Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 SULPICIO LINES, INC.

, petitioner, vs. THE HONORA LE COURT O! APPEALS "T#$l%&' ()*)+)o,- .,/ JACINTA L. PAMALARAN, respondents. 0UIASON, J.: This is a petition for revie on certiorari under Rule !" of the Revised Rules of #ourt to reverse the Decision dated $pril %, &''( of the #ourt of $ppeals in #$)*.R. #V No. (&'&', affir+in, the decision of the Re,ional Trial #ourt of -ohol, -ranch (, Ta,bilaran #it., hich a arded the clai+ for da+a,es filed b. private respondent a,ainst #-/ Ti+ber #orporation 0#-/1, $*O /u+ber #o+pan. 0$/#1, Sulpicio /ines, Inc. 0S/I1 and 2rnie Santia,o 0#ivil #ase No. (%3!1. 4e den. the petition. I $ contract of carria,e as entered into bet een petitioner and $/# for the transport of the latter5s ti+ber fro+ Pu,ad, /ian,a, Suri,ao del Sur. On March &6, &'63, petitioner sent its tu,boat 7MT 2d+und7 and bar,e 7Solid VI7 to /ian,a to pic8 up $/#5s ti+ber. 9o ever, no loadin, could be +ade because of the heav. do npour. The ne:t +ornin,, several stevedores of #-/, ho ere hired b. $/#, boarded the 7Solid VI7 and opened its storeroo+. The stevedores ere arned of the ,as and heat ,enerated b. the copra stored in the holds of the ship. Not heedin, the arnin,, a stevedore entered the storeroo+ and fell unconscious. T o other stevedores follo ed, one of ho+ as /eoncio /. Pa+alaran. 9e also lost consciousness and eventuall. died of ,as poisonin,. Thus, #ivil #ase No. (%3! for da+a,es as filed ith the Re,ional Trial #ourt of -ohol, -ranch (, Ta,bilaran b. Pa+alaran5s heirs a,ainst petitioner #-/, $/# and its +ana,er, 2rnie Santia,o. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disposin, as follo s; 492R2FOR2, findin, a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiffs, <ud,+ent is hereb. rendered; Orderin, defendants #-/ Ti+ber #orporation, $*O /u+ber #o+pan., Sulpicio /ines, Inc. and 2rnie Santia,o to pa. plaintiffs <ointl. and severall.; &. $ctual and co+pensator. da+a,es of P!=,===.==> (. Moral da+a,es of P"=,===.==> ?. $ttorne.5s fees of P(=,===.== and the costs of the suit 0Rollo, p. "61. On appeal, the #ourt of $ppeals in its Decision dated $pril %, &''( in #$)*.R. No. #V No. (&'&', affir+ed the lo er court5s decision, the dispositive portion of hich reads; 492R2FOR2, 42 $FFIRM the appealed <ud,+ent there bein, no <ustifiable reason that arrants the reversal thereof. #osts a,ainst defendant)appellant 0 Rollo, p. ?(1. Not satisfied ith the appellate court5s decision, petitioner filed this petition. II

Petitioner raises the follo in, ar,u+ents; &. Pa+alaran carrier> as never a passen,er of petitioner. Therefore, it is not liable as a co++on ere not ne,li,ent in the series of events hich led to the

(. Petitioner and its e+plo.ees death of Pa+alaran> !. It is #-/ and@or $/#

?. Petitioner is not liable under $rticle (&%= of the Ne #ivil #ode> hich should be held liable for the death of the victi+> and, ". Petitioner should have been ,ranted its <ust and valid counterclai+s and cross clai+s. 4e a,ree ith the #ourt of $ppeals that althou,h Pa+alaran as never a passen,er of petitioner, still the latter is liable as a co++on carrier for his death. The #ourt of $ppeals relied on Canas v. Dabatos, % #ourt of $ppeals Report '&% 0&'3"1. In said case, &? persons ere on board the vessel of defendant not as passen,ers but as 5car,adores5 of the shipper5s ,oods. The. ere there ith the consent and 8no led,e of the o ner of the vessel. Despite the absence of a passen,er)carrier relationship bet een the+, the appellate court, <ust the sa+e, held the patron thereof liable as a co++on carrier. The appellate court ruled; There is no debate as to the fact that not one of the thirteen passen,ers have paid an a+ount of +one. as fare for their conve.ance fro+ 9in,otanan to #ebu. The undisputed fact, ho ever, is that all of the+ ere in the boat ith the 8no led,e and consent of the patron. The eleven passengers, other than Encarnacion and Diosdado were in the boat because they have helped in loading cargoes in the boat, and 7to serve as cargadores of the cargoes,7 presumably, in unloading them at the place of destination . For those services they were permitted to be in the boat and to proceed to their destination in Cebu . The services rendered were the valuable consideration in exchange for the transportation fare . 7In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each contractin, part., the prestation or pro+ise of a thin, or service b. the other> . . .7 0at p. '("> e+phasis supplied1. $/# had a contract of carria,e ith petitioner. The presence of the stevedores sent b. $/# on board the bar,e of petitioner as called for b. the contract of carria,e. For ho else ould its lu+ber be transported unless it is placed on boardA $nd b. ho+A Of course, the stevedores. Definitel., petitioner could not e:pect the shipper itself to load the lu+ber ithout the aid of the stevedores. Further+ore, petitioner 8ne of the presence and role of the stevedores in its bar,e and thus consented to their presence. 9ence, petitioner as responsible for their safet. hile on board the bar,e. Petitioner ne:t clai+s that its e+plo.ees even arned the stevedores and tried to prevent their entr. into the storeroo+. Such ar,u+ent, a,ain, is de+olished b. the findin,s of the #ourt of $ppeals, thus; . . . . 9o ever, appellant failed to prove that its e+plo.ees ere actuall. trained or ,iven specific instructions to see to it that the bar,e is fit and safe not onl. in transportin, ,oods but also for people ho ould be loadin, the car,o into the bode,a of the bar,e. t is not enough that appellant!s employees have warned the laborers not to enter the barge after the hatch was opened. "ppellant!s employees should have been sufficiently instructed to see to it that the hatch of the barge is not opened by any unauthori#ed person and that the hatch is not easily opened by anyone . $t the ver. least, precautionar. +easures should have been observed b. appellant5s e+plo.ees to see to it that no one could enter the bode,a of the bar,e until after the. have +ade sure that it is safe for an.one to enter the sa+e. Failing to exercise due diligence in the supervision of its employees, the lower court was correct in holding appellant liable for damages 0Rollo, pp. ?&)?(> 2+phasis supplied1. Inas+uch as the findin,s of the #ourt of $ppeals are +erel. an affir+ance of the findin,s of the trial court, hich findin,s are supported b. the evidence, e do not find an. reason to reverse the sa+e. There is no Buarrel that $/# and #-/ are also liable as the. appellate courts. -oth the counterclai+s and cross clai+s of petitioner are ere in fact held liable b. both the trial and

