LRTA vs Navidad The trial court dismissed the case against LRTA and
G.R. No. 145804 Rodolfo Roman for lack of merit.
02/06/03 Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. Ponente: J. Vitug CA exonerated Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and FACTS: Roman jointly and severally liable October 14, 1993 about 7:30 p.m., Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after ISSUE: Whether or not LRTA and Roman should be held jointly purchasing a "token" (representing payment of the fare). and severally liable for the death of Nicanor? YES While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to RULING: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate the area approached Navidad. court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner apparently ensued that led to a fist fight and during which Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability. Navidad fell on the tracks. o No evidence adduced to indicate how the fight RATIO: started or who delivered the first blow or how SC Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. carrier, both from the nature of its business and for At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed passengers. instantaneously. o Civil Code provisions governing the liability of a December 08, 1994 Marjorie Navidad (widow of common carrier for death of or injury to its Nicanor), along with her children, filed a complaint for passengers damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the Article 1755. A common carrier is bound LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro to carry the passengers safely as far as Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. human care and foresight can provide, LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad using the utmost diligence of very cautious and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. persons, with a due regard for all the Prudent denied liability circumstances. o exercised due diligence in the selection and Article 1756. In case of death of or supervision of its security guards. injuries to passengers, common carriers LRTA and Roman presented their evidence are presumed to have been at fault or to Prudent and Escartin filed a demurrer contending that have acted negligently, unless they prove Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in that they observed extraordinary diligence his assigned task. as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. RTC of Pasay ruled in favor of Navidad and against Article 1759. Common carriers are liable Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of o Simple proof of injury will relieved the passenger the former’s employees, although such of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence employees may have acted beyond the of the carrier or of its employees scope of their authority or in violation of o Burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the the orders of the common carriers. injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force This liability of the common majeure. carriers does not cease upon proof that SC In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the they exercised all the diligence of a good carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, father of a family in the selection and according to CA, have failed to show, the presumption supervision of their employees. would be that it has been at fault, an exception from the Article 1763. A common carrier is general rule that negligence must be proved. responsible for injuries suffered by a Foundation of LRTA’s liability: contract of carriage passenger on account of the willful acts or LRTA’s obligation to indemnify the victim: arises from negligence of other passengers or of the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to strangers, if the common carrier’s exercise the high diligence required of the common employees through the exercise of the carrier. diligence of a good father of a family could RE: Argument by the Petitioner that Escartin was not their have prevented or stopped the act or employee omission." o SC In the discharge of its commitment to SC law requires common carriers to carry passengers ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of with due regard for all circumstances. the services of an outsider or an independent firm o not only during the course of the trip but for so to undertake the task. long as the passengers are within its premises o In either case, the common carrier is not relieved and where they ought to be in pursuance to the of its responsibilities under the contract of contract of carriage. carriage. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable PRUDENT’s LIABILITY for death of or injury to passengers o SC If at all, that liability could only be for tort o (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its under the provisions of Article 2176 and related employees or provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180 of the o (b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other Civil Code. passengers or of strangers if the common o The premise, however, for the employer’s liability carrier’s employees through the exercise of due is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. diligence could have prevented or stopped the act o Once such fault is established, the employer can or omission. then be made liable on the basis of the PRESUMPTION: In case of such death or injury, a carrier presumption juris tantum that the employer failed is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. o The liability is primary and can only be negated by o Needless to say, the contractual tie between the showing due diligence in the selection and LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation supervision of the employee, a factual matter that between the latter and Roman; has not been shown. o Roman can be made liable only for his own fault o RE: Liability of common carrier & independent or negligence. contractor SC 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 contract 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. o PRESENT CASE: SC concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case. RE: Roman’s liability o There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability.