HERMINIO L. NOCUM, plainti ff-appe llee, vs. LAGUNA TA YABAS BUS COMPANY, efenant-appellant. !ACTS" - Herminio L. Nocum who was a passenger in Bus No. 120 of Laguna Tayabas Bus Company then making a trip within the barrio of ita! "unicipa#ity of Bay! Laguna! was in$ure% as a conse&uence of the e'p#osion of firecrackers! containe% in a bo'! #oa%e% in sai% bus an% %ec#are% to its con%uctor as containing c#othes an% misce##aneous items by a co-passenger. - (ccor%ing to )e*erino (n%aya! a witness for the p#aintiff! a man with a bo' went up the baggage compartment of the bus where he a#rea%y was an% sai% bo' was p#ace% un%er the seat. They #eft (+carraga at about 11,0 in the morning an% when the e'p#osion occurre%! he was thrown out. C in*estigation report states that thirty se*en /passengers were in$ure%. - The bus con %uc tor ! )an cho "en %o+ a! tes tif ie% tha t the bo' be#onge% to a passenger whose name he %oes not know an% who to#% him that it containe% misce##aneous items an% c#othes. He he#pe% the owner in #oa%ing the baggage which weighe% about twe#*e /12ki#os an% because of company regu#ation! he charge% him for it twenty-fi*e centa*os /0.2. 3rom its appearance there was no in%ication at a## that the contents were e'p#osi*es or firecrackers. Neither %i% he open the bo' because he $ust re#ie% on the wor% of the owner. - ispatcher Nico#as Cornista of %efen%ant company corroborrate% the testimony of "en%o+a an% he sai%! among other things! that he was present when the bo' was #oa%e% in the truck an% the owner agree% to pay its fare. He a%%e% that they were not authori+e% to open the bagg ages of passe ngers because instruct ion from the management was to ca## the po#ice if there were packages containing artic#es which were against regu#ations. - Nocum fi#e% a comp#aint against Laguna T ayabas with C34 Batangas. - C34 ru#e% in fa*or of Nocum. C34 ecision, Laguna Tayabas %i% not obser*e the e'traor%inary or utmost %i#igence of a *ery cautious person re&uire% by artic#es 1! 1an% 15 of the NCC. - The ser*ice manua# prohibits the emp#oyees to a##ow e'p#osi*es! such as %ynamite an% firecrackers to be transporte% on its buses. To imp#ement this particu#ar ru#e for the safety of passengers! it was therefore incumbent upon the emp#oyees of the company to make the proper inspection of a## the baggages which are carrie% by the passengers. - 3ort ui to us e*ent6 (ccor%ing to C34! N788 The cause of th e un e'pe cte% e* ent must be in%epe n%ent of th e wi## of man or something which cannot be a*oi%e%. This cannot be sai% of the instant case. 4f proper an% rigi% inspection were obser*e% by the %efen%ant! the contents of the bo' cou#% ha*e been %isco*ere% an% the acci%ent a*oi%e%. 9efusa# by the passenger to ha*e the package opene% was no e'cuse because! as state% by ispatcher Cornista! emp#oyees shou#% ca## the po#ice if there were packages containing artic#es aga inst comp any reg u#a tio ns. Nei the r was fai#ur e by emp #oy ees of %ef en%ant comp any to %et ect the con tents of the packa ges of passen gers because #ike the rationa#e in the Necesito *s. aras case /supra! a passenger has neither choice nor contro# in the e'ercise of their %iscretion in %etermining what are insi%e the package of co-passengers which may e*entua##y pro*e fata#. - Hence! this appea#. (ssignment of error:Laguna T ayabas; contention - C34 <99<4N N7T (B)7L=4N> (<LL(NT 397" L4(B4L4T? 9<)@L T4N> 397" TH< <AL7)47N 73 349<C9(C<9) C7NT (4N<4N ( (C(><! TH< C7NT<NT) 73 H4CH <9< "4)9<9<)<NT<B? ( ())<N><9 ISSUE" :N L(>@N( T(?(B() 4) L4(BL< RULING" N7. (rtic#e 1reasona b#y &ua#if ies the e'traor%in ary %i#ige nce re& uir e% of common car rie rs for the safet y of the pas sen ger s transporte% by them to be Daccor%ing to a## the circumstances of each case.D 4n fact! (rtic#e 1rep eats thi s same &ua #if ica tio n, D( common carrier is boun% to carry the passengers safe#y as far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%e! using the utmost %i#igence of *ery cautious persons! with %ue regar% for a# # the circumstances.D hi#e it is true the passengers of appe##ant;s bus shou#% not be ma%e to suffer for something o*er which they ha% no contro#! fairness %eman%s that in measuring a common carrier;s %uty towar%s its passengers! a##owance must be gi*en to the re#iance that shou#% be repose% on the sense of responsibi#ity of a## the passengers in regar% to their common safety. 4t is to be presume% that a passenger wi## not take with him anything %angerous to the #i*es an% #imbs of his co- passengers! not to speak of his own. Not to be #ight#y consi%ere% must be the right to pri*acy to which each passeng er is entit#e%. He cannot be sub$e cte% to any unusua# search! when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage an% nothing appears to in%icate the contrary! as in the case at bar. 4n other wor%s! in&uiry may be *erba##y ma%e as to the nature of a passenger;s baggage when such is not outwar%#y perceptib#e! but
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
confirme% short#y before the hi$acking inci%ent of "ay 21! 1F5 by
Letter of 4nstruction No. FF issue% on (pri# 2G! 1F5
7therwise state%! these e*ents ren%ere% it impossib#e for (L to
perform its ob#igations in a nomina# manner an% ob*ious#y it cannot
be fau#te% with neg#igence in the performance of %uty taken o*er by
the (rme% 3orces of the hi#ippines to the e'c#usion of the former.
3ina##y! there is no %ispute that the fourth e#ement has a#so beensatisfie%. Conse&uent#y the e'istence of force ma$eure has been
estab#ishe% e'empting respon%ent (L from the payment of
%amages to its passengers who suffere% %eath or in$uries in their
persons an% for #oss of their baggages.
C34 %ecision affirme%.
!ORTUNE E/PRESS, INC. v CA
!ACTS"
This is an appea# by petition for re*iew on certiorari of the %ecision which %ismisse% the comp#aint of pub#ic respon%ents againstpetitioner for a0a1es f$% +%ea* $f $nt%at $f a%%ia1e fi#e% onthe groun% that petitioner had not exercised the required degree of diligence in the operation of one of its buses. (tty. Ta#ib Caorong!
whose heirs are pri*ate respon%ents herein! was a passenger of thebus an% was ki##e% in the ambush in*o#*ing sai% bus.
7n No*ember 1G! 1FGF! a +s $f petiti$ne% fi1%e in an aient 2it* a 3eepne in auswagan! Lanao %e# Norte! resu#ting in the%eath of se*era# passengers of the $eepney! inc#u%ing two "aranaos.Crisanto >enera#ao! a *o#unteer fie#% agent of the Constabu#ary9egiona# )ecurity @nit No. A! con%ucte% an in*estigation of theacci%ent. He foun% that the owner of the $eepney was a "aranaoresi%ing in e#abayan! Lanao %e# Norte an% that certain "aranaos
were p#anning to take re*enge on the petitioner by burning some ofits buses. >enera#ao ren%ere% a report on his fin%ings to )gt.9eyna#%o Bastasa of the hi#ippine Constabu#ary 9egiona#Hea%&uarters at Cagayan %e 7ro. @pon the instruction of )gt.Bastasa! he went to see ios%a%o Bra*o! operations manager ofpetitioner! its main office in Cagayan %e 7ro City. Bra*o assure% himthat the necessary precautions to insure the safety of #i*es an%property wou#% be taken.
(t about 5,E .". on No*ember 22! 1FGF! three arme% "aranaos who preten%e% to be passengers! sei+e% a bus of petitioner atLinamon! Lanao %e# Norte whi#e on its way to 4#igan City. (mong the
passengers of the bus was (tty. Caorong. The #ea%er of the"aranaos or%ere% the %ri*er! >o%ofre%o Cabatuan! to stop the buson the si%e of the highway. The #ea%er then shot Cabatuan on thearm! which cause% him to s#ump on the steering whee#. The one ofthe companions of "ananggo#o starte% pouring gaso#ine insi%e thebus! as the other he#% the passenger at bay with a han%gun."ananggo#o then or%ere% the passenger to get off the bus. Thepassengers! inc#u%ing (tty. Caorong! steppe% out of the bus an% wentbehin% the bushes in a fie#% some %istance from the highway.