ithout le,al basis. The counterclai+s and cross

clai+s ere based on the assu+ption that the other defendants are the ones solel. liable. 9o ever, inas+uch as its solidar. liabilit. ith the other defendants has clearl. been established b. both the trial and the appellate courts, hich e find to be in order, e cannot +a8e a different conclusion contrar. to that of the said courts. Finall., the inde+nit. for the death of /eoncio /. Pa+alaran is increased fro+ P!=,===.== to P"=,===.== in accordance ith our rulin, in $eople v. Flores, (?6 S#R$ 3"? 0&''!1. 492R2FOR2, the Decision of the #ourt of $ppeals is $FFIRM2D of actual and co+pensator. da+a,es is increased to P"=,===.==. SO ORD2R2D. $adilla, Davide, %r. and &apunan, %%., concur. 'ellosillo, %., is on leave. ith the MODIFI#$TION that the a ard

P., A1$2)3., 4o2l/ A)2#.y+ *+. R.5./.+ "G.R. No. 60676Post under case di,ests, #o++ercial /a at Thursda., Februar. (?, (=&( Posted b. SchiCophrenic Mind

!.3&+7 Private respondent Dose Rapadas held passen,er tic8et andba,,a,e clai+ chec8 for petitionerEs fli,ht No. %!& ith the route fro+ *ua+ to Manila. 4hile standin, inline to board the fli,ht at the *ua+ $irport, Rapadas as ordered b. petitionerEs hand carr. control a,ent to chec8)in his sa+sonite attachF case. Rapadas protested pointin, to the fact that other co) pasen,ers ere per+itted to hand carr. ba,,a,e. 9e stepped out of the line onl. to ,o bac8 a,ain at the end of it to tr. of he can ,et throu,h ithout havin, to re,ister his attachF case. 9o ever, the sa+e +an in char,e of had carr. control did not fail to notice hi+ and ordered hi+ a,ain to re,ister his ba,,a,e. Gpon arrivin, in Manila on the sa+e da., Rapadas clai+ed and as ,iven all his chec8ed in ba,,a,e e:cept the attachF case. I++u$7 4hether or not a passen,er is bound b. the ter+s of a passen,er under the 4arsa convention, shall appl. in case of loss, da+a,e or destruction to a re,istered lu,,a,e of a passen,er. H$l/7 $fter a revie of the various ar,u+ents of the

appointin, parties, the court found sufficient basis under the particular facts ofthe case for the avail+ent of the liabilit. li+itations under the 4arsa #onvention. There is no dispute and the courts belo ad+it that there as such a notice appearin, on pa,e ( of the airline tic8et statin, that the 4arsa #onvention ,overns in case of death or in<ur. of passen,ers or of loss, da+a,e or destructionto a passen,erEs lu,,a,e. $rt. ((0!1 of the 4arsa #onvention does not preclude an a ard of attorne.Es fees. That provision states that the li+its of liabilit. prescribed in the instru+ent shall not prevent the court fro+ a ardin, in accordance ith its o n la , in addition, the hole or part of the court costs and other e:penses of liti,ationincurred b. the plaintiff.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No+. 66102804 Au9u+& 60, 1990 PHILIPPINE RA IT US LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORA LE INTERME(IATE APPELLATE COURT AN( CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL., respondents. (antiago ) (antiago for petitioner. Federico R. *inluan for private respondents. ME(IAL(EA, J.: This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the Inter+ediate $ppellate #ourt 0no #ourt of $ppeals1 dated Dul. (', &'%? in $#)*.R. Nos. #V)3"%%", #V)3"%%3 and #V)3"%%6 hich reversed the decision of the #ourt of First Instance 0no Re,ional Trial #ourt1 of Pan,asinan dated Dece+ber (6, &'6%> and its resolution dated Nove+ber (%, &'%? den.in, the +otion for reconsideration. It is an established principle that the factual findin,s of the #ourt of $ppeals are final and +a. not be revie ed b. this #ourt on appeal. 9o ever, this principle is sub<ect to certain e:ceptions. One of these is hen the findin,s of the appellate court are contrar. to those of the trial court 0see Sabinosa v. The 9onorable #ourt of $ppeals, et al., *.R. No. /)!6'%&, Dul. (!, &'%'1 in hich case, a re)e:a+ination of the facts and evidence +a. be underta8en. This is Our tas8 no . The antecedent facts are as follo s; $bout &&;== o5cloc8 in the +ornin, on Dece+ber (!, &'33, #atalina Pascua, #aridad Pascua, $delaida 2sto+o, 2rlinda Meriales, Mercedes /orenCo, $le<andro Morales and Henaida Pare<as boarded the <eepne.

The cause of her death as shoc8. the relative positions of the t o vehicles as ell as the alle. Gpon reachin. 7I)!7. a stron. Man. .une.ht of a. PanlasiBui as due to shoc8 due to internal he+orrha.s> contusions on the left lo er lobe of the lun.5s front faced the south 0fro+ here it ca+e1 and its rear faced the north 0to ards here it as . . of Dr. .ers sustained ph. #arreon and Manalo. Pa+pan. 0Rabbit1 driven b. .ht tibia and fillnea> avulsion of the head. +ade a sudden G)turn and encroached on the estern lane of the hi.er seat ere #atalina Pascua. . ith contrar. Purportedl. Record on $ppeal1. the insurer of the <eepne. in<uries.ht upper lid> and abrasions 0 sic1 on the left 8nee. Filriters *uarant. +ultiple abrasions on the forear+. Tarlac. &==. practicall.ions of the s8ull> fracture of the left +andible> fracture of the ri.ic. The <eepne. ?rd.ht and points (== +eters north and south of the point of collision are visible and unobstructed. 7I7)Pascua1 as on the estern lane of the hi. $le<andro Morales and Henaida Pare<as. the bus bu+ped fro+ behind the ri. Manalo stepped on the bra8e. Record on $ppeal1. the ri. the <eepne. $ssurance #orporation. he+ato+a on the left thora:> +ultiple lacerations of the left lo er lobe of the lun.sical in<uries.ed point of i+pact 0p. the <eepne. On the ri. Pan. 4hat could have been a festive #hrist+as turned out to be tra. ride in buses. $delaida 2sto+o.ht of a.ht rear portion of the <eepne. as detached. of vehicles co+in. P(!. The forcible i+pact of the <eep caused the above in<uries hich resulted in her death. on the front seat ith Manalo as Mercedes /orenCo.ard1 fro+ . spouses Isidro Man. Inc. left. passen. hich as -us No. the. lacerated ound on the forehead and occipital re. the point of i+pact or collision 02:h. vehicles 0 sic1 and rubs parts of her bod. $l+ost at the ti+e hen the <eepne. Mabalacat. Man. 0#atalina Pascua. occupied and bloc8ed the . on the estern lane of the road in such a +anner that the <eepne.h a. Pan. $s a result of the collision. . . TranBuilino Manalo at Dau.e.o ned b. The road as strai.ators of Tacpal and police+en of San Manuel. for a couple of +inutes as clai+ed b. The private respondents5 testi+onial evidence on this contractual relationship as not controverted b. The deceased #atalina Pascua suffered the follo in. because the buses ere full. as clai+ed b. Rabbit and delos Re. Pascua on the s8etch 2:h. &=&. about si: 031 +eters ide. . force. nor b. a+on. three passen. he+ato+a on the forehead. ruptured spleen and trau+a. and %th ribs. "th. . left internal> and +ultiple abrasions.asinan to spend #hrist+as at their respective ho+es. proceeded to ards #ar+en. #aridad Pascua suffered ph. Inc. bac8 and ri.a bound for #ar+en. prepared a s8etch 0co++on e:hibit 7I7 for private respondents 7&'7 for Rabbit1 sho in.1 +ade a G)turn. $fter a brief stopover at Moncada.h a. .ht hu+enous> co+pound fracture of the left radious and ull+a +iddle third and lo er third> fracture of the upper third of the ri.. evidence. .ht upper ar+. or after stoppin.. 3th. 2rlinda Meriales and $delaida 2sto+o1 died hile the other <eepne. The causes of the death of the three <eepne. &=&. ri. and 2rlinda Meriales.oan. hich as then runnin. . $lthou.sical in<uries as follo s 0p. . Tarlac for refresh+ent. 9er internal lesions ere. The police investi.ers of the <eepne. . had to ride in a <eepne. The point of collision as a ce+ent pave)portion of the 9i. The fractures ere produced as a result of the hittin. The cause of death of 2rlinda or Florida 2sto+o 0also called as per autops.reater portion of the estern lane. 2rlinda Mariles 0sic1 sustained e:ternal lesions such as contusion on the left parietal re. stoppin.ion of the s8ull> he+ato+a on the ri. in an unbalanced position. and eventuall.h a. on the eastern lane 0its ri..une.ers ere as follo s 0p. !th. that da. ridin. The abrasions could be produced hen a person falls fro+ a +ovin.ht le. invadin. a. Rosales.== for the trip.rasses be. barrio Sina.s> and si+ple fractures of the (nd. . to it..oin.h the. On the left rear passen.1. To+as delos Re. Rosales. fracture of the left parietal and te+poral re.ht rear passen. so it as runnin. Tarlac. Purportedl. Record on $ppeal1.. of the victi+ b.ond hich are canals on both sides.ion. fro+ the north. Their contract ith Manalo as for the+ to pa. . about ? feet 0or one . secondar. Tarlac.e..er seat ere #aridad Pascua. 6"? of petitioner Philippine Rabbit -us /ines. 6th.asinan. San Manuel. usuall. hich is the ri. upon arrival at the scene of the +ishap. . as a result of hich. ith narro shoulders ith . to fracture and +ultiple he+orrha.ainst a ce+ent road pave+ent. passen.une and *uiller+a #arreon and driven b.es.ht rear heel of the <eepne. #arreon and Manalo. .es.

. thus.===. there ere no vehicles follo in.ears> P&=. capacit. The eather condition of that da. before or after the point of i+pact..&3=.> P(. and e:tendin. &&?3. the investi.== for loss of a. of da+a. In #ivil #ase No.== for burial e:penses> P3. the dispositive portion of hich reads 0pp.5s fees and e:penses of liti.e of both vehicles1 as ell as paint.== in da+a. appealed.5s fees and e:penses of liti.===. spouses Mariano 2sto+o and Dionisia Sar+iento also sued as heirs of $delaida 2sto+o.sical pain and sufferin.es for t o +onths> P(.===. da+a. the center of hich as about t o +eters fro+ the estern ed. P"==. &&?'. spouses Man. no sufficienc. 9o ever.ation sho ed the relative positions of the point of i+pact and center line 02:h.== for disfi. vehicles e:cept the bus. 7P7)Pascua1 the bac8 of the Rabbit bus 02:h. of evidence as re.== as e:e+plar.une and #arreon filed a cross)clai+ in the a+ount of P3. 7P)? Pascua71. In #ivil #ase No. investi.es> and P?. *uiller+a #arreon and TranBuilino Manalo thru their .===. &1 That defendants Isidro Man.ation.== for e:e+plar. for a Buasi)delict.===.== for burial e:penses> P3.== for the death of $delaide.es.===. of the <eepne.== for the repair of the <eepne.== for attorne.asinan.ure+ent of her face> P?.ed front part of the Rabbit bus 02:h.== for loss of a. On the other hand. fro+ the eastern shoulder of the road south of.5s fees or total of P%=.=3=. the #ourt dis+issed it. &&?'. Plaintiffs anchored their suits a.es> P&=. he served his sentence. Tarlac.re. spouses #asiano Pascua and Duana ValdeC sued as heirs of #atalina Pascua hile #aridad Pascua sued in her behalf. and P?. $s a. &&?3 sou. Pictures ta8en b. $t the preli+inar. plaintiffs de+anded P"==. Filriters *uarant. the <eepne.ation. this #ourt is of the opinion and so holds.e of ce+ent pave+ent of the road a.es ere all i+pleaded as defendants.===.== for loss of her inco+e or earnin. neither there onco+in.ent.== for +oral da+a. plaintiff #aridad Pascua clai+ed P""=. of #atalina Pascua 02:h. plaintiffs clai+ed P"==... In the sa+e case.une and #arreon and Manalo on their contractual liabilit. In #ivil #ase No.== for burial e:penses> P&(. &&?3 onl.es ere then filed before the #ourt of First Instance of Pan. had a dia+eter of t o +eters. findin.li.es and P?. In all three cases.== for +oral da+a. No s8id +ar8s of the Rabbit bus as found in the vicinit. of the collision. Inc. P"3.es> and P?. 7I7)! Pascua. In #ivil #ase No. P3?. $ssurance #orporation.ate a+ount of P6=. fro+ the undercarria. The point of i+pact encircled and +ar8ed ith the letter 7J7 in 2:h.ainst the t o drivers for Multiple 9o+icide.===. +arron 0 sic1 fro+ the Rabbit bus and .ation. 7P)( Pascua71. ere $fter conductin. 7P7)&)Pascua71.5s fees.== for +edical e:penses> P(!=. Manalo. purportedl. Manalo as convicted and sentenced to suffer i+prison+ent. #o+plaints for recover.===.===. &'6%.ation.une and #arreon..==. the trial court rendered its decision findin.reenish fro+ the <eepne.===.une.== for attorne. Record on $ppeal1.===. In #ivil #ase No.> P&=.== for attorne. ite+iCed as follo s.ainst Rabbit and delos Re.es. dirt and soil 0obviousl.&3%.the center line as sho n b. spouses Man. his case as elevated to the #ourt of First Instance.===. of the accident. Not havin. Rabbit filed a cross)clai+ in the a+ount of P&". Manalo ne..===. as fair. On the other hand. itness -isBuera in the course of the investi. Rabbit and delos Re.== for +oral da+a. da+a.== for loss of inco+e> P&=.===. there as a s8id +ar8 about !" +eters lon.es and P(.ainst spouses Man."==. plaintiffs based their suits on their culpabilit.es. spouses Manuel Millares and Fidencia $rcica sued as heirs of 2rlinda Meriales. a probable cause as found ith respect to the case of Manalo.== for the death of 2rlinda.== for attorne. For the death of #atalina Pascua. a cri+inal co+plaint a. and the da+a. &&?)&&!. On Dece+ber (6. $t the ti+e and in the vicinit.===.== for ph.5s fees.===. the period of repairs. plaintiffs in #ivil #ase No. the police filed ith the Municipal #ourt of San Manuel. up to the point of i+pact. the bedris 0sic1.ards the case of delos Re. &&!=.ht to collect the a. PR2MIS2S #ONSID2R2D.== for its non)use durin.== for attorne. &&!=. the lifeless bod.es for (! . as also i+pleaded as additional defendant in #ivil #ase No.

===.&&?3 for the in<uries of #aridad Pascua. *uiller+a #arreon and TranBuilino Manalo. the defendant.li. to pa. to pa.es> c1 In #ivil #ase No.===. her heirs 0the plaintiff the a+ount of P&(. $ll of the above a+ount.une and #arreon for da+a. <ointl.es due their passen. the for+er <ointl.3= for loss of its earnin. ith said defendants 0Man.es> d1 In #ivil #ase No. to pa. for loss of her life> P!&.ence.ed a.es to pa. 6"? and P(. #osts are ad<ud. P3=.une.== for loss of earnin.ers.== for +oral da+a. as set forth in para. and another <ud. this #ourt renders <ud. Insurance #o. the a+ounts of P(&3. the lo er court5s decision is hereb. to pa. findin..s.es or inco+e and P(.&6?.== for +oral da+a.== .== for +oral da+a. and severall.== for +oral da+a. &&?3 K a1 Inde+nit. ? of the decision hich reads.ainst the said defendants Filriters *uarant. to pa.===.es ne. &&!=.(6 as actual da+a.li.es to its -us No. Inc.ations of defendants Man.(= for actual e:penses and P"==. Duan ValdeC and #aridad Pascua. the a+ounts of P(&3...e ith their passen.===. &&?3. #arreon and Manalo and Filriters *uarant. orderin. the plaintiffs the a+ount herein above ad<udicated in their favor in #ivil #ase No.+ent orderin. for the loss of life K P&(.== K for inde+nit.!= for actual e:penses and P(. cross) clai+ant Phil.ne.(6 as actual da+a.===.es. Rollo1.al interest fro+ the filin. orderin. and its driver To+as delos Re. the dispositive portion of hich reads 0pp.+ent is hereb. said defendants. <ointl. <ointl. For the death of #atalina Pascua. 6"? and P(. and severall. (1 The defendant Filriters *uarant.===. to pa.s> P?(!. Inc. rendered in favor of plaintiffs)appellants #asiana Pascua.== for inde+nit. her heirs 0the plaintiffs1 the a+ount of P&(.ers the plaintiffs5 and@or their heirs. shall bear le. Inc. havin. Rabbit -us /ines..raph one 0&1 hereinabove> ?1 On the cross clai+ of Phil.== for loss of a. to pa.es to its -us No. for the death of #atalina Pascua.. for loss of her life> P3((.es 0burial e:penses1 K %==.== for actual e:penses> P"?. Insurance #o. delos Re.ainst defendants Man.une. K &!. the parents and@or heirs are a arded #ivil #ase No.== b1 /oss of Salaries or earnin.63=.== for inde+nit. P?(%.une and #arreon1 to pa. for the loss of her life> P"%=.&3=.. the Philippine Rabbit -us /ines. "")"6..es.une. <ointl.&6?. Inc. the plaintiffs K a1 In #ivil #ase No. and severall. ?1 On the cross clai+ of Philippine Rabbit -us /ines.!%=. R2V2RS2D as to ite+ No.== c1 $ctual da+a.es> b1 In the sa+e #ivil #ase No. orderin. her the a+ounts of P(!=. the defendants Isidro Man.. her heirs the a+ounts of P&(. PR2MIS2S #ONSID2R2D.3= for loss of its earnin. Isidro Man.&&?' for the death of 2rlinda Meriales. of the co+plaints. SO ORD2R2D On appeal.== for actual e:penses. for the death of 2rlinda 0also called Florida or $delaida 2sto+o1.es or inco+e and P(.es in a+ounts a arded as follo s. $ll the a+ounts a arded said plaintiff. the Inter+ediate $ppellate #ourt reversed the above)Buoted decision b.===.ent.+ent a..== for loss of a.== for loss of a. da+a. 492R2FOR2. breached contract of carria. &&?3 onl. and this #ourt renders <ud. *uiller+a #arreon and TranBuilino Manalo. and severall. Rabbit -us /ines.===. and severall. contracted to ensure and ans er for the obli. capacit.

ure+ent of the face and ph.== d1 Moral da+a.es K (. #aridad Pascua.===. &&?3 a1 $ctual da+a.== c1 $ctual da+a. for loss of life K P&(. or 2arnin. the parents and@or heirs. K %.es 0disfi.es K ?.===."==.es 0hospitaliCation e:penses1 K P""=.5s fees K ?. da+a.es K &=. &&!= a1 Inde+nit. da+a.== c1 2:e+plar. K (=.===.== d1 Moral da+a.5s fees K ?.""=. 9ence.===.===. #apacit. #ivil #ase No.sical sufferin.== ————— Total K P?%.===.===.===.== 0sic1 For the ph.== f1 $ttorne. K (=.== ————— Total K P3". Inc.== c1 $ctual da+a.== f1 For attorne.== ————— Total K P&=.a Meriales.== b1 Moral da+a.== f1 $ttorne.== b1 /oss of Salar.===."==. or 2arnin.5s fees K ?.es K ?.== e1 2:e+plar. The issue is ho is liable for the death and ph.===. SO ORD2R2D. the present petition. #ivil #ase No.===.===.(==.ers of the <eepne.===.es K &".== b1 /oss of Salar. &&?' a1 Inde+nit.es 0burial e:penses1 K "==.===.ainst the Philippine Rabbit -us /ines.== ————— Total K P!&. for loss of life K P&(. #ivil #ase No.es 0burial e:penses1 K "==.sical in<uries suffered b.===. da+a.== e1 2:e+plar.A .== e1 2:e+plar. capacit.sical in<uries suffered b.es K ?.== For the death of 2rlinda $rce.d1 For +oral da+a.es K &".== 4ith costs a.== For the death of Florida Sar+iento 2sto+o. the passen. da+a. The +otion for reconsideration as denied.

I. the respondent court arrant a reversal of its Buestioned decision and resolution. of the onco+in. the Man. (!)Rabbit1 upon the cri+inal Infor+ation b. of the decision and his failure to appeal therefro+> and 0"1 The application of the doctrine of res+ipsa lo.sical In<uries ith Da+a. Record on $ppeal1. found the real evidence thereat indicate in his s8etch 02:h.1 center line and encroachin. after its heel as re+oved>7 0!1 9is conviction for the cri+e of Multiple 9o+icide and Multiple Serious Ph. crossin. Thus the <eepne. considered the follo in.. 4e reiterate that 7LtMhe principle about 7the last clear7 chance. &'33. and his co++it+ent to prison and service of his sentence 02:h. It does not arise here a passen. a vehicle to be at all ti+es prepared of a pendin. into the estern lane here the collision too8 place as evidenced b.R. (")Rabbit1 upon the finalit. and the cause of the accident.uitar 0sic1 attestin. or to avoid an accident. accident should the driver in front suddenl. other evidence. For it ould be ineBuitable to e:e+pt the ne. Nos. I)Pascua1 as sho n b.round that the other driver as li8e ise . . upon respondin. unless contradicted b. Rabbit -us. it face South instead of north> that the <eepne. /)(&?"? and /)(&?"!. the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac 02:h.e its course either throu. . assu+ed a ne frontal position vis a vis. co+e to a full stop. vehicles. Ma. 0&1 the doctrine of last clear chance.inar.in.e to Propert. The +isappreciation of the facts and evidence and the +isapplication of the la s b.7 This as Our rulin.e of +ind of the front driver. as 7runnin. of his passen. +ade a G)turn 0half)turn1 in such a +anner that it inverted its direction +a8in. .ent driver of the <eepne. 0(1 the presu+ption that drivers ho bu+p the rear of another vehicle . other evidence.une <eepne. on the 2astern shoulder 0outside the concrete paved road1 until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp an. Phil. concluded that delos Re.li. fast7 that his passen. found on the road and indicated in the s8etch 02:h. fro+ the carrier to enforce its contractual obli. the.s 0sic1 before reachin. et al.li. the <eepne. *. the iron of the <eep. full. the bus. to run to the eastern shoulder of the road then bac8 to the concrete pave+ent> that driver Manalo applied the bra8es after hich the <eepne. and the cause of the accident unless contradicted b.le. the respondent court said 0p. the <eepne.uilt.uilt on one ho bu+ps the rear end of another vehicle is for the driver follo in. had alread.uilt. +echanical trouble.in. Rabbit -us here it as bu+ped b. the estern side of the road. The respondent court had a contrar.ent.ent. thru Rec8less I+prudence b. said doctrine. to the reported collission.ator Tacpal of the San Manuel 0Tarlac1 Police ho. !'. a collision ith the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle ho has full control of the situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of it. 'u-o et al. 1 Thus. e:ecuted a co+plete turnabout and at the ti+e of i+pact as alread. and 0?1 the substantial factor test. pri+aril. Pascua 1.es as ne. the latter> 0(1 The li8e ise unrebutted testi+on. that Manalo as ne. opinion.uilt. 0&1 That the unrebutted testi+on. ould call for application in a suit bet een the o ners and drivers of the t o collidin. the respondent court erred in appl. as a result of the collision. . the point of i+pact> 0?1 The observation of itness Police #orporal #acalda also of the San Manuel Police that the path of the <eepne. The spirit behind the presu+ption of .h chan. stopped on the estern lane of the road on the ri. (?) Rabbit1. of defendant Man. to the circu+stance that the collision occured 0sic1 on the ri.ht rear heel as detached causin. and its o ners on the . (=. the 2astern lane and the 0i+a. $ppl..iven the responsibilit.ations. the #ourt of First Instance of Tarlac 02:h. &=3.une and #arreon runnin. in declarin.li.li. On the presu+ption that drivers ho bu+p the rear of another vehicle . a. the trac8s of the <eepne. s8id +ar8s hich he described as 7scratches on the road caused b. facin. . of the Phil.ht of a.ence. the point of collision. &6 S#R$ ((!.The trial court. v.ht of a. or chan.er plaintiff #aridad Pascua that a lon. Rollo1. in "nuran. The rear vehicle is . 0p. and the bus assu+ed a ne role of defensive drivin. that the ri. of ne.ers cautioned driver Manalo to slo do n but did not heed the arnin. of avoidin. of Police Investi.er de+ands responsibilit.

Pascua1 clearl. 0plaintiffs1 tried to i+press this #ourt that defendant de los Re. $ccordin. . fro+ the ti+e its ri.ive and ta8e &= +inutes. and unrebutted that the 4estern shoulder of the road as narro and had tall . 4e find defendant bus runnin. The speed of the bus as calculated b. the <eepne.ht and points (== +eters north and south of the point of collision. Rabbit5s evidence is convincin. $s the trial court re+ar8ed 0pp. . P and P)(.e speed of the bus.e of "3 8+. at an avera.The above discussion ould have been correct ere it not for the undisputed fact that the G)turn +ade b.ht about the in<ur. the <eepne.es could not have anticipated the sudden G)turn e:ecuted b. ith e:cellent visibilit. The bus driver5s conduct is thus a substantial factor in brin.. Torts. (. Deduct fro+ this the actual stopover ti+e of t o 9ours 0co+puted fro+ the testi+on. about har+ to another.hl. fro+ the point of i+pact on the hi. around &(. Pascua1 are +ute confir+ation of such fact. 2ven plaintiffs o n evidence.in. e:i. Veril.es to avoid the collision is to as8 too +uch fro+ hi+. 9ence. the fact that the actor neither foresa nor should have foreseen the e:tent of the har+ or the +anner in hich it occurred does not prevent hi+ fro+ bein.encies of space and ti+e. there ere no options available to hi+. a strai.s. Ilocos Norte. Rollo1. +a8in. ?" +eters. considerin. and the accident too8 place at appro:i+atel. about har+ to the passen.rasses hich ould indicate that it as not passable.. to the record of the case. 4e ill have an actual travellin. Gsin.et ithin the speed li+it allo ed in hi. 0&1 to s erve to its ri.ht front side. assu+in.es ad+itted that he as runnin. ti+e of 3 hours and ?= +inutes. and thus steer clear of the Man.M. Manalo. The respondent court did not realiCe that the presu+ption as rebutted b..es ould have covered that distance in onl. .es +ust have noticed the perilous condition of the <eepne. at a fast speed hen the accident occurred and did not even +a8e the sli. delos Re.ers of the <eepne. on a canal on a +uch lo er elevation that of the shoulder or paved road. Delos Re. +a8in. it as the opinion of the respondent court that 0p. because he as drivin. such calculation to be correct. bus. 4e are not convinced. $s aforestated. . The <eepne. . It too sho s that all of the heels of the Rabbit bus ere clear of the road a.?= P. delos Re. Indeed.htest effort to avoid the accident. +ost probabl. considerin.1 drivin. the e:istin. fast and did not even atte+pt to avoid the +ishap but also because it as the bus hich as the ph.es for not havin. Still. cit. . a s8id +ar8 of appro:i+atel..)Tarlac route 0?3" 8+s. 4e cannot even fault delos Re.sical force hich brou. could have ta8en either of t o options.. &" +eters fro+ the eastern shoulder to the point of i+pact 02:hibit 7I7 Pascua1. crossed the eastern lane at a sharp an.es covered the distance of !" +eters in ?. The. These observation appearin.. 9ere. e:cept the outer left rear heel. of the driver that he +ade three !=)+inute stop)overs1. (d1. this speed. factor ould be %= to '= 8+s. he had little ti+e to react to the situation. avoided the collision. at a fast speed hen the accident occurred because the speed of %= to '= 8ilo+eters per hour. . This #ourt does not so believe. .7 Pascua1. rou. . it as tilted to ri. it can be noticed in the picture 02:h. P)(. its front heels restin. .=(" seconds. visible and unobstructed. "(.le.. liable 0Restate+ent.. . If 4e adopt the speed of %= 8ilo+eters per hour. $side fro+ the ti+e ele+ent involved. To reBuire delos Re.in. It cannot be said that the bus as travellin.ht 0 estern shoulder1 or 0(1 to s erve to its left 0eastern lane1. the avera. &=6)&=%. Phil. "!)"". as this is the place here buses ould +a8e up for lost ti+e in traversin. and death to the passen. left a s8id +ar8 of about !" +eters. this piece of evidence. s8id +ar8 of appro:i+atel. the bus departed fro+ /aoa. hich as then travelin.une <eepne.ht rear heel as detached up to the point of collision. that the road as strai. as abrupt 02:hibit 7I. Delos Re.M. the pictures 02:hs. Rollo1. . after travellin. Pascua1 after the Rabbit bus ca+e to a full stop. +easured fro+ the ti+e its ri.h a.ht. in said picture 02:h P)(. respondent court as follo s 0pp. It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor5s conduct is a substantial factor in brin. +ore or less "= 8ilo+eters per hour at the ti+e of the accident. per hour ould ta8e 3 hours and ?= +inutes.h a. per hour. is . Therefore. delos Re. Record on $ppeal1. on the eastern shoulder. 4ith re. for % hours and ?= +inutes.ers of the <eepne. Gnder the circu+stances. not onl.ard to the substantial factor test. 4e calculate that the /aoa.== o5cloc8 $.es. at !.(! seconds. streets.ht rear heel as detached or so+e '= +eters a a. $s to the first option.

9o ever.htenin. pro hac vice.sho s coupled ith the findin.es to s erve to the eastern lane. as crossin. The ne. Plaintiffs alternativel. it loses force it one ere to consider the ti+e ele+ent involved. that he periodicall. the trial 0p.. The #ourt of $ppeals. Police #orporal #acalda. &=)$)Rabbit1 +ust have been due to li+itations of space and ti+e.li. Dr.le...es ad<ud.ood cop.R. hich included the ti.li..es veered his Rabbit bus to the ri. 4 Secondl.. Said defendant did not even atte+pt to e:plain. the Man. of the factual +atters and dul. and the application of the doctrine ofres ipsa lo. (?. 2:h.. either head on or broadside. !" Phil. the share hich corresponds to the driver. &'33. Firstl. *. etc. Gnder such a situation then..er dies or is in<ured. and this disputable presu+ption +a.es for the .. s+ac8 in the Man.ence of his driver 0see Viluan v.. and severall. discernible. dili.une and #arreon are <ointl. entitled to recover onl. 5 contradictor.. This clai+ ould appear to be .ht rear heel of the vehicle as detached hile in transit.ed +echanic.es a. the trial court.ence of spouses Man. $pril ('. of said defendants.une <eepne. the a+ount of da+a. personal instead of +erel.e to Propert.ent. 6"1. it to be one caused b. $fter a +inute scrutin. all failed to e:ercise the precautions that are needed precisel. 6 4e affir+ the a+ount of da+a.ence of Manalo and spouses Man. liable ith the carrier. clai+ that defendant delos Re. that ould +a8e the carrier5s liabilit. the carrier is e:clusivel.li. the Man.li. liable ith the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carria.er. The trial court as therefore ri.ht in findin. of the passen.une <eepne. &=! Phil. '! Phil. Paras.entl. $s to the cause thereof no evidence as offered.une and #arreon as li8e ise proven durin. In an. v. 0see picture 2:h. Record on $ppeal1. 4e find that the pro:i+ate cause of the accident as the ne. &&=. vicarious and conseBuentl. the da.. Such a clai+ is pre+ised on the h. . I)Pascua1 clearl. that Manalo and spouses Man.ence of its driver. To escape liabilit. the contract of carria.er as due to a fortuitous event 6 0/asa+ v. &3 S#R$ 6!(1. he ould run the .es of the Rabbit bus could also have s erved to its left 0eastern lane1 to avoid bu+pin. that spouses Man. the ri. for driver delos Re. the trial b. for his driver5s ne.une and #arreon. et al.h the ne. its rulin. the Man. evidence that he had observed e:tra)ordinar. the Rabbit bus ca+e to a full stop onl.er to his destination. This not ithstandin.une and #arreon ere ne. . S+ith. thru Rec8less I+prudence. for da+a.ht atte+pt to avoid hittin. the +o+ent a passen.ainst the carrier for his failure to safel. Police Investi. carr. In culpa contractual. for +o+ents before that. the carrier is presu+ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne. clearin. event. S+ith. proven evidence. In other ords.es 0Son v. The.e is bet een the carrier and the passen. even if such breach be due to the ne. five +eters fro+ the point of i+pact 0see s8etch. Nonetheless. for loss of life. et al. the carrier can neither shift his liabilit.ence of Manalo as proven durin.ed b.li.ence as prescribed in $rticles &6??. his 0Manalo5s1 conviction for the cri+e of Multiple 9o+icide and Multiple Serious In<uries ith Da+a. a caso fortuito.ator Tacpal. the unrebutted testi+onies of #aridad Pascua.li. !" Phil.une and #arreon offered to sho thru their itness Natalio Navarro. as its 0Rabbit5s1 left front hit said <eepne.e.une <eepne. is not a caso fortuito hich ould avoid the carriers liabilit. the last on Dec.une <eepne. an alle. Dr. defects in the auto+obile or throu.ence is his. &6"" and &6"3 of the Ne #ivil #ode 2 or that the death or in<ur.. The ne. defendants Man. sho that driver de los Re. hich as then on the estern lane. and in the event of contractual liabilit. 3"61. his passen. Gnder $rticle &63! in relation to $rticle ((=3 of the Ne #ivil #ode. and severall. to the e:plicit provision of $rticle (&%& of the Ne #ivil #ode.li.reater ris8 of runnin. liable ith Manalo is erroneous The driver cannot be held <ointl. +uch less establish. the Man.uitur supra. chec8s and +aintains the <eepne. e:cept ith respect to the inde+nit. of it ere based alone on the s8etch +ade after the collision. /)(&!66)%&.. /asa+. Nos.er. an accident caused either b. et al. eastern lane at a sharp an. %'( citin. 7LiMn an action for da+a. that ver. 3"6> Necesito. The rationale behind this is readil. on the contract to his driver nor share it ith hi+. v. onl. That it as not successful in full. and severall. responsible therefore to the passen.li. if 4e +a8e the driver <ointl. be overco+e b.pothesis 0 sic1 that the eastern lane as then e+pt.. #ebu $utobus #o+pan.une5s <eepne. before the collision. of the bolts.

concur. the pic8)up left Paran. LARA. disputes the findin. $pril &". Nos.s5 fees onl.li.es brou.une.5s fees.ence and set up certain affir+ative defenses and a counterclai+.ent act of defendant. *.===. the lo. alle.%==. da+a. are liable to the victi+s or their heirs and that the a+ount of inde+nit. for loss of life is increased to thirt.es and in a ardin. Cru#.ALENCIA.ht b.!== as actual or co+pensator.a. /ara ent to said concession upon instructions of his chief to classif.es as ell as attorne. Cervantes. <urisprudence has increased the a+ount of P?. 4ontana. and in that sa+e +ornin. &'%%.ardin. their clai+ of P!&.es> and 0c1 P&. Isidro Man. *.=== as a.== 0see 9eirs of $+paro delos Santos. 2cce-a. Sr. Inc. Defendant. 0a1 P&=. of &3 to &6 inches tall on the sides and ith a &' inches tall . Donato C. The deceased as an inspector of the -ureau of Forestr. on the other hand. stationed in Davao ith an annual salar. J. the plaintiffs the follo in.==1. The defendant is en. rendered <ud. v. . The prevailin. caused b.=== as attorne.ence of defendant and the portion of the <ud. /)?"3'6)''.reed.===. In their appeal.R.death of a passen.er is at least three thousand pesos 0P?. . ('. '.e of ne. Defendant denied the char. the su+ of P&. to hich defendant a.edl.===. enclosed ith a steel allin. defendant)appellant. 1ancayco and 1ri-o+".li.==1.li. No. Dune (&. et al. Sr. &''= citin. the ne. SO ORD2R2D. da+a. that the court should have declared that the death of /ara as due to unavoidable accident.reed upon bet een plaintiffs and their counsel. said defendant contendin. of the court a Buo that the oath of De+etrio /ara.es clai+ed in the co+plaint e:ceed the su+ of P"=. the petition is hereb. $##ORDIN*/N. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 2N -$N# G.ers can be acco++odated and the bac8 has a steel floorin.=== instead of P?.ainst defendant in the #ourt of First Instance of Davao for the death of one De+etrio /ara.== to P?=. In the +ornin.. et al. alon. plaintiffs a.ers. Castillo.. "&&3". as attorne. si: passen. -oth parties appealed to this #ourt because the da+a. to plaintiffs +oral and e:e+plar. thousand pesos 0P?=. defendant to pa. &'"!. RIGI(O R. includin. &'%? are S2T $SID2. hich he contracted +alaria fever.es> 0b1 P?. as due to the ne.uino %%. The or8 /ara of lasted for si: da. *R$NT2D.+ent orderin.=== as e:e+plar. 195: LOUR(ES J. The decision of the Inter+ediate $ppellate #ourt dated Dul. AUTISTA ANGELO.s fro+ his lu+ber concession in #otabato.===. The pic8)up has a front seat here the driver and t o passen. (ison and Castillo and Eligio 1. Endriga and Emigdio Da5anay for plaintiffs+appellants. &3= S#R$ 6=1. 3o#ano. vs. De /i+a v. in addition to the costs of action.s5 fees.s of defendant hich ere about to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Paran.arvasa /Chairman0. 3agman for defendant+appellant. No. *uiller+a #arreon and Filriters *uarant.. &'%? and its resolution dated Nove+ber (%. The court after hearin.abas #o. a+ount. The decision of the #ourt of First Instance dated Dece+ber (6. L89907 Ju.=== as +oral da+a. $ssurance #orporation..7 This is an action for da+a.R. 9onorable #ourt of $ppeals. da+a. of P&. /a.R.$ 60. &'6% is R2INST$T2D MODIFI#$TION that onl.s durin.una Ta.===. /ara ho then in a hurr. ET AL. of Danuar.+ent hich orders dependant to pa. plaintiffs clai+ that the court a Buo erred in disre.. lo.ed in the business of e:portin. plaintiffs)appellants. Cunanan. /ara. bound for Davao ta8in. to return to Davao as8ed defendant if he could ta8e hi+ in his pic8)up as there as then no other +eans of transportation.

