G.R. No.

157917 August 29, 2012

SPOUSES TEODORO
1
and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE NIOLAS and L. !ARATE, NATIONAL
RAIL"A#S, and t$% OURT O& APPEALS Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
'ERSA(IN, J.:
The operator of a. school bus service is a common carrier in the ees of the la!. "e is bound to
observe e#traordinar dili$ence in the conduct of his business. "e is presumed to be ne$li$ent
!hen death occurs to a passen$er. "is liabilit ma include indemnit for loss of earnin$
capacit even if the deceased passen$er ma onl be an unemploed hi$h school student at the
time of the accident.
T$% as%
% petition for revie! on certiorari, Spouses Teodoro and Nanette Perefia &Perefias' appeal the
adverse decision promul$ated on November (), *++*, b !hich the Court of ,ppeals &C,'
affirmed !ith modification the decision rendered on December ), (--- b the Re$ional Trial
Court &RTC', %ranch *.+, in Para/a0ue Cit that had decreed them 1ointl and severall liable
!ith Philippine National Rail!as &PNR', their co2defendant, to Spouses Nicolas and Teresita
3arate &3arates' for the death of their (42ear old son, ,aron 5ohn 6. 3arate &,aron', then a hi$h
school student of Don %osco Technical Institute &Don %osco'.
Ant%)%d%nts
The Pere/as !ere en$a$ed in the business of transportin$ students from their respective
residences in Para/a0ue Cit to Don %osco in Pason$ Tamo, 7a8ati Cit, and bac8. In their
business, the Pere/as used a 9I, Ceres :an &van' !ith Plate No. P;, <-., !hich had the
capacit to transport (= students at a time, t!o of !hom !ould be seated in the front beside the
driver, and the others in the rear, !ith si# students on either side. The emploed Clemente
,lfaro &,lfaro' as driver of the van.
In 5une (--., the 3arates contracted the Pere/as to transport ,aron to and from Don %osco. On
,u$ust **, (--., as on previous school das, the van pic8ed ,aron up around .>++ a.m. from the
3arates? residence. ,aron too8 his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. The van,
!ith its air2conditionin$ unit turned on and the stereo plain$ loudl, ultimatel carried all the (=
student riders on their !a to Don %osco. Considerin$ that the students !ere due at Don %osco
b @>(4 a.m., and that the !ere alread runnin$ late because of the heav vehicular traffic on
the South Superhi$h!a, ,lfaro too8 the van to an alternate route at about .>=4 a.m. b
traversin$ the narro! path underneath the 7a$allanes Interchan$e that !as then commonl used
b 7a8ati2bound vehicles as a short cut into 7a8ati. ,t the time, the narro! path !as mar8ed b
piles of construction materials and par8ed passen$er 1eepnes, and the railroad crossin$ in the
narro! path had no railroad !arnin$ si$ns, or !atchmen, or other responsible persons mannin$
the crossin$. In fact, the bamboo barandilla !as up, leavin$ the railroad crossin$ open to
traversin$ motorists.
,t about the time the van !as to traverse the railroad crossin$, PNR Commuter No. )+* &train',
operated b 5honn ,lano &,lano', !as in the vicinit of the 7a$allanes Interchan$e travellin$
northbound. ,s the train neared the railroad crossin$, ,lfaro drove the van east!ard across the
railroad trac8s, closel tailin$ a lar$e passen$er bus. "is vie! of the oncomin$ train !as bloc8ed
because he overtoo8 the passen$er bus on its left side. The train ble! its horn to !arn motorists
of its approach. Ahen the train !as about 4+ meters a!a from the passen$er bus and the van,
,lano applied the ordinar bra8es of the train. "e applied the emer$enc bra8es onl !hen he
sa! that a collision !as imminent. The passen$er bus successfull crossed the railroad trac8s,
but the van driven b ,lfaro did not. The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact thre!
nine of the (* students in the rear, includin$ ,aron, out of the van. ,aron landed in the path of
the train, !hich dra$$ed his bod and severed his head, instantaneousl 8illin$ him. ,lano fled
the scene on board the train, and did not !ait for the police investi$ator to arrive.
Devastated b the earl and une#pected death of ,aron, the 3arates commenced this action for
dama$es a$ainst ,lfaro, the Pere/as, PNR and ,lano. The Pere/as and PNR filed their respective
ans!ers, !ith cross2claims a$ainst each other, but ,lfaro could not be served !ith summons.
