan,#Lara#accidentally#fell#from#the#pickSup#and#as#a#
passengers"were"to"disembark"at"the"bus"station;"however"only"one"passenger"got" result#he#suffered#serious#injuries.##
off"and"the"rest"including"Lara"pleaded"with"Valencia"to"take"them"to"Davao.#Upon# #
reaching#Km#96,#LARA#FELL.#He#arrived#dead#at#the#Hospital.## Valencia#stopped#the#pickSup#to#see#what#happened#to#Lara.#Lara#was#already#dead#when#
they#took#him#to#St.#Joseph's#Clinic#of#Kidapawan.#From#there#they#proceeded#to#Davao#
CFI# found# VALENCIA# had# failed# to# exert# diligence# required.## City#and#immediately#notified#the#local#authorities.#An#investigation#was#made#regarding#
The# SC# reversed# the# CFI# and# said# VALENCIA# discharged# the# ORDINARY# diligence# the# circumstances# surrounding# the# death# of# Lara# but# no# criminal# action# was# taken#
required# in# the# transport# of# ACCOMODATED# PASSENGERS.# SC# persuaded# to# conclude# against#defendant.#
that#the#accident#occurred#not#due#to#the#negligence#of#defendant#but#to#circumstances# #
beyond#his#control#and#so#he#should#be#exempt#from#liability.# CFI#:#YES#(decision#in#Spanish)#VALENCIA#Failed#to#exert#diligence#
• Lara#after#accomplishing#his#job#wanted#to#leave#Parang.#He#hitched#a#ride#with#
Complete"Digest:" VALENCIA#who#was#driver#of#the#said#pickSup.#
• Lara#had#a#swollen#face#and#body#due#to#malaria#and#suffered#head#aches#and#
rashes.###
Demeterio#LARA#was#an#inspector#of#the#Bureau#of#Forestry#stationed#in#Davao#with#an#
annual#salary#of#P1,800.#Brigido#VALENCIA#is#engaged#in#the#business#of#exporting#logs# • “In#view#of#these#facts,#VALENCIA#had#to#know#that#was#extremely#dangerous#
to#carry#5#passengers#in#the#rear#of#the#pickSup.#in#particular,#for#the#health#of#
from#his#lumber#concession#in#Cotabato.#Lara#went#to#said#concession#upon#instructions#
Lara;##VALENCIA#has#not#taken#precautions,#to#avoid#a#possible#fatal#accident.#
of# his# chief# to# classify# the# logs# of# defendant# which# were# about# to# be# loaded# on# a# ship#
VALENCIA# knowing# the# delicate# state# of# health# of# Lara,# should# not# have#
anchored# in# the# Port# of# Parang.# The# work# Lara# of# lasted# for# six# days# during# which# he#
allowed#him#to#return#to#Davao#City#in#his#pickup,#seated#in#the#front#seat…”#[#
contracted#malaria#fever.##
Translated#by#SpanishDict]##
#
#
In#the#morning#of#January#9,#1954,#LARA#who#then#in#a#hurry#to#return#to#Davao#asked#
VALENCIA# if# he# could# take# him# in# his# pickSup# as# there# was# then# no# other# means# of#
transportation,# to# which# VALENCIA# agreed,# and# in# that# same# morning# the# pickSup# left# ISSUE:"""
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 34"
#
I. Whether# Lara# was# an# accommodation# passenger# of# Valencia,# therefore# S#It#should#also#be#noted#that#defendant#was#not#in#duty#bound#to#take#the#deceased#in#
Valencia# only# needed# to# exert# reasonable# care# and# ordinary# diligence?# YES# –# his# own# pickSup# to# Davao# because# from# Parang# to# Cotabato# there# was# a# line# of#
accommodation#passenger.## transportation# that# regularly# makes# trips# for# the# public,# and# if" defendant" agreed" to"
II. Is# there# enough# evidence# to# show# that# defendant# failed# to# observe# ordinary# take"the"deceased"in"his"own"car,"it"was"only"to"accommodate"him"considering"his"
care# or# diligence# in# transporting# the# deceased# from# Parang# to# Davao# on# the# feverish"condition"and"his"request"that"he"be"so"accommodated."
date#in#question?#–#NO,#Unforeseen#accident# "
#It#should#also#be#noted#that#the#passengers#who#rode#in#the#pickSup#of#defendant#took#
"HELD:" Wherefore," the" decision" appealed" from" is" reversed," without" their#respective#seats#therein#at#their#own#choice#and#not#upon#indication#of#defendant#
pronouncement"as"to"costs."a"" with#the#particularity#that*defendant*invited*the*deceased*to*sit*with*him*in*the*front*
seat* but* which* invitation* the* deceased* declined." The# reason# for# this# can# only# be#
attributed# to# his# desire# to# be# at# the# back# so# that# he# could# sit# on# a# bag# and# travel# in# a#
RATIO:"" reclining# position# because# such# was# more# convenient# for# him# due# to# his# feverish#
condition.#
I. Whether# Lara# was# an# accommodation# passenger# of# Valencia,# therefore# #
Valencia# only# needed# to# exert# reasonable# care# and# ordinary# diligence?# YES# –# "All" the" circumstances" therefore" clearly" indicate" that" defendant" had" done" what" a"
accommodation#passenger.## reasonable"prudent"man"would"have"done"under"the"circumstances.#
# #
As#accommodation#passengers#or#invited#guests,#VALENCIA#as#owner#and#driver#of#the# There"is"every"reason"to"believe"that"the"unfortunate"happening"was"only"due"to"
pickSup#owes#to#them#merely#the#duty#to#exercise#reasonable#care#so#that#they#may#be# an"unforeseen"accident"accused"by"the"fact"that"at"the"time"the"deceased"was"half"
transported#safely#to#their#destination.## asleep"and"must"have"fallen"from"the"pickaup"when"it"ran"into"some"stones"causing"
# it"to"jerk"considering"that"the"road"was"then"bumpy,"rough"and"full"of"stones.""
Thus,# "The" rule" is" established" by" the" weight" of" authority" that" the" owner" or" • No#finding#that#the#pickSup#was#running#at#more#than#40#kilometers#per#hour#is#
operator"of"an"automobile"owes"the"duty"to"an"invited*guest"to"exercise"reasonable" not#supported#by#the#evidence.##
care"in"its"operation,"and"not"unreasonably"to"expose"him"to"danger"and"injury"by" • And# even# if# this# is# correct,# still# we# say# that# such# speed# is# not# unreasonable#
increasing"the"hazard"of"travel."This#rule,#as#frequently#stated#by#the#courts,#is#that#an# considering#that#they#were#traveling#on#a#national#road#and#the#traffic#then#was#
owner#of#an#automobile#owes#a#guest#the#duty#to#exercise#ordinary#or#reasonable#care#to# not#heavy.#
avoid#injuring#him.#Since#one#riding#in#an#automobile#is#no#less#a#guest#because#he#asked# #
for#the#privilege#of#doing#so,#the#same#obligation#of#care#is#imposed#upon#the#driver#as#in# a"We"may"rather"attribute"the"incident"to"lack"of"care"on"the"part"of"the"deceased"
the#case#of#one#expressly#invited#to#ride"#(5#Am.#Jur.,#626S627).## considering" that" the" pickaup" was" OPEN" and" he" was" then" in" a" crouching" position.#
# Indeed,#the#law#provides#that#"A#passenger#must#observe#the#diligence#of#a#good#father#
VALENCIA,#therefore,#is#only#required#to#observe#ordinary#care,#and#is#not#in#duty#bound# of#a#family#to#avoid#injury#to#himself"#(Article#1761,#new#Civil#Code),#which#means#that#if#
to#exercise#extraordinary#diligence#as#required#of#a#common#carrier#by#our#law#(Articles# the# injury# to# the# passenger# has# been'proximately#caused# by# his# own# negligence,# the#
1755#and#1756,#new#Civil#Code).# carrier#cannot#be#held#liable.#
# #
II. Is# there# enough# evidence# to# show# that# defendant# failed# to# observe# ordinary# S#All#things#considered,#we#are#persuaded#to#conclude#that#the#accident#occurred#not#due#
care# or# diligence# in# transporting# the# deceased# from# Parang# to# Davao# on# the# to#the#negligence#of#defendant#but#to#circumstances#beyond#his#control#and#so#he#should#
date#in#question?#–#NO,#Unforeseen#accident# be#exempt#from#liability.#
# #
#S#Even#if#we#admit#as#true#the#facts#found#by#the#trial#court,#still#we#find#that#the#same#
are#not#sufficient#to#show#that#defendant#has#failed#to#take#the#precaution#necessary#to#
conduct#his#passengers#safely#to#their#place#of#destination#for#there#is#nothing#there#to# # 19#FABRE,#JR.#V.#CA,#259#SCRA#426*#SGERALDEZ#
indicate#that#defendant#has#acted#with#negligence#or#without#taking#the#precaution#that#
an#ordinary#prudent#man#would#have#taken#under#similar#circumstances.##
MR." &" MRS." ENGRACIO" FABRE," JR." and" PORFIRIO" CABIL," vs.# COURT" OF" APPEALS,"
#
THE" WORD" FOR" THE" WORLD" CHRISTIAN" FELLOWSHIP," INC.," AMYLINE" ANTONIO,"
S#It#should#be#noted#that#Lara#went#to#the#lumber#concession#of#defendant#in#answer#to#a#
et"al."(1996)"–"Geraldez"
call#of#duty#which#he#was#bound#to#perform#because#of#the#requirement#of#his#office#and#
he#contracted#the#malaria#fever#in#the#course#of#the#performance#of#that#duty.##
# Common"Carrier" Minibus#(used#as#schoolbus)#owned#by#Fabre#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
Driver" Cabil#
Passenger" Amyline#Antonio#and#32#others#
Problem" Driver#Cabil#was#unfamiliar#with#the#road#–#they#hit#a#sharp#curve#
+# slippery# road# caused# speeding# bus# to# skid# to# the# left# road#
shoulder# +# landed# on# its# left# side.# Amyline# !# paralyzed# waist#
down.#
Who"won" Amyline# Antonio,# but# loss# of# earning# capacity# damages# reduced#
from#600k#to#500k.#
ER:" Spouses# Fabre# owned# a# minibus.# It# was# used# as# a# school# bus# service.# WWCF#
arranged#with#Fabres#to#transport#33#members#of#the#Young#Adult#Ministry#to#La#Union.#
On#the#way#–#at#around#11:30,#it#was#dark,#raining,#they#were#on#a#detour,#and#Driver"
Cabil"was"unfamiliar"with"the"road"–"they"hit"a"sharp"curve"and"the"bus"fell"on"its"
side.#Amyline#Antonio#was#pinned#to#the#bus#floor.#She#eventually#was#paralyzed#waste#
down.#She#now#sues#and#wins,#with#owner#Fabres#and#driver#Cabil#solidarily#liable#for#
damages." As" common" carriers," the" Fabres" were" bound" to" exercise" "extraordinary"
diligence""for"the"safe"transportation"of"the"passengers"to"their"destination."This"
duty" of" care" is" not" excused" by" proof" that" they" exercise" the" diligence" of" a" good"
father"of"the"family"in"the"selection"and"supervision"of"their"employee."