(tty. Caorong returne% to the bus to retrie*e something from theo*erhea% rack. (t that time! one of the arme% men was pouring
gaso#ine on the hea% of the %ri*er. Cabatuan! who ha% meantimeregaine% consciousness! hear% (tty. Caorong p#ea%ing with thearme% men to spare the %ri*er as he was innocent of any wrong%oing an% was on#y trying to make a #i*ing. The arme% men werehowe*er! a%amant as they repeate% the warning that they were goingto burn the bus a#ong with its %ri*er. uring this e'change between(tty. Caorong an% the assai#ants! Cabatuan c#imbe% out of the #eft
win%ow of the bus an% craw#e% to the cana# on the opposite si%e othe highway. He hear% shots from insi%e the bus.
Larry %e #a Cru+! one of the passengers! saw that Att. Ca$%$n1 2as *it. T*en t*e +s 2as set $n fi%e. )ome of the passengers were ab#e to pu## (tty. Caorong out of the burning bus an% rush him tothe "ercy Community Hospita# in 4#igan City! but he %ie% whi#eun%ergoing operation.
T*e t%ial $%t is0isse t*e $0plaint ho#%ing that, “Accordinglythe failure of defendant to accord faith and credit to the report of Mr.Generalao and the fact that it did not provide security to its busescannot, in the light of the circumstances, be characterized asnegligence. Finally, the evidence clearly shos that the assailantsdid not have the least intention of the harming any of the
passengers. !hey ordered all the passengers to alight and set fire on
the bus only after all the passengers ere out of danger. !he deathof Atty. "aorong as an unexpected and unforseen occurrence overhich defendant had no control. Atty. "aorong performed an act ofcharity and heroism in coming to the succor of the driver even in theface of danger. #e deserves the undying gratitude of the driverhose life he saved. $o one should blame him for an act ofextraordinary charity and altruism hich cost his life. %ut neithershould any blame be laid on the doorstep of defendant. #is deathas solely due to the illfull acts of the laless hich defendantcould neither prevent nor to stop.&
T*e CA %eve%se t*e l$2e% $%t4s eisi$n ho#%ing that, “#o diddefendant'appellee react to the tip or information that certain
Maranao hotheads ere planning to burn five of its buses out ofrevenge for the deaths of to Maranaos in an earlier collisioninvolving appellee(s bus) *xcept for the remar+s of appellee(soperations manager that e ill have our action . . . . and -(ll be theone to settle it personally, nothing concrete hatsoever as ta+enby appellee or its employees to prevent the execution of the threat.efendant'appellee never adopted even a single safety measure forthe protection of its paying passengers. /ere thereavailable safeguards) 0f course, there ere1 one as fris+ing
passengers particularly those en route to the area here the threatsere li+ely to be carried out such as here the earlier accidentoccurred or the place of influence of the victims or their locality. -ffris+ing as resorted to, even temporarily, . . . . appellee might belegally excused from liabilty.
$othing, and no repeat, nothing at all, as done by defendant'appellee to protect its innocent passengers from the danger arisingfrom the Maranao threats. -t must be observed that fris+ing is not anovelty as a safety measure in our society. 2ensitive places 3 infact, nearly all important places 3 have applied this method ofsecurity enhancement. Gadgets and devices are avilable in themar+et for this purpose. -t ould not have eighed much against thebudget of the bus company if such items ere made available to its
personnel to cope up ith situations such as the Maranaos threats.
1. C( erre% in re*ersing the #ower courtMs %ecision2. 7N the acts of the "aranao 7ut#aws were so gra*e! irresistib#e!*io#ent an% forcefu#! as to be regar%e% as caso fortuito
(rt. 15 of the Ci*i# Co%e pro*i%es that a common carrier isresponsib#e for in$uries suffere% by a passenger on account of wi#fu##acts of other passengers! if the emp#oyees of the common carriercou#% ha*e pre*ente% the act through the e'ercise of the %i#igence ofa goo% father of a fami#y. 4n the present case! it is c#ear that becauseof the neg#igence of petitioner;s emp#oyees! the sei+ure of the bus by"ananggo#o an% his men was ma%e possib#e.
espite warning by the hi#ippine Constabu#ary at Cagayan %e 7rothat the "aranaos were p#anning to take re*enge on the petitioner byburning some of its buses an% the assurance of petitioner;s operationmanager! ios%a%o Bra*o! that the necessary precautions wou#% betaken! petitioner %i% nothing to protect the safety of its passengers.