,t the pre2trial, the parties stipulated on the facts and issues, viB>
,. C,CTS>
&(') That spouses 3arate !ere the le$itimate parents of ,aron 5ohn 6. 3arateD
&*') Spouses 3arate en$a$ed the services of spouses Pere/a for the ade0uate and safe
transportation carria$e of the former spousesE son from their residence in Para/a0ue to his
school at the Don %osco Technical Institute in 7a8ati CitD
&)') Durin$ the effectivit of the contract of carria$e and in the implementation thereof,
,aron, the minor son of spouses 3arate died in connection !ith a vehicularFtrain collision
!hich occurred !hile ,aron !as ridin$ the contracted carrier 9ia Ceres van of spouses
Pere/a, then driven and operated b the latterEs emploeeFauthoriBed driver Clemente
,lfaro, !hich van collided !ith the train of PNR, at around .>=4 ,.7. of ,u$ust **,
(--., !ithin the vicinit of the 7a$allanes Interchan$e in 7a8ati Cit, 7etro 7anila,
PhilippinesD
&=') ,t the time of the vehicularFtrain collision, the sub1ect site of the vehicularFtrain
collision !as a railroad crossin$ used b motorists for crossin$ the railroad trac8sD
&4') Durin$ the said time of the vehicularFtrain collision, there !ere no appropriate and
safet !arnin$ si$ns and railin$s at the site commonl used for railroad crossin$D
&.') ,t the material time, countless number of 7a8ati bound public utilit and private
vehicles used on a dail basis the site of the collision as an alternative route and short2cut
to 7a8atiD
&@') The train driver or operator left the scene of the incident on board the commuter train
involved !ithout !aitin$ for the police investi$atorD
&<') The site commonl used for railroad crossin$ b motorists !as not in fact intended
b the railroad operator for railroad crossin$ at the time of the vehicular collisionD
&-') PNR received the demand letter of the spouses 3arateD
&(+'0) PNR refused to ac8no!led$e an liabilit for the vehicularFtrain collisionD
&((') The eventual closure of the railroad crossin$ alle$ed b PNR !as an internal
arran$ement bet!een the former and its pro1ect contractorD and
&(*') The site of the vehicularFtrain collision !as !ithin the vicinit or less than (++
meters from the 7a$allanes station of PNR.
%. ISSGES
&(' Ahether or not defendant2driver of the van is, in the performance of his functions,
liable for ne$li$ence constitutin$ the pro#imate cause of the vehicular collision, !hich
resulted in the death of plaintiff spousesE sonD
&*' Ahether or not the defendant spouses Pere/a bein$ the emploer of defendant ,lfaro
are liable for an ne$li$ence !hich ma be attributed to defendant ,lfaroD
&)' Ahether or not defendant Philippine National Rail!as bein$ the operator of the
railroad sstem is liable for ne$li$ence in failin$ to provide ade0uate safet !arnin$
si$ns and railin$s in the area commonl used b motorists for railroad crossin$s,
constitutin$ the pro#imate cause of the vehicular collision !hich resulted in the death of
the plaintiff spousesE sonD
&=' Ahether or not defendant spouses Pere/a are liable for breach of the contract of
carria$e !ith plaintiff2spouses in failin$ to provide ade0uate and safe transportation for
the latterEs sonD
&4' Ahether or not defendants spouses are liable for actual, moral dama$es, e#emplar
dama$es, and attorneEs feesD
&.' Ahether or not defendants spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pere/a observed the
dili$ence of emploers and school bus operatorsD
&@' Ahether or not defendant2spouses are civill liable for the accidental death of ,aron
5ohn 3arateD
&<' Ahether or not defendant PNR !as $rossl ne$li$ent in operatin$ the commuter train
involved in the accident, in allo!in$ or toleratin$ the motorin$ public to cross, and its
failure to install safet devices or e0uipment at the site of the accident for the protection
of the publicD
&-' Ahether or not defendant PNR should be made to reimburse defendant spouses for
an and !hatever amount the latter ma be held ans!erable or !hich the ma be
ordered to pa in favor of plaintiffs b reason of the actionD
&(+' Ahether or not defendant PNR should pa plaintiffs directl and full on the
amounts claimed b the latter in their Complaint b reason of its $ross ne$li$enceD
&((' Ahether or not defendant PNR is liable to defendants spouses for actual, moral and
e#emplar dama$es and attorneEs fees.