Facts:"
1. Petitioners# Engracio# Fabre,# Jr.# and# his# wife# were# owners# of# a# 1982# model# Mazda#
minibus.##
a. They#used#the#bus#principally#in#connection#with#a#bus#service#for#school#
children#which#they#operated#in#Manila.##
b. The#couple#had#a#driver,#Porfirio#J.#Cabil,#whom#they#hired#in#1981,#after#
trying#him#out#for#two#weeks,#His#job#was#to#take#school#children#to#and#
from#the#St.#Scholastica's#College#in#Malate,#Manila.#
2. On#November#2,#1984#private#respondent#Word#for#the#World#Christian#Fellowship#
Inc.#(WWCF)#arranged#with#petitioners#for#the#transportation#of#33#members#of#its#
Young#Adults#Ministry#from#Manila#to#La#Union#and#back.#
a. For#a#fee#of#P3,000.00.#
3. The# group# was# scheduled# to# leave# at# 5:00# o'clock# in# the# afternoon.# However,# as#
several# members# of# the# party# were# late,# the# bus# did# not# leave# the# Tropical# Hut# at#
the#corner#of#Ortigas#Avenue#and#EDSA#until#8:00#o'clock#in#the#evening.##
4. The#Accident:#The#usual#route#to#Caba,#La#Union#was#through#Carmen,#Pangasinan.##
a. However,"the"bridge"at"Carmen"was"under"repair,"so"that"petitioner"
Driver"Cabil,"who"was"unfamiliar"with"the"area"(it"being"his"first"trip"
to"La"Union),"was"forced"to"take"a"detour.""
b. At"11:30"that"night,"petitioner"Cabil"came"upon"a"sharp"curve"on"the"
highway,"running"on"a"south"to"east"direction,"which"he"described"as"
"siete."""
c. The"road"was"slippery"because"it"was"raining,"causing"the"bus,"which"
was"running"at"the"speed"of"50"kilometers"per"hour,"to"skid"to"the"left"
road"shoulder.""
35"
d. The" bus" hit" the" left" traffic" steel" brace" and" sign" along" the" road" and"
rammed"the"fence"of"one"Jesus"Escano,"then"turned"over"and"landed"
on"its"left"side,"coming"to"a"full"stop"only"after"a"series"of"impacts.#The#
bus#came#to#rest#off#the#road.##
e. A#coconut#tree#which#it#had#hit#fell#on#it#and#smashed#its#front#portion.#
5. Several#passengers#were#injured.#Private#respondent#Amyline"Antonio#was#thrown#
on# the# floor# of# the# bus# and# pinned# down# by# a# wooden# seat# which# came# off# after#
being#unscrewed.##
a. It#took#three#persons#to#safely#remove#her#from#this#portion.#
b. She#eventually#had#extensive#medical#procedures#done.#
i. She# is# now# suffering# from# paraplegia;# she# is# paralyzed# from#
waste#down.#
ii. [For# damages# –# it# will# be# learned# she# was# a# casual# employee# of#
“Suaco”#and#dealer#of#Avon#products].##
6. Driver#Cabil’s#defense:#unfamiliar,#it#was#dark,#no#sign,#he#slowed#down#to#30km/h.#
7. RTC:# Fabres# and# Cabil# solidarily# liable# for# actual,# loss# of# earning# capacity,# moral,#
exemplary,#AF,#costs.#
8. CA:# Affirmed.# But# limited# only# to# Amyline# Antonio’s# claims,# as# the# others# failed# to#
prove#stuff.#
Issues:" Is" this" ruling" correct?" SC" affirms." But" loss" of" earning" capacity" damages"
reduced"from"600k"to"500k."
Ratio:"
On#Liability:#
First,#it#is#unnecessary#for#our#purpose#to#determine#whether#to#decide#this#case#on#the#
theory#that#petitioners#are#liable#for#breach#of#contract#of#carriage#or#culpa'contractual'
or#on#the#theory#of# quasi'delict'or#culpa'aquiliana'as#both#the#Regional#Trial#Court#and#
the# Court# of# Appeals# held,# for# although# the# relation# of# passenger# and# carrier# is#
"contractual# both# in# origin# and# nature,"# nevertheless# "the# act# that# breaks# the# contract#
may# be# also# a# tort."# 2" In# either# case,# the# question# is# whether# the# bus# driver,# petitioner#
Porfirio#Cabil,#was#negligent.#
Considering#the#foregoing#—#the#fact#that#it#was#raining#and#the#road#was#slippery,#that#
it#was#dark,#that#he#drove#his#bus#at#50#kilometers#an#hour#when#even#on#a#good#day#the#
normal# speed# was# only# 20# kilometers# an# hour,# and# that# he# was# unfamiliar# with# the#
terrain,#that#is#was#his#first#trip#outside#Manila,#Cabil#was#grossly#negligent#and#should#
be#held#liable#for#the#injuries#suffered#by#private#respondent#Amyline#Antonio.#
Pursuant# to# Arts.# 2176# and# 2180# of# the# Civil# Code# his# negligence# gave# rise# to# the#
presumption#that#his#employers,#the#Fabres,#were#themselves#negligent#in#the#selection#
and#supervisions#of#their#employee.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
Due# diligence# in# selection# of# employees# is# not# satisfied# by# finding# that# the# applicant#
possessed# a# professional# driver's# license.# The# employer# should# also# examine# the#
applicant# for# his# qualifications,# experience# and# record# of# service.# 5# Due# diligence# in#
supervision,#on#the#other#hand,#requires#the#formulation#of#rules#and#regulations#for#the#
guidance# of# employees# and# issuance# of# proper# instructions# as# well# as# actual#
implementation#and#monitoring#of#consistent#compliance#with#the#rules."6#
In" the" case" at" bar," the" Fabres," in" allowing" Cabil" to" drive" the" bus" to" La" Union,"
apparently" did" not" consider" the" fact" that" Cabil" had" been" driving" for" school"
children"only,"from"their"homes"to"the"St."Scholastica's"College"in"Metro"Manila." 7"
They" had" hired" him" only" after" a" twoaweek" apprenticeship." They" had" hired" him"
only" after" a" twoaweek" apprenticeship." They" had" tested" him" for" certain" matters,"
such"as"whether"he"could"remember"the"names"of"the"children"he"would"be"taking"
to" school," which" were" irrelevant" to" his" qualification" to" drive" on" a" long" distance"