Ha% petitioner an% its emp#oyees been *igi#ant they wou#% not ha*efai#e% to see that the ma#efactors ha% a #arge &uantity of gaso#ine withthem. @n%er the circumstances! simp#e precautionary measures toprotect the safety of passengers! such as frisking passengers an%inspecting their baggages! preferab#y with non-intrusi*e ga%gets suchas meta# %etectors! before a##owing them on boar% cou#% ha*e beenemp#oye% without *io#ating the passenger;s constitutiona# rights. (sthis Court amen%e% in >aca# *. hi#ippine (ir Lines! 4nc.! 5 a commoncarrier can be he#% #iab#e for fai#ing to pre*ent a hi$acking by friskingpassengers an% inspecting their baggages.
3rom the foregoing! it is e*i%ent that petitioner;s emp#oyees fai#e% topre*ent the attack on one of petitioner;s buses because they %i% not
e'ercise the %i#igence of a goo% father of a fami#y. Hence! petitionershou#% be he#% # iab#e for the %eath of (tty. Caorong.
Se$n. Sei6%e $f Petiti$ne%5s Bs n$t a Case $f !$%e Ma3e%e
(rt. 1 of the Ci*i# Co%e pro*i%es that Da common carrier is boun%to carry the passengers as far as human care an% foresight canpro*i%e! using the utmost %i#igence of *ery cautious persons! with%ue regar% for a## the circumstances.D 4n the present case! this factorof unforeseeabi#ity /the secon% re&uisite for an e*ent to beconsi%ere% force ma$eure is #acking. (s a#rea%y state%! %espite thereport of C agent >enera#ao that the "aranaos were p#anning toburn some of petitioner;s buses an% the assurance of petitioner;soperation manager /ios%a%o Bra*o that the necessary precautions
wou#% be taken! nothing was rea##y %one by petitioner to protect thesafety of passengers.
PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES v IAC
!ACTS"
This is a petition for re*iew on certiorari of the %ecision of the4nterme%iate (ppe##ate Court which re*erse% the %ecision of theCourt of 3irst 4nstance %enying the motion for reconsi%eration.
(bout 11,00 o;c#ock in the morning on ecember 2E! 1F55! Cata#inaascua! Cari%a% ascua! (%e#ai%a <stomo! <r#in%a "eria#es"erce%es Loren+o! (#e$an%ro "ora#es an% Kenai%a are$as boar%e%the $eepney owne% by spouses 4si%ro "angune an% >ui##erma
Carreon an% %ri*en by Tran&ui#ino "ana#o at au! "aba#acatampanga boun% for Carmen! 9osa#es! angasinan to spen%Christmas at their respecti*e homes. Their contract with "ana#o wasfor them to pay 2E.00 for the trip. urporte%#y ri%ing on the frontseat was "erce%es Loren+o. 7n the #eft rear passenger seat wereCari%a% ascua! (#e$an%ro "ora#es an% Kenai%a are$as. 7n theright rear passenger seat were Cata#ina ascua! (%e#ai%a <stomoan% <r#in%a "eria#es. (fter a brief stopo*er at "onca%a! Tar#ac forefreshment! the $eepney procee%e% towar%s Carmen! 9osa#esangasinan.
@pon reaching barrio )inayoan! )an "anue#! Tar#ac! the right rea whee# of the $eepney was %etache%! so it was running in an
unba#ance% position. "ana#o steppe% on the brake! as a resu#t of which! the $eepney which was then running on the eastern #ane /itsright of way ma%e a @-turn! in*a%ing an% e*entua##y stopping on the
western #ane of the roa% in such a manner that the $eepney;s fronface% the south /from where it came an% its rear face% the north/towar%s where it was going. The $eepney practica##y occupie% an%b#ocke% the greater portion of the western #ane! which is the right of
way of *ehic#es coming from the north! among which was Bus No of petitioner hi#ippine 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc. /9abbit %ri*en byTomas %e#os 9eyes. (s a resu#t of the co##ision! three passengers othe $eepney /Cata#ina ascua! <r#in%a "eria#es an% (%e#ai%a<stomo %ie% whi#e the other $eepney passengers sustaine% physicain$uries.
(t the time an% in the *icinity of the acci%ent! there were no *ehic#esfo##owing the $eepney! neither were there oncoming *ehic#es e'cepthe bus. The weather con%ition of that %ay was fair.
T*e t%ial $%t *$ls"1. That %efen%ants 4si%ro "angune! >ui##erma Carreon
an% Tran&ui#ino "ana#o thru their neg#igencebreache% contract of carriage with their passengersthe p#aintiffs; an%:or their heirs! an% this Court ren%ers
$u%gment or%ering sai% %efen%ants! $oint#y an%se*era##y! to pay the p#aintiffs
2. The %efen%ant 3i#riters >uaranty 4nsurance Co.!ha*ing contracte% to ensure an% answer for theob#igations of %efen%ants "angune an% Carreon for%amages %ue their passengers! this Court ren%ers
$u%gment against the sai% %efen%ants 3i#riters>uaranty 4nsurance Co.! $oint#y an% se*era##y with sai%%efen%ants /"angune an% Carreon to pay thep#aintiffs the amount herein abo*e a%$u%icate% in theirfa*or in Ci*i# Case No. 115 on#y
. 7n the cross c#aim of hi#. 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc.or%ering the %efen%ant! 4si%ro "angune! >ui##ermaCarreon an% Tran&ui#ino "ana#o! to pay $oint#y an%se*era##y! cross-c#aimant hi#. 9abbit Bus Lines! 4nc.!the amounts of 215.2 as actua# %amages to its BusNo. an% 2!1.50 for #oss of i ts earning.
T*e CA %eve%se the #ower courtMs %ecision as to item no. .
The motion for reconsi%eration was %enie%. Hence! the presentpetition.
ISSUE"7N hi# 9abbit Bus Lines is #iab#e for the %eath an% physica#
in$uries suffere% by the passengers of the $eepney.
HEL&"
(pp#ying primari#y 789 the %octrine of #ast c#ear chance! 7:9 thepresumption that %ri*ers who bump the rear of another *ehic#e gui#tyan% the cause of the acci%ent un#ess contra%icte% by other e*i%ence!an 7;9 the substantia# factor test conc#u%e% that %e#os 9eyes wasneg#igent.
The misappreciation of the facts an% e*i%ence an% the misapp#icationof the #aws by the respon%ent court warrant a re*ersa# of its&uestione% %ecision an% reso#ution.
1. e reiterate that <=t>*e p%iniple a+$t <t*e last lea%< *ane, wou#% ca## for app#ication in a suit between the owners an% %ri*ers ofthe two co##i%ing *ehic#es. 4t %oes not arise where a passenger%eman%s responsibi#ity from the carrier to enforce its contractua#ob#igations. 3or it wou#% be ine&uitab#e to e'empt the neg#igent %ri*erof the $eepney an% its owners on the groun% that the other %ri*er was#ikewise gui#ty of neg#igence.D
:. On t*e p%es0pti$n t*at %ive%s 2*$ +0p t*e %ea% $fan$t*e% ve*ile 1ilt an t*e ase $f t*e aient, nless$nt%aite + $t*e% eviene! the respon%ent court sai% the
$eepney ha% a#rea%y e'ecute% a comp#ete turnabout an% at the timeof impact was a#rea%y facing the western si%e of the roa%. Thus the
$eepney assume% a new fronta# position *is a *is! the bus! an% thebus assume% a new ro#e of %efensi*e %ri*ing. The spirit behin% thepresumption of gui#t on one who bumps the rear en% of another*ehic#e is for the %ri*er fo##owing a *ehic#e to be at a## times prepare%of a pen%ing acci%ent shou#% the %ri*er in front su%%en#y come to afu## stop! or change its course either through change of min% of thefront %ri*er! mechanica# troub#e! or to a*oi% an acci%ent. The rear*ehic#e is gi*en the responsibi#ity of a*oi%ing a co##ision with the front*ehic#e for it is the rear *ehic#e who has fu## contro# of the situation asit is in a position to obser*e the *ehic#e in front of it.
. ?it* %e1a% t$ t*e s+stantial fat$% test! it was the opinion othe respon%ent court that, 4t is the ru#e un%er the substantia# factortest that if the actor;s con%uct is a substantia# factor in bringing aboutharm to another! the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor shou#%ha*e foreseen the e'tent of the harm or the manner in which itoccurre% %oes not pre*ent him from being #iab#e /9estatement! Torts2%. Here! e fin% %efen%ant bus running at a fast spee% when theacci%ent occurre% an% %i% not e*en make the s#ightest effort to a*oi%the acci%ent! . . . . The bus %ri*er;s con%uct is thus a substantia#factor in bringing about harm to the passengers of the $eepney! noton#y because he was %ri*ing fast an% %i% not e*en attempt to a*oi%the mishap but a#so because it was the bus which was the physicaforce which brought about the in$ury an% %eath to the passengers ofthe $eepney.
(fter a minute scrutiny of the factua# matters an% %u#y pro*ene*i%ence! e fin% that the pro'imate cause of the acci%ent was theneg#igence of "ana#o an% spouses "angune an% Carreon. They a#fai#e% to e'ercise the precautions that are nee%e% precise#y pro hac*ice.
