(A10) G.R. No.

145804 February 6, 2003 Civil Code:

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners,
vs.
MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY
AGENCY, respondents.
FACTS:
 October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA
LRT station after purchasing a “token”.
 While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito
Escartin approached him.
 Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight
 Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train
operated by Rodolfo Roman
 December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint
for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent
(agency of security guards) for the death of her husband.
 LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against
Escartin and Prudent
 Prudent: denied liability – averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection
and surpervision of its security guards
 LRTA and Roman: presented evidence
 Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that
Escartin was negligent in his assigned task
RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and
Roman were dismissed for lack of merit
CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable
ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage
HELD:
NO. Affirmed with Modification:
(a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages)
(b) Roman is absolved.
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business
and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in
ensuring the safety of passengers
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
Art. 1756. In case of death 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
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
through the negligence or wilful 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
Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on
account of the wilful 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.
 Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the
injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure
 Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an
independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage
 GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in
conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract,
where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
 EX: if employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer
can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer
failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its
employees.
 EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee
 Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the
reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven
 NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must
also be absolved from liability
 Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor
and Roman
 Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence
FACTS: injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of
Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
altercation with the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is
was killed when a train came and ran over him. due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver,
(Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent).
The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the
heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero
jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and
replacing it with nominal damages.
The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad
and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by
the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA and
operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert evidence
showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death.
(2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable.
(3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.
HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise
the high diligence required of a common carrier.
(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New
Civil Code.
(3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages.
Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art.
2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established,
the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability
of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand,
be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and
when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the
other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for
tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated
differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted
the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the
contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to
apply.
Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is
untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that
nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The award was deleted/\.

RATIO:

Liability of LRTA – Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code

A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in
carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only
during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where
they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.

Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the
negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise of
due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or