travel,"especially"considering"that"the"trip"to"La"Union"was"his"first."The"existence"
of" hiring" procedures" and" supervisory" policies" cannot" be" casually" invoked" to"
overturn"the"presumption"of"negligence"on"the"part"of"an"employer."8"
Petitioners# argue# that# they# are# not# liable# because# (1)# an# earlier# departure# (made#
impossible#by#the#congregation's#delayed#meeting)#could#have#a#averted#the#mishap#and#
(2)#under#the#contract,#the#WWCF#was#directly#responsible#for#the#conduct#of#the#trip.#
Neither#of#these#contentions#hold#water.#The#hour#of#departure#had#not#been#fixed.#Even#
if#it#had#been,#the#delay#did#not#bear#directly#on#the#cause#of#the#accident.#With#respect#to#
the#second#contention,#it#was#held#in#an#early#case#that:#
[A]#person#who#hires#a#public#automobile#and#gives#the#driver#directions#as#to#
the# place# to# which# he# wishes# to# be# conveyed,# but# exercises# no# other# control#
over#the#conduct#of#the#driver,#is#not#responsible#for#acts#of#negligence#of#the#
latter# or# prevented# from# recovering# for# injuries# suffered# from# a# collision#
between# the# automobile# and# a# train,# caused# by# the# negligence# or# the#
automobile#driver.#9#
As"common"carriers,"the"Fabres"were"bound"to"exercise""extraordinary"diligence""
for"the"safe"transportation"of"the"passengers"to"their"destination."This"duty"of"care"
is" not" excused" by" proof" that" they" exercise" the" diligence" of" a" good" father" of" the"
family"in"the"selection"and"supervision"of"their"employee.#As#Art.#1759#of#the#Code#
provides:#
Common#carriers#are#liable#for#the#death#of#or#injuries#to#passengers#
through# the# negligence# or# willful# acts# of# the# former's# employees#
although# such# employees# may# have# acted# beyond# the# scope# of# their#
authority#or#in#violation#of#the#orders#of#the#common#carriers.#
This#liability#of#the#common#carriers#does#not#cease#upon#proof#that#
they# exercised# all# the# diligence# of# a# good# father# of# a# family# in# the#
selection#and#supervision#of#their#employees.#
36"
On#Damages:#
The# award# of# P500,000.00# for# compensatory# damages# which# the# Regional# Trial# Court#
made# is# reasonable# considering# the# contingent# nature# of# her# income# as# a# casual#
employee# of# a# company# and# as# distributor# of# beauty# products# and# the# fact# that# the#
possibility# that# she# might# be# able# to# work# again# has# not# been# foreclosed.# In# fact# she#
testified# that# one# of# her# previous# employers# had# expressed# willingness# to# employ# her#
again.#
As# above# stated,# the# decision# of# the# Court# of# Appeals# can# be# sustained# either# on# the#
theory#of#quasi'delict'or#on#that#of#breach#of#contract.#In#Dangwa'Trans.'Co.'Inc.'v.'Court'
of'Appeals,# 14#on#facts#similar#to#those#in#this#case,#this#Court#held#the#bus#company#and#
the#driver#jointly#and#severally#liable#for#damages#for#injuries#suffered#by#a#passenger.##
It# is# true# that# in# Philippine' Rabbit' Bus' Lines,' Inc.' v.# Court' of' Appeals# 21# this# Court#
exonerated#the#jeepney#driver#from#liability#to#the#injured#passengers#and#their#families#
while#holding#the#owners#of#the#jeepney#jointly#and#severally#liable,#but#that#is#because#
that#case#was#expressly#tried#and#decided#exclusively#on#the#theory#of#culpa'contractual.##
As#in#the#case#of#BLTB,#private#respondents#in#this#case#and#her#coplaintiffs#did#not#stake#
out#their#claim#against#the#carrier#and#the#driver#exclusively#on#one#theory,#much#less#on#
that#of#breach#of#contract#alone.#What#is#clear#from#the#cases#is#the#intent#of#the#plaintiff#
there#to#recover#from#both#the#carrier#and#the#driver,#thus,#justifying#the#holding#that#the#
carrier# and# the# driver# were# jointly# and# severally# liable# because# their# separate# and#
distinct#acts#concurred#to#produce#the#same#injury.#
# 20#SULPICIO#LINES,#INC.#V.#CA,#246#SCRA#299*#SKING#
SULPICIO# LINES,# INC.,#Petitioner,## vs.# The# Honorable# COURT# OF# APPEALS# and# TITO#
DURAN# TABUQUILDE# and# ANGELINA# DE# PAZ# TABUQUILDE,#respondents.# G.R.# No.#
113578#July#14,#1995#
Doctrines:""
1. In#breach#of#contract#of#carriage,#moral#damages#may#be#recovered#when#it#results#
in#the#death#of#a#passenger#
2. Article# 2232# of# the# Civil# Code# gives# the# Court# the# discretion# to# grant# exemplary#
damages#when#the#defendant#acted#in#a#wanton,#fraudulent#and#reckless#manner.#
3. The# Court# takes# judicial# notice# of# the# dreadful# regularity# with# which# grievous#
maritime#disasters#occur#in#our#waters#with#massive#loss#of#life.#
4. A#common#carrier#is#obliged#to#transport#its#passengers#to#their#destinations#with#
the#utmost#diligence#of#a#very#cautious#person#
Common"Carrier" Sulpicio#Lines,#Inc.#
Passenger" Tito#Duran#Tabuquilde#and#his#3#yr#old#daughter#Jennifer#Anne#
Vessel" M/V#Dona#Marilyn#
Problem" M/V# Dona# Marily# proceeded# with# its# journey# despite# Typhoon#
Unsang.#It#threw#its#passengers#to#the#sea.#Jennifer#Anne#died.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
Who"won" Tabuquilde#
" of#Jennifer#Anne#and#loss#of#Tito’s#belongings#worth#P27,580.00.#
ER:#M/V#Dona#braved#the#seas#even#though#there#was#Typhoon#Unsang#and#the#Signal#
No.#3.#It#eventually#threw#the#passengers#to#the#sea.#Tito#woke#up#the#next#day#alive.#But#
his#daughter#Jennifer#was#missing.#It#was#later#on#found#that#she#was#already#dead.#
Issue:"Whether"Sulpicio"Lines"is"liable?"