4n cu#pa contractua#! the moment a passenger %ies or is in$ure%! thecarrier is presume% to ha*e been at fau#t or to ha*e acte% neg#igent#y
an% this %isputab#e presumption may on#y be o*ercome by e*i%encethat he ha% obser*e% e'tra-or%inary %i#igence as prescribe% in(rtic#es 1! 1 an% 15 of the New Ci*i# Co%e 2 or that the%eath or in$ury of the passenger was %ue to a fortuitous e*ent
T*e t%ial $%t 2as t*e%ef$%e %i1*t in finin1 t*at Manal$ ansp$ses Man1ne an Ca%%e$n 2e%e ne1li1ent. Howe*er! itsru#ing that spouses "angune an% Carreon are $oint#y an% se*era##y#iab#e with "ana#o is erroneous The %ri*er cannot be he#% $oint#y an%se*era##y #iab#e with the carrier in case of breach of the contract ofcarriage. The rationa#e behin% this is rea%i#y %iscernib#e. 3irst#y! thecontract of carriage is between the carrier an% the passenger! an% inthe e*ent of contractua# #iabi#ity! the carrier is e'c#usi*e#y responsib#e
therefore to the passenger! e*en if such breach be %ue to theneg#igence of his %ri*er
The %ecease% was an inspector of the Bureau of 3orestry statione%in a*ao with an annua# sa#ary of 1!G00. The %efen%ant! =a#encia!is engage% in the business of e'porting #ogs from his #umberconcession in Cotabato. Lara went to sai% concession uponinstructions of his chief to c#assify the #ogs of %efen%ant which wereabout to be #oa%e% on a ship anchore% in the port of arang. The
work Lara of #aste% for si' %ays %uring which he contracte% ma#ariafe*er. 4n the morning of Ianuary F! 1FE! Lara who then in a hurry toreturn to a*ao aske% %efen%ant if he cou#% take him in his pick-upas there was then no other means of transportation! to which%efen%ant agree%! an% in that same morning the pick-up #eft arangboun% for a*ao taking a#ong si' passengers! inc#u%ing Lara.
Before #ea*ing arang! =a#encia in*ite% Lara to sit with him on the
front seat but Lara %ec#ine%. 4t was their un%erstan%ing that uponreaching barrio )amoay! Cotabato! the passengers were to a#ight an%take a bus boun% for a*ao! but when they arri*e% at that p#ace! on#yBernar%o a#ighte% an% the other passengers re&ueste% %efen%ant toa##ow them to ri%e with him up to a*ao because there was then noa*ai#ab#e bus that they cou#% take in going to that p#ace. efen%ant/=a#encia again accommo%ate% the passengers.
hen they continue% their trip! the sitting arrangement of thepassengers remaine% the same! Lara being seate% on a bag in themi%%#e with his arms on a suitcase an% his hea% co*e re% by a $acket.@pon reaching m. F5! barrio Cati%tuan! Lara acci%enta##y fe## fromthe pick-up an% as a resu#t he suffere% serious in$uries. =a#encia
stoppe% the pick-up to see what happene% to Lara. He sought thehe#p of the resi%ents of that p#ace an% app#ie% water to Lara but to noa*ai#. They brought Lara to the nearest p#ace where they cou#% fin% a%octor an% not ha*ing foun% any they took him to )t. Ioseph;s C#inicof i%apawan. But when Lara arri*e% he was a#rea%y %ea%. 3romthere they procee%e% to a*ao City an% imme%iate#y notifie% the#oca# authorities. (n in*estigation was ma%e regar%ing thecircumstances surroun%ing the %eath of Lara but no crimina# action
was taken against %efen%ant.
4t therefore appears that the %ecease%! as we## his companions whoro%e in the pick-up of %efen%ant! were mere#y accommo%ationpassengers who pai% nothing for the ser*ice an% so they can beconsi%ere% as in*ite% guests within the meaning of the #aw. (saccommo%ation passengers or in*ite% guests! %efen%ant as owneran% %ri*er of the pick-up owes to them mere#y the %uty to e'ercisereasonab#e care so that they may be transporte% safe#y to their%estination.
efen%ant! therefore! is on#y re&uire% to obser*e or%inary care! an%is not in %uty boun% to e'ercise e'traor%inary %i#igence as re&uire% ofa common carrier by our #aw /(rtic#es 1 an% 15! new Ci*i#Co%e.