*
The 3arates? claim a$ainst the Pere/as !as upon breach of the contract of carria$e for the safe
transport of ,aronD but that a$ainst PNR !as based on 0uasi2delict under ,rticle *(@., Civil
Code.
In their defense, the Pere/as adduced evidence to sho! that the had e#ercised the dili$ence of a
$ood father of the famil in the selection and supervision of ,lfaro, b ma8in$ sure that ,lfaro
had been issued a driver?s license and had not been involved in an vehicular accident prior to
the collisionD that their o!n son had ta8en the van dailD and that Teodoro Pere/a had sometimes
accompanied ,lfaro in the van?s trips transportin$ the students to school.
Cor its part, PNR tended to sho! that the pro#imate cause of the collision had been the rec8less
crossin$ of the van !hose driver had not first stopped, loo8ed and listenedD and that the narro!
path traversed b the van had not been intended to be a railroad crossin$ for motorists.
Ru*+ng o, t$% RT
On December ), (---, the RTC rendered its decision,
)
disposin$>
A"ERECORE, premises considered, 1ud$ment is hereb rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
a$ainst the defendants orderin$ them to 1ointl and severall pa the plaintiffs as follo!s>
&(' &for' the death of ,aron2 Php4+,+++.++D
&*' ,ctual dama$es in the amount of Php(++,+++.++D
&)' Cor the loss of earnin$ capacit2 Php*,(+-,+@(.++D
&=' 7oral dama$es in the amount of Php=,+++,+++.++D
&4' E#emplar dama$es in the amount of Php(,+++,+++.++D
&.' ,ttorne?s fees in the amount of Php*++,+++.++D and
&@' Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On 5une *-, *+++, the RTC denied the Pere/as? motion for reconsideration,
=
reiteratin$ that the
cooperative $ross ne$li$ence of the Pere/as and PNR had caused the collision that led to the
death of ,aronD and that the dama$es a!arded to the 3arates !ere not e#cessive, but based on
the established circumstances.
T$% A-s Ru*+ng
%oth the Pere/as and PNR appealed &C.,.2H.R. C: No. .<-(.'.
PNR assi$ned the follo!in$ errors, to !it>
4
The Court a quo erred in>
(. In findin$ the defendant2appellant Philippine National Rail!as 1ointl and severall
liable to$ether !ith defendant2appellants spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pere/a and
defendant2appellant Clemente ,lfaro to pa plaintiffs2appellees for the death of ,aron
3arate and dama$es.
*. In $ivin$ full faith and merit to the oral testimonies of plaintiffs2appellees !itnesses
despite over!helmin$ documentar evidence on record, supportin$ the case of
defendants2appellants Philippine National Rail!as.
The Pere/as ascribed the follo!in$ errors to the RTC, namel>
The trial court erred in findin$ defendants2appellants 1ointl and severall liable for actual, moral
and e#emplar dama$es and attorne?s fees !ith the other defendants.
The trial court erred in dismissin$ the cross2claim of the appellants Pere/as a$ainst the
Philippine National Rail!as and in not holdin$ the latter and its train driver primaril
responsible for the incident.
The trial court erred in a!ardin$ e#cessive dama$es and attorne?s fees.
The trial court erred in a!ardin$ dama$es in the form of deceased?s loss of earnin$ capacit in
the absence of sufficient basis for such an a!ard.
On November (), *++*, the C, promul$ated its decision, affirmin$ the findin$s of the RTC, but
limited the moral dama$es to P *,4++,+++.++D and deleted the attorne?s fees because the RTC
did not state the factual and le$al bases, to !it>
.
A"ERECORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Re$ional Trial Court, %ranch
*.+ of Para/a0ue Cit is ,CCIR7ED !ith the modification that the a!ard of ,ctual Dama$es is
reduced to P 4-,4+*.@.D 7oral Dama$es is reduced to P *,4++,+++.++D and the a!ard for
,ttorne?s Cees is Deleted.
SO ORDERED.
The C, upheld the a!ard for the loss of ,aron?s earnin$ capacit, ta8in$ co$niBance of the
rulin$ in Caria$a v. 6a$una Taabas %us Compan and 7anila Railroad Compan,
@
!herein the
Court $ave the heirs of Caria$a a sum representin$ the loss of the deceased?s earnin$ capacit
despite Caria$a bein$ onl a medical student at the time of the fatal incident. ,pplin$ the
formula adopted in the ,merican E#pectanc Table of 7ortalit>I
*F) # &<+ 2 a$e at the time of death' J life e#pectanc
the C, determined the life e#pectanc of ,aron to be )-.) ears upon rec8onin$ his life
e#pectanc from a$e of *( &the a$e !hen he !ould have $raduated from colle$e and started
!or8in$ for his o!n livelihood' instead of (4 ears &his a$e !hen he died'. Considerin$ that the
nature of his !or8 and his salar at the time of ,aron?s death !ere un8no!n, it used the
prevailin$ minimum !a$e of P *<+.++Fda to compute ,aron?s $ross annual salar to be P
((+,@(...4, inclusive of the thirteenth month pa. 7ultiplin$ this annual salar b ,aron?s life
e#pectanc of )-.) ears, his $ross income !ould a$$re$ate to P =,)4(,(.=.)+, from !hich his
estimated e#penses in the sum of P *,(<-,..=.)+ !as deducted to finall arrive at P *,(.(,4++.++
as net income. Due to ,aron?s computed net income turnin$ out to be hi$her than the amount
claimed b the 3arates, onl P *,(+-,+@(.++, the amount e#pressl praed for b them, !as
$ranted.
On ,pril =, *++), the C, denied the Pere/as? motion for reconsideration.
<
Issu%s
In this appeal, the Pere/as list the follo!in$ as the errors committed b the C,, to !it>
I. The lo!er court erred !hen it upheld the trial court?s decision holdin$ the petitioners 1ointl
and severall liable to pa dama$es !ith Philippine National Rail!as and dismissin$ their
cross2claim a$ainst the latter.
II. The lo!er court erred in affirmin$ the trial court?s decision a!ardin$ dama$es for loss of
earnin$ capacit of a minor !ho !as onl a hi$h school student at the time of his death in the
absence of sufficient basis for such an a!ard.
III. The lo!er court erred in not reducin$ further the amount of dama$es a!arded, assumin$
petitioners are liable at all.
Ru*+ng
The petition has no merit.
1.
"%.% t$% P%.%/as and PNR 0o+nt*1
and s%2%.a**1 *+a3*% ,o. da4ag%s5
The 3arates brou$ht this action for recover of dama$es a$ainst both the Pere/as and the PNR,
basin$ their claim a$ainst the Pere/as on breach of contract of carria$e and a$ainst the PNR on
0uasi2delict.
The RTC found the Pere/as and the PNR ne$li$ent. The C, affirmed the findin$s.
Ae concur !ith the C,.
To start !ith, the Pere/as? defense !as that the e#ercised the dili$ence of a $ood father of the
famil in the selection and supervision of ,lfaro, the van driver, b seein$ to it that ,lfaro had a
driver?s license and that he had not been involved in an vehicular accident prior to the fatal
collision !ith the trainD that the even had their o!n son travel to and from school on a dail
basisD and that Teodoro Pere/a himself sometimes accompanied ,lfaro in transportin$ the
passen$ers to and from school. The RTC $ave scant consideration to such defense b re$ardin$
such defense as inappropriate in an action for breach of contract of carria$e.
Ae find no ade0uate cause to differ from the conclusions of the lo!er courts that the Pere/as
operated as a common carrierD and that their standard of care !as e#traordinar dili$ence, not the
ordinar dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil.
,lthou$h in this 1urisdiction the operator of a school bus service has been usuall re$arded as a
private carrier,
-
primaril because he onl caters to some specific or privile$ed individuals, and
his operation is neither open to the indefinite public nor for public use, the e#act nature of the
operation of a school bus service has not been finall settled. This is the occasion to la the
matter to rest.
, carrier is a person or corporation !ho underta8es to transport or conve $oods or persons from
one place to another, $ratuitousl or for hire. The carrier is classified either as a privateFspecial
carrier or as a commonFpublic carrier.
(+
, private carrier is one !ho, !ithout ma8in$ the activit
a vocation, or !ithout holdin$ himself or itself out to the public as read to act for all !ho ma
desire his or its services, underta8es, b special a$reement in a particular instance onl, to
transport $oods or persons from one place to another either $ratuitousl or for hire.
((
The
provisions on ordinar contracts of the Civil Code $overn the contract of private carria$e.The
dili$ence re0uired of a private carrier is onl ordinar, that is, the dili$ence of a $ood father of
the famil. In contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association en$a$ed in
the business of carrin$ or transportin$ passen$ers or $oods or both, b land, !ater, or air, for
compensation, offerin$ such services to the public.
(*
Contracts of common carria$e are $overned
b the provisions on common carriers of the Civil Code, the Public Service ,ct,
()
and other
special la!s relatin$ to transportation. , common carrier is re0uired to observe e#traordinar
dili$ence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have acted ne$li$entl in case of the loss of the
effects of passen$ers, or the death or in1uries to passen$ers.
(=
In relation to common carriers, the Court defined public use in the follo!in$ terms in Gnited
States v. Tan Piaco,
(4
viB>
KPublic useK is the same as Kuse b the publicK. The essential feature of the public use is not
confined to privile$ed individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or
unrestricted 0ualit that $ives it its public character. In determinin$ !hether a use is public, !e
must loo8 not onl to the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed mode of
doin$ it. If the use is merel optional !ith the o!ners, or the public benefit is merel incidental,
it is not a public use, authoriBin$ the e#ercise of the 1urisdiction of the public utilit commission.
There must be, in $eneral, a ri$ht !hich the la! compels the o!ner to $ive to the $eneral public.
It is not enou$h that the $eneral prosperit of the public is promoted. Public use is not
snonmous !ith public interest. The true criterion b !hich to 1ud$e the character of the use is
!hether the public ma en1o it b ri$ht or onl b permission.
In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,
(.
the Court noted that ,rticle (@)* of the Civil Code avoided
an distinction bet!een a person or an enterprise offerin$ transportation on a re$ular or an
isolated basisD and has not distin$uished a carrier offerin$ his services to the $eneral public, that
is, the $eneral communit or population, from one offerin$ his services onl to a narro! se$ment
of the $eneral population.
Nonetheless, the concept of a common carrier embodied in ,rticle (@)* of the Civil Code
coincides neatl !ith the notion of public service under the Public Service ,ct, !hich
supplements the la! on common carriers found in the Civil Code. Public service, accordin$ to
Section (), para$raph &b' of the Public Service ,ct, includes>
# # # ever person that no! or hereafter ma o!n, operate, mana$e, or control in the Philippines,
for hire or compensation, !ith $eneral or limited clientLle, !hether permanent or occasional, and
done for the $eneral business purposes, an common carrier, railroad, street rail!a, traction
rail!a, sub!a motor vehicle, either for frei$ht or passen$er, or both, !ith or !ithout fi#ed
route and !hatever ma be its classification, frei$ht or carrier service of an class, e#press
service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, ferries and !ater craft, en$a$ed in the
transportation of passen$ers or frei$ht or both, shipard, marine repair shop, ice2refri$eration
plant, canal, irri$ation sstem, $as, electric li$ht, heat and po!er, !ater suppl and po!er
petroleum, se!era$e sstem, !ire or !ireless communications sstems, !ire or !ireless
broadcastin$ stations and other similar public services. # # #.
(@
Hiven the breadth of the afore0uoted characteriBation of a common carrier, the Court has
considered as common carriers pipeline operators,
(<
custom bro8ers and !arehousemen,
(-
and
bar$e operators
*+
even if the had limited clientLle.
,s all the fore$oin$ indicate, the true test for a common carrier is not the 0uantit or e#tent of
the business actuall transacted, or the number and character of the conveances used in the
activit, but !hether the underta8in$ is a part of the activit en$a$ed in b the carrier that he has
held out to the $eneral public as his business or occupation. If the underta8in$ is a sin$le
transaction, not a part of the $eneral business or occupation en$a$ed in, as advertised and held
out to the $eneral public, the individual or the entit renderin$ such service is a private, not a
common, carrier. The 0uestion must be determined b the character of the business actuall
carried on b the carrier, not b an secret intention or mental reservation it ma entertain or
assert !hen char$ed !ith the duties and obli$ations that the la! imposes.
*(