YES.#A#common#carrier#is#obliged#to#transport#its#passengers#to#their#destinations#with#
the# utmost# diligence# of# a# very# cautious# person.# Sulpicio# Lines# failed# to# exercise# the#
extraordinary#diligence#required#of#a#common#carrier,#which#resulted#in#the#sinking#of#
the#M/V#Dona#Marilyn.#It#disregarded#the#Typhoon,#Signal#No.#3,#and#the#negligence#of#
its#crew#can#be#attributed#to#them.#
Facts:"
• On#October#23,#1988,#Tito#Duran#Tabuquilde#(Tito)#and#his#threeSyear#old#daughter#
Jennifer# Anne# boarded# the# M/V# Dona# Marilyn# at# North# Harbor,# Manila,# bringing#
with#them#several#pieces#of#luggage.#(M/V#Dona#owned#by#Sulpicio#Lines)#
• PAGSASA#Leyte#reported#Storm#Signal#No.#2#in#the#morning#and#Storm#Signal#No.#3#
in#the#evening#of#the#same#day.##
• Next#morning,#Typhoon#Unsang#caused#huge#waves.##
• Angelina,# wife# of# Tito# and# mother# of# Jennifer# Anne,# called# Sulpicio# Lines# to# verify#
radio# reports# that# M/V# Dona# Marilyn# was# missing.# Sulpicio# Lines# stated# that# M/V#
Dona#Marilyn#was#safe#as#it#was#merely#hiding#(LIAR).#
• Notwithstanding#the#bad#weather,#the#ship#captain#ordered#the#vessel#to#proceed#to#
Tacloban.#(when#prudence#dictated#that#he#should#have#taken#it#to#the#nearest#port#
for# shelter,# thus# violating# his# duty# to# exercise# extraordinary# diligence# in# the#
carrying#of#passengers#safely#to#their#destination)#
• The#vessel#capsized,#throwing#hundreds#of#passengers,#along#with#Tito#and#Jennifer#
Anne,#into#the#tumultuous#sea.#
• Tito#and#Jennifer#Anne#tried#to#stay#afloat#and#stay#together#but#because#of#the#huge#
waves,#they#got#separated.#
• Next#morning,#Tito#found#himself#on#Almagro#Island#in#Samar.#He#could#not#find#his#
daughter#Jennifer#Anne#anywhere.#
• Angelina# asked# information# regarding# Tito# and# Jennifer# Anne# from# Sulpicio# Lines#
but# to# no# avail.# The# latter# refused# to# entertain# her# and# many# others.# This# caused#
worry#and#anxiety#on#the#part#of#Angelina#as#there#was#no#news#if#her#husband#and#
daughter#are#alive.#
• Tito#and#the#other#passengers#were#eventually#brought#to#Tacloban#Medical#Center#
for#treatment.#
• Tito# reported# the# loss# of# his# daughter.# He# was# informed# that# Jennifer# Anne# had#
already#died#as#there#was#a#corpse#matching#her#description.#
• Tito# wrote# a# letter# to# his# wife# Angelina# about# the# sad# news.# This# caused# Angelina#
shock#and#sever#grief.#
• Bonus:#the#coffin#bearing#the#corpse#of#Jennifer#Anne#was#buried#in#Tanauan,#Leyte.#
37"
• Tito#and#Angelina#filed#a#complaint#for#damages#against#Sulpicio#Lines#for#the#death#
• RTC#in#favor#Tito.#CA#affirmed.#
• P27,580.00# as# actual# damages# (for# lost# bag),# P30,000.00# for# the# death# of# Jennifer#
Tabuquilde,# P100,000.00# as# moral# damages,# P50,000.00# as# exemplary# damages,#
and# P50,000.00# as# attorney's# fees,# and# costs.# (Moral,# exemplary,# attorney# fees#
affirmed.#Actual#deleted#since#it#had#no#basis.#30,000#raised#to#50,000#for#the#death#
of#Jennifer#Anne)#
• Hence,#the#appeal#to#the#SC#by#Sulpicio#Lines.#He#questions#the#award#of#damages.#
#
Issue:# Whether# or# not# Sulpicio# Lines# is# liable?# YES.# Though# not# for# the# loss# of# the#
belongings#because#there#was#no#proof#as#to#its#amount.#
HELD:" WHEREFORE,# the# decision# of# the# Court# of# Appeals# is# AFFIRMED# with# the#
MODIFICATION# that# the# award# of# P27,580.00# as# actual# damages# for# the# loss# of# the#
contents# of# the# pieces# of# baggage# is# deleted# and# that# the# award# of# P30,000.00# under#
Article#2206#in#relation#Article#1764#is#increased#to#P50,000.00.#
SO#ORDERED.#
RATIO:"
A# common# carrier# is# obliged# to# transport# its# passengers# to# their# destinations# with# the#
utmost# diligence# of# a# very# cautious# person.# The# trial# court# found# that# Sulpicio# Lines#
failed# to# exercise# the# extraordinary# diligence# required# of# a# common# carrier,# which#
resulted#in#the#sinking#of#the#M/V#Dona#Marilyn.#
The# sinking# of# M/V# Dona# Marilyn# was# due# to# gross# negligence.# It# disregarded# all# the#
warning# signs,# (Typhoon# Unsang,# Signal# No.# 3# was# still# hoisted# during# the# time# M/V#
Dona#Marilyn#travelled.)#
In# the# same# manner,# the# crew# of# the# vessel# M/V# Dona# Marilyn# took# a# calculated# risk#
when#it#proceeded#despite#the#typhoon#brewing#somewhere#in#the#general#direction#to#
which#the#vessel#was#going.#The#crew#assumed#a#greater#risk#when,#instead#of#dropping#
anchor#in#or#at#the#periphery#of#the#Port#of#Calapan,#or#returning#to#the#port#of#Manila#
which#is#nearer,#proceeded#on#its#voyage#on#the#assumption#that#it#will#be#able#to#beat#
and#race#with#the#typhoon#and#reach#its#destination#before#it#(Unsang)#passes.#
For*the*belongings:*Actual*damages*of*P27,850*had*no*basis.*
The#trial#court#merely#mentioned#the#fact#of#the#loss#and#the#value#of#the#contents#of#the#
pieces#of#baggage#without#stating#the#evidence#on#which#it#based#its#findings.#There#is#no#
showing#that#the#value#of#the#contents#of#the#lost#pieces#of#baggage#was#based#on#the#bill#
of#lading#or#was#previously#declared#by#Tito#D.#Tabuquilde#before#he#boarded#the#ship.#
Hence,#there#can#be#no#basis#to#award#actual#damages#in#the#amount#of#P27,850.00.#
For*the*death*of*Jennifer*Anne:*
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
The#Civil#Code,#in#Article#1764#thereof,#expressly#makes#Article#22062#applicable#"to#the#
death# of# a# passenger# caused# by# the# breach# of# contract# by# a# common# carrier."#
Accordingly,# a# common# carrier# is# liable# for# actual# or# compensatory# damages# under#
Article# 2206# in# relation# to# Article# 1764# of# the# Civil# Code# for# deaths# of# its# passengers#
caused#by#the#breach#of#the#contract#of#transportation.#
The# trial# court# awarded# an# indemnity# of# P30,000.00# for# the# death# of# the# daughter# of#
private# respondents.# The# award# of# damages# under# Article# 2206# has# been# increased# to#
P50,000.00#(People#v.#Flores,#237#SCRA#653#[1994]).#
With#respect#to#the#award#of#moral#damages,#the#general#rule#is#that#said#damages#are#
not#recoverable#in#culpa#contractual#except#when#the#presence#of#bad#faith#was#proven.#
However,# in# breach# of# contract# of# carriage,# moral# damages# may# be# recovered# when# it#
results#in#the#death#of#a#passenger.#
Exemplary*damages*
Article#2232#of#the#Civil#Code#of#the#Philippines#gives#the#Court#the#discretion#to#grant#
said# damages# in# breach# of# contract# when# the# defendant# acted# in# a# wanton,# fraudulent#
and#reckless#manner.#
The# Court# will# take# judicial# notice# of# the# dreadful# regularity# with# which# grievous#
maritime# disasters# occur# in# our# waters# with# massive# loss# of# life.# The# bulk# of# our#
population# is# too# poor# to# afford# domestic# air# transportation.# So# it# is# that#
notwithstanding# the# frequent# sinking# of# passenger# in# our# waters,# crowds# of# people#
continue#to#travel#by#sea.#This#Court#is#prepared#to#use#the#instruments#given#to#it#by#the#
law# for# securing# the# ends# of# law# and# public# policy.# One# of# those# instruments# is# the#
institution# of# exemplary# damages;# one# of# those# ends,# of# special# importance# in# an#
archipelagic# state# like# the# Philippines,# is# the# safe# and# reliable# carriage# of# people# and#
goods#by#sea.#
# safety#of#its#passengers.#
# 21#MARIANO#V.#CALLEJAS,#594#SCRA#569#–LAGOS#
HERMINIO"MARIANO,"JR.,"vs."ILDEFONSO"C."CALLEJAS"and"EDGAR"DE"BORJA"
DOCTRINE:# While# the# law# requires# the# highest# degree# of# diligence# from# common#
carriers# in# the# safe# transport# of# their# passengers# and# creates# a# presumption# of#
negligence# against# them,#it# does# not,# however,# make# the# carrier# an# insurer# of# the#
absolute#safety#of#its#passengers.#
Common"Carrier" Celyrosa#Bus#
Bus"Owner" Callejas#
Bus"Driver" De#Borja#
#############################################################
2#The#amount#of#damages#for#death#caused#by#a#crime#or#quasi#delict#shall#be#at#least#Three#Thousand#Pesos.#
38"
Truck"Owner" Liong#Cho#Chang#
Truck"Driver" Arcilla#
Passenger" DR.#Frelinda#Mariano#
Problem" Truck#collided#with#bus,#killing#Dr.#Frelinda#Mariano#
Who"won" Bus#peeps#CALLEJAS#and#DE#BORJA#
#
Emergency#Digest:#
• Hermino# Mariano# is# the# husband# of# Dr.# Frelinda# Mariano# who# was# a# passenger# of#
the#Celyrosa#Bus#owned#by#Callejas#and#driven#by#De#Borja.##
• One#day,#as#the#bus#was#on#its#way#to#Tagaytay,#a#trailer#truck#owned#by#Liong#Cho#
Chang#and#driven#by#Arcilla,#coming#from#the#opposite#direction,#lost#its#brakes#and#
bumped#the#left#middle#portion#of#the#bus#causing#the#latter#to#fall#on#its#right#side#
on#the#right#shoulder#of#the#highway,#killing#passenger#Dr.#Mariano#and#injuring#its#
other#passengers.##
• Mariano# filed# a# complaint# for# breach# of# contract# of# carriage# against# Callejas# for#
failure#to#transport#his#wife#safely#to#the#point#of#destination.#He#also#filed#a#third#
party# complaint# against# Liong# Cho# Chang# for# indemnity# in# the# event# that# the#
latterwould#be#held#liable#for#damages.#
• Callejas#denied#liability#as#the#proximate#cause#of#the#accident#was#the#recklessness#
of#Arcilla,#driver#of#the#truck.#
• RTC#found#both#Callejas#and#De#Borja#and#Liong#Cho#Chang#and#Arcilla#jointly#and#
severally#liable#to#Mariano#
• Callejas# and# De# Borja# appealed# to# the# CA.# CA# reversed.# Hence# this# petition# by#
Mariano.#
• ISSUE:#WON#Callejas#and#de#Borja#are#guilty#of#breach#of#contract#of#carriage?##
• NO.#While#the#law#requires#the#highest#degree#of#diligence#from#common#carriers#in#
the# safe# transport# of# their# passengers# and# creates# a# presumption# of# negligence#
against# them,#it# does# not,# however,# make# the# carrier# an# insurer# of# the# absolute#
• Being#a#mere#presumption,#the#same#is#rebuttable#by#proof#that#the#common#carrier#
had#exercised#extraordinary#diligence#as#required#by#law#in#the#performance#of#its#