ISSUE"
7N efen%ant /=a#encia obser*e% or%inary care or %i#igence intransporting the %ecease% from arang to a*ao on the %ate in&uestion6
HEL&"
<*en if we a%mit as true the facts foun% by the tria# court! sti## we fin%that the same are not sufficient to show that %efen%ant has fai#e% totake the precaution necessary to con%uct his passengers safe#y totheir p#ace of %estination for there is nothing there to in%icate tha%efen%ant has acte% with neg#igence or without taking the precautionthat an or%inary pru%ent man wou#% ha*e taken un%er simi#acircumstances. 4t shou#% be note% that Lara went to the #umbeconcession of %efen%ant in answer to a ca## of %uty which he wasboun% to perform because of the re&uirement of his office an% hecontracte% the ma#aria fe*er in the course of the performance of that%uty. 4t shou#% a#so be note% that %efen%ant was not in %uty boun% totake the %ecease% in his own pick-up to a*ao because from arangto Cotabato there was a #ine of transportation that regu#ar#y makestrips for the pub#ic! an% if %efen%ant agree% to take the %ecease% inhis own car! it was on#y to accommo%ate him consi%ering his fe*erishcon%ition an% his re&uest that he be so accommo%ate%. 4t shou#%a#so be note% that the passengers who ro%e in the pick-up of
%efen%ant took their respecti*e seats therein at their own choice an%not upon in%ication of %efen%ant with the particu#arity that %efen%antin*ite% the %ecease% to sit with him in the front seat but whichin*itation the %ecease% %ec#ine%. The reason for this can on#y beattribute% to his %esire to be at the back so that he cou#% sit on a bagan% tra*e# in a rec#ining position because such was more con*enienfor him %ue to his fe*erish con%ition. (## the circumstances thereforec#ear#y in%icate that %efen%ant ha% %one what a reasonab#e pru%enman wou#% ha*e %one un%er the circumstances.
There is e*ery reason to be#ie*e that the unfortunate happening wason#y %ue to an unforeseen acci%ent accuse% by the fact that at thetime the %ecease% was ha#f as#eep an% must ha*e fa##en from the
pick-up when it ran into some stones causing it to $erk consi%eringthat the roa% was then bumpy! rough an% fu## of stones.
(## things consi%ere%! we are persua%e% to conc#u%e that theacci%ent occurre% not %ue to the neg#igence of %efen%ant but tocircumstances beyon% his contro# an% so he shou#% be e'empt from#iabi#ity.
NECESSITO v PARAS
!ACTS"
These cases in*o#*e ex contractu against the owners an% operatorsof the common carrier known as hi#ippine 9abbit Bus Lines! fi#e% byone passenger! an% the heirs of another! who in$ure% as a resu#t othe fa## into a ri*er of the *ehic#e in which they were ri%ing.
4n the morning of Ianuary 2G! 1F5E! )e*erina >arces an% her one-year o#% son! reci##ano Necesito! carrying *egetab#es! boar%e%passenger auto truck or bus No. 1FF of the hi#ippine 9abbit BusLines at (gno! angasinan. The passenger truck! %ri*en by3rancisco Ban%one##! then procee%e% on its regu#ar run from (gno to"ani#a. (fter passing "angatarem! angasinan truck No. 1FFentere% a woo%en bri%ge! but the front whee#s swer*e% to the rightthe %ri*er #ost contro#! an% after wrecking the bri%ge;s woo%en rai#s
the truck fe## on its right si%e into a creek where water was breast%eep. The mother! )e*erina >arces! was %rowne%J the son!reci##ano Necesito! was in$ure%! suffering abrasions an% fracture ofthe #eft femur. He was brought to the ro*incia# Hospita# at agupan!
where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of#ine. The money! wrist watch an% cargo of *egetab#es were #ost.
Two actions for %amages an% attorney;s fees tota##ing o*er G!000ha*ing been fi#e% in the Court of 3irst 4nstance of Tar#ac against thecarrier! the #atter p#ea%e% that the acci%ent was %ue to Dengine ormechanica# troub#eD in%epen%ent or beyon% the contro# of the%efen%ants or of the %ri*er Ban%one##.
(fter $oint tria#! the Court of 3irst 4nstance foun% that the bus wasprocee%ing s#ow#y %ue to the ba% con%ition of the roa%J that theacci%ent was cause% by the fracture of the right steering knuck#e!
which was %efecti*e in that its center or core was not compact butDbubb#e% an% ce##u#ousD! a con%ition that cou#% not be known orascertaine% by the carrier %espite the fact that regu#ar thirty-%ayinspections were ma%e of the steering knuck#e! since the stee#e'terior was smooth an% shiny to the %epth of :15 of an inch a##aroun%J that the knuck#es are %esigne% an% manufacture% for hea*y%uty an% may #ast up to ten yearsJ that the knuck#e of bus No. 1FF
that broke on Ianuary 2G! 1FE! was #ast inspecte% on Ianuary !1FE! an% was %ue to be inspecte% again on 3ebruary th.
Hence! the tria# court! ho#%ing that the acci%ent was e'c#usi*e#y %ueto fortuitous e*ent! %ismisse% both actions.
ISSUE"- 7N the carrier is #iab#e for the manufacturing %efect of
the steering knuck#e- 7N e*i%ence %isc#oses that in regar% thereto the carrier
e'ercise% the %i#igence re&uire% by #aw- 7N a mechanica# %efect is a caso fortuito that e'empts
the carrier from #iabi#ity
HEL&"
(9T. 1. ( common carrier is boun% to carry the passengers safe#yas far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%e! using the utmost%i#igence of *ery cautious persons! with a %ue regar% for the a## thecircumstances.
4t is c#ear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passengers; safety.His #iabi#ity rests upon neg#igence! his fai#ure to e'ercise the DutmostD%egree of %i#igence that the #aw re&uires! an% by (rt. 15! in case ofa passenger;s %eath or in$ury the carrier bears the bur%en ofsatisfying the court that he has %u#y %ischarge% the %uty of pru%ence
re&uire%. 4n the (merican #aw! where the carrier is he#% to the same%egree of %i#igence as un%er the new Ci*i# Co%e! the ru#e on the#iabi#ity of carriers for %efects of e&uipment is thus e'presse%, DTheprepon%erance of authority is in fa*or of the %octrine that apassenger is entit#e% to reco*er %amages from a carrier for an in$uryresu#ting from a %efect in an app#iance purchase% from amanufacturer! whene*er it appears that the %efect wou#% ha*e been%isco*ere% by the carrier if it ha% e'ercise% the %egree of care whichun%er the circumstances was incumbent upon it! with regar% toinspection an% app#ication of the necessary tests. 3or the purposesof this %octrine! the manufacturer is consi%ere% as being in #aw theagent or ser*ant of the carrier! as far as regar%s the work of
constructing the app#iance. (ccor%ing to this theory! the goo% reputeof the manufacturer wi## not re#ie*e the carrier from #iabi#ityD
The rationa#e of the carrier;s #iabi#ity is the fact that the passenger hasneither choice nor contro# o*er the carrier in the se#ection an% use ofthe e&uipment an% app#iances in use by the carrier. Ha*ing no pri*ity
whate*er with the manufacturer or *en%or of the %efecti*ee&uipment! the passenger has no reme%y against him! whi#e thecarrier usua##y has. 4t is but #ogica#! therefore! that the carrier! whi#enot in insurer of the safety of his passengers! shou#% ne*erthe#ess behe#% to answer for the f#aws of his e&uipment if such f#aws were at a#%isco*erab#e.
4n the case now before us! the recor% is to the effect that the on#y tesapp#ie% to the steering knuck#e in &uestion was a pure#y *isuainspection e*ery thirty %ays! to see if any cracks %e*e#ope%. 4nowhere appears that either the manufacturer or the carrier at anytime teste% the steering knuck#e to ascertain whether its strength wasup to stan%ar%! or that it ha% no hi%%en f#aws wou#% impair thastrength. (n% yet the carrier must ha*e been aware of the criticaimportance of the knuck#e;s resistanceJ that its fai#ure or breakage
wou#% resu#t in #oss of ba#ance an% steering contro# of the bus! with%isastrous effects upon the passengers.
e are satisfie% that the perio%ica# *isua# inspection of the steeringknuck#e as practice% by the carrier;s agents %i% not measure up tothe re&uire% #ega# stan%ar% of Dutmost %i#igence of *ery cautiouspersonsD Das far as human care an% foresight can pro*i%eD! an%therefore that the knuck#e;s fai#ure can not be consi%ere% a fortuitouse*ent that e'empts the carrier from responsibi#ity
(APAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT O! APPEALS
ENRI@UE AGANA, MARIA ANGELA NINA AGANA, A&ALIA B
!RANCISCO an (OSE MIRAN&A, respondents.
!ats"
(n appea# by certiorari fi#e% by petitioner Iapan (ir#ines! 4nc. /I(L
seeking the re*ersa# of the %ecision of the Court of (ppea#s.