contractual#obligation,#or#that#the#injury#suffered#by#the#passenger#was#solely#due#
to#a#fortuitous#event.#
• In#this#case,#it#was#clear#that#the#bus#was#on#its#right#lane#when#suddenly#the#truck,#
coming#from#the#opposite#direction,#swerved#and#bumped#the#bus#causing#it#to#fall#
on# its# right# side.# De# Borja,# the# bus# driver# had# every# right# to# expect# that# the# truck#
would#stay#on#its#right#lane.#It#was#not#expected#of#him#to#know#that#the#truck#had#
lost#its#brakes.#The#cause#of#damage#was#the#reckless#negligence#of#Arcilla#the#truck#
driver.# Thus,# Callejas# and# De# Borja# should# not# be# deemed# to# have# breached# the#
contract#of#carriage.#
#
Facts:#
• Herminio# Mariano# is# the# surviving# spouse# of# the# deceased# Dr.# Frelinda# Mariano#
who#was#a#passenger#of#Celyrosa#Express#bus#bound#for#Tagaytay.#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.#
#
• Callejas#is#the#owner#of#Celyrosa#Express#while#de#Borja#was#its#driver.#
• At# around# 6:30# p.m.,# along# Aguinaldo# Highway,# Cavite,# the# Celyrosa# Express# bus,#
carrying# Dr.# Mariano# as# its# passenger,# collided# with# an# Isuzu# truck# with# trailer#
bearing# plate# numbers# PJH# 906# and# TRH# 531.##The# passenger# bus# was# bound# for#
Tagaytay# while# the# trailer# truck# came# from# the# opposite# direction,# bound# for#
Manila.##The#trailer#truck#bumped#the#passenger#bus#on#its#left#middle#portion.##Due#
to# the# impact,# the# passenger# bus# fell# on# its# right# side# on# the# right# shoulder# of# the#
highway# and# caused# the# death# of# Dr.# Mariano# and# physical# injuries# to# four# other#
passengers.##Dr.#Mariano#was#36#years#old#at#the#time#of#her#death.##She#left#behind#
three#minor#children,#aged#four,#three#and#two#years.#
• Mariano# filed# a# complaint# for# breach# of# contract# of# carriage# and# damages# against#
Callejas#and#de#Borja#for#their#failure#to#transport#his#wife#and#mother#of#his#three#
minor#children#safely#to#her#destination.#Respondents#denied#liability#for#the#death#
of#Dr.#Frelinda#Mariano.###
o They# claimed# that# the# proximate# cause# of# the# accident# was# the#
recklessness# of# the# driver# of# the# trailer# truck# which# bumped# their# bus#
while#allegedly#at#a#halt#on#the#shoulder#of#the#road#in#its#rightful#lane.###
o Thus,# Callejas# filed# a# thirdSparty# complaint# against# Liong# Chio# Chang,#
doing# business# under# the# name# and# style# of# La# Perla# Sugar# Supply,# the#
owner# of# the# trailer# truck,# for# indemnity# in# the# event# that# he# would# be#
held#liable#for#damages##
• Callejas#also#filed#a#complaint#against#La#Perla#Sugar#Supply#and#Arcadio#Arcilla,#the#
truck# driver,# for# damages# he# incurred# due# to# the# vehicular# accident.##But# this# was#
dismissed#due#to#lack#of#evidence.##The#court,#however,#found#Arcilla#liable#to#pay#
Callejas# the# cost# of# the# repairs# of# his# passenger# bus,# his# lost# earnings,# exemplary#
damages#and#attorney’s#fees.#
• A# criminal# case# was# also# filed# against# Arcilla.# The# court# found# him# guilty# of# the#
crime#of#reckless#imprudence#resulting#to#homicide,#multiple#slight#physical#injuries#
and#damage#to#property#
• In#the#present#case,#the#court#found#Callejas#and#de#Borja#together#with#Liong#Cho#
Chang,#jointly#and#severally#liable#to#Mariano#for#damages#and#costs#of#suit.##
• Callejas#and#de#Borja#appealed#to#the#CA,#contending#that#they#should#not#be#guilty#
of#breach#of#contract#of#carriage.##
• CA#reversed#the#RTC#decision#saying:#
o the# presumption# of# fault# or# negligence# against# the# carrier# is# only# a#
disputable# presumption.##It# gives# in# where# contrary# facts# are# established#
proving# either# that# the# carrier# had# exercised# the# degree# of# diligence#
required# by# law# or# the# injury# suffered# by# the# passenger# was# due# to# a#
fortuitous#event#
o in#the#instant#case,#the#injury#sustained#by#the#Mariano#was#in#no#way#due#
to#any#defect#in#the#means#of#transport#or#in#the#method#of#transporting#or#
to#the#negligent#or#wilful#acts#of#private#Calleja's#employees,#and#therefore#
involving# no# issue# of# negligence# in# its# duty# to# provide# safe# and# suitable#
cars#as#well#as#competent#employees,#with#the#injury#arising#wholly#from#
causes#created#by#strangers#over#which#the#carrier#had#no#control#or#even#
knowledge#or#could#not#have#prevented,#the#presumption#is#rebutted#and#
the#carrier#is#not#and#ought#not#to#be#held#liable.###
39"
o To# rule# otherwise# would# make# the# common# carrier# the# insurer# of# the#
absolute# safety# of# its# passengers# which# is# not# the# intention# of# the#
lawmakers#
#
Issue:"WON#Callejas#and#De#Borja#are#guilty#of#breach#of#contract#of#carriage?#NOPE#
Held:"Petition#is#DENIED."CA#decision#AFFIRMED.#
Ratio:"
No*breach*of*contract*of*carriage*
• The#following#are#the#provisions#of#the#Civil#Code#pertinent#to#the#case#at#bar:#
o ART.# 1733.# Common# carriers,# from# the# nature# of# their# business#
and# for# reasons# of# public# policy,# are# bound# to# observe#
extraordinary# diligence# in# the# vigilance# over# the# goods# and# for#
the# safety# of# the# passengers# transported# by# them,# according# to#
all#the#circumstances#of#each#case.#
o ART.# 1755.# A# common# carrier# is# bound# to# carry# the# passengers#
safely#as#far#as#human#care#and#foresight#can#provide,#using#the#
utmost#diligence#of#very#cautious#persons,#with#a#due#regard#for#
all#the#circumstances.#
o ART.#1756.#In#case#of#death#of#or#injuries#to#passengers,#common#carriers#
are# presumed# to# have# been# at# fault# or# to# have# acted# negligently,# unless#
they# prove# that# they# observed# extraordinary# diligence# as# prescribed# in#
articles#1733#and#1755.#
• In#accord#with#the#above#provisions,#Celyrosa#Express,#a#common#carrier,#through#
its# driver,# respondent# De# Borja,# and# its# registered# owner,# respondent# Callejas,#has#
the# express# obligation# “to# carry# the# passengers# safely# as# far# as# human# care# and#
foresight# can# provide,# using# the# utmost# diligence# of# very# cautious# persons,# with# a#
due#regard#for#all#the#circumstances,”#and#to#observe#extraordinary#diligence#in#the#
discharge#of#its#duty.###
• The# death# of# the# wife# of# the# Mariano# in# the# course# of# transporting# her# to# her#
destination#gave#rise#to#the#presumption#of#negligence#of#the#carrier.##To#overcome#
the# presumption,# Callejas# and# de# Borja# have# to# show# that# they# observed#
extraordinary# diligence# in# the# discharge# of# their# duty,# or# that# the# accident# was#
caused#by#a#fortuitous#event.#
• The#SC#cited#Pilapil'vs'CA#in#order#to#explain#the#quoted#provisions:#
o While# the# law# requires# the# highest# degree# of# diligence# from# common#
carriers# in# the# safe# transport# of# their# passengers# and# creates# a#
presumption#of#negligence#against#them,#it"does"not,"however,"make"the"
carrier"an"insurer"of"the"absolute"safety"of"its"passengers#
o Article# 1755# of# the# Civil# Code# qualifies# the# duty# of# extraordinary# care,#
vigilance#and#precaution#in#the#carriage#of#passengers#by#common#carriers#
to# only# such# as# human# care# and# foresight# can# provide.# What# constitutes#
compliance# with# said# duty# is# adjudged# with# due# regard# to# all# the#
circumstances#
 05#Compiled#Transpo#Digests.#Atty.#Ampil.#3C.# 40"
#
o Article# 1756# of# the# Civil# Code,# in# creating# a# presumption# of# fault# or#
negligence# on# the# part# of# the# common# carrier# when# its# passenger# is#
injured,# merely# relieves# the# latter,# for# the# time# being,# from# introducing#
evidence#to#fasten#the#negligence#on#the#former,#because#the#presumption#
stands# in# the# place# of# evidence.#Being" a" mere" presumption," however,"
the" same" is" rebuttable" by" proof" that" the" common" carrier" had"
exercised" extraordinary" diligence" as" required" by" law" in" the"
performance"of"its"contractual"obligation,"or"that"the"injury"suffered"
by"the"passenger"was"solely"due"to"a"fortuitous"event#
o In# fine,# we# can# only# infer# from# the# law# the# intention# of# the# Code#
Commission# and# Congress# to# curb# the# recklessness# of# drivers# and#
operators#of#common#carriers#in#the#conduct#of#their#business#
o Thus,"it"is"clear"that"neither"the"law"nor"the"nature"of"the"business"of"
a" transportation" company" makes" it" an" insurer" of" the" passenger's"
safety,#but#that#its#liability#for#personal#injuries#sustained#by#its#passenger#
rests#upon#its#negligence,#its#failure#to#exercise#the#degree#of#diligence#that#
the#law#requires#
• In#the#case#at#bar,#Mariano#cannot#succeed#in#his#contention#that#Callejas#failed#to#
overcome# the# presumption# of# negligence# against# him.##The# totality# of# evidence#
shows#that#the#death#of#Mariano’s#spouse#was#caused#by#the#reckless#negligence#of#
the#driver#of#the#Isuzu#trailer#truck#which#lost#its#brakes#and#bumped#the#Celyrosa#
Express#bus,#owned#and#operated#by#Callejas.#
• Evidence# shows# that# before# the# collision,# the# passenger# bus# was# cruising# on# its#
rightful#lane#along#the#Aguinaldo#Highway#when#the##trailer#truck#coming#from#the#
opposite#direction,#on#full#speed,#suddenly#swerved#and#encroached#on#its#lane,#and#
bumped#the#passenger#bus#on#its#left#middle#portion.####
o De#Borja#had#every#right#to#expect#that#the#trailer#truck#coming#from#the#
opposite#direction#would#stay#on#its#proper#lane.##He#was#not#expected#to#
know#that#the#trailer#truck#had#lost#its#brakes.##The#swerving#of#the#trailer#
truck#was#abrupt#and#it#was#running#on#a#fast#speed#as#it#was#found#500#
meters# away# from# the# point# of# collision.##Secondly,# any# doubt# as# to# the#
culpability# of# the# driver# of# the# trailer# truck# ought# to# vanish# when# he#
pleaded#guilty#to#the#charge#of#reckless#imprudence#resulting#to#multiple#
slight# physical# injuries# and# damage# to# property,# involving# the# same#
incident.##
#