/ara accidentall. fell sufferin. al dia si. Bue los ne. dili. there as none available at the ti+e and so the sa+e passen. It as also their understandin.uest the dut. 9e sou.ht and ta8e a bus bound for Davao. can be considered as invited .allin.ence as reBuired of a co++on carrier b. reBuired to observe ordinar. barrio #atidtuan. $n investi. '3. It as their understandin.ht bench ere Ricardo $lo<ipan and $ntonio /a. arrived at that place. there as no available bus that could ta8e hi+ bac8 to Davao and so he reBuested the defendant if he could ta8e hi+ in his o n pic8)up. Is there enou. asalariado por el . hich he contracted +alaria fever and for that reason he evinced a desire to return i++ediatel. acco++odation passen. of the la .ht the help of the residents of that place and applied ater to /ara but to no avail. is that an o ner of an auto+obile o es a . defendant invited /ara to sit ith hi+ on the front seat but /ara declined. is onl.e+ent of the passen. to that place. +a. therefore. -ut hen /ara arrived he as alread. $s acco++odation passen. the death of /ara but no cri+inal action as ta8en a.ain reBuested the defendant to drive the+ to Davao. b.ahit. in the +iddle ith his ar+s on a suitcase and his head cove red b. as freBuentl. en su ulti+o dia /ara no dur+io toda la noche. to. /ara accidentall.ardin. found an. The Buestion that no arises is. care or dili. Doseph5s #linic of Iidapa an. bound to e:ercise e:traordinar. ne #ivil #ode1.. includin. Paran. the passen. +ost of the+ ere e+plo.ers ta. that the o ner or operator of an auto+obile o es the dut. to e:pose hi+ to dan. cuerpo. barrio Sa+oa. fell fro+ the pic8)up and as a result he suffered serious in<uries.uests ithin the +eanin. the ei. increasin.s of defendant hich ere then read.hted and the other passen. in an auto+obile is no less a . continued their trip. Dur.ers re+ained the sa+e. the passen. /ara era e+pleado de la Oficina de Montes.ers reBuested defendant to allo the+ to ride ith hi+ up to Davao because there as then no available bus that the. This rule. It therefore appears that the deceased.ers.. notified the local authorities. I+. seated on a ba.(==. #otabato.uest because he as8ed for the privile. sufria dolores de cabeCa con . Defendant a.ation of care is i+posed upon the driver as in the case of one e:pressl.ees of the *overn+ent. the circu+stances surroundin.uests. but hen the. arran. our la 0$rticles &6"" and &6"3. for the service and so the. so. as seated on a bo: located on the left side hile in the +iddle /ara sat on a ba. It should be noted that the deceased ent to the lu+ber concession of defendant in Paran. 3(3)3(61. The. /ara.ain acco++odated the passen. Defendant a. I+. Fro+ there the. Since one ridin. arran.h evidence to sho that defendant failed to observe ordinar. too8 hi+ to St. /ara bein. the.ers ould ali..obierno.ers. or reasonable care to avoid in<urin. dead. and not unreasonabl. to their destination. no pa. No debe perderse de vista el hecho. the sa+e obli. a <ac8et.e+ent as as follo s. 4hen the. tenia infla+ada la cara . as ell his co+panions ho rode in the pic8)up of defendant. proceeded to Davao #it. the deceased fro+ Paran. be transported safel. '3.ers ere to ali.e the+ an. and seated on the ri. Valencia and Nicanor Ouinain> on the bac8 of the pic8)up ere t o i+provised benches placed on each side. and is not in dut. the courts.ers ho paid nothin. that upon reachin.er and in<ur.ainst defendant. a. the haCard of travel. Defendant +erel. the sittin. to e:ercise ordinar. the sittin. to e:ercise reasonable care so that the. the na+e of /eonin. care. stated b..ence in transportin. to be e:ported and to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Paran. fee for the service. -efore leavin.oin. brou. hi+.ether ith /ara. defendant as o ner and driver of the pic8)up o es to the+ +erel. the lo. It too8 /ara si: da. acco++odated the+ and did not char.ocios de e:portacion de troCos del de+andado tiene un volu+en de P&. ere +erel. /ara fue atacado de +alaria.. Thus.ht of authorit. it too8 into account onl. -ernardo ali. could find a doctor and not havin. fatal in<uries. -efore leavin. to Davao. onl. 7The rule is established b. the follo in. could ta8e in .. $ person b. and i++ediatel. and on the left one -ernardo and Pastor *eroni+o.ain acco++odated the+ and upon reachin. +a8es the trip to Davao but unfortunatel.ado por el de+andado para classificar los troCos e:portados> debido a los traba<os de classificacion Bue duro 3 dias. facts.ation as +ade re. to an invited guest to e:ercise reasonable care in its operation.. invited to ride7 0" $+. Gpon reachin.uiente. #otabato upon instructions of his chief in order to classif. Defendant a. $t that ti+e. other passen. Paran.e of doin.reed and.. that upon reachin.ht /ara to the nearest place here the. to Davao on the date in BuestionA The trial court ans ered the Buestion in the affir+ative but in so doin. barrio Sa+oa.ers or invited . defendant as at the heel and seated ith hi+ in the front seat ere Mrs..ht and transfer to a bus that re. Valencia stopped the pic8)up to see hat happened to /ara. Defendant. at the bac8.ed alon.ularl..s to do his or8 durin. the dut.

%%. still e find that the sa+e are not sufficient to sho that defendant has failed to ta8e the precaution necessar. it as onl. Reyes.reed to ta8e the deceased in his o n car. el auto+obil de este condu<o a aBuel al aerodro+o de Davao. su carretera esta en +alas condiciones. Indeed.er has been proximately caused b. del dia ( de enero de &'"!. baches.. position because such as +ore convenient for hi+ due to his feverish condition. cuerpo. $ la vista de estos hechos. para la salud de /ara> el per+itirlo. e are persuaded to conclude that the accident occurred not due to the ne. tenia el cuerpo . 3.li. indicate that defendant had done hat a reasonable prudent +an ould have done under the circu+stances. cuerpo> Bue en la +anana. fecha en Bue /ara salio de Davao para Paran. to the passen. Bue hacen del vehiculo no estable en su +archa.erupciones en la cara . ere travelin. that the road as then bu+p. ithout pronounce+ent as to costs.li. bound to ta8e the deceased in his o n pic8)up to Davao because fro+ Paran. debio de haver de<ado a /ara en Sa+ua. there to indicate that defendant has acted ith ne. desnivelada. con erupciones en la cara ..ative de /ara de ocupar el asiento delantero del pic8)up no constitu. el de+andado no ha to+ado las precausiones. the pic8)up. $nd even if this is correct. %. the la provides that 7$ passen. debio de haver provisto a /ara de un auto+obil para su re.ers safel. the ti+e the pic8)up left barrio Sa+oa. and travel in a reclinin.. ::: ::: ::: 2l via<e de #otabato a Davao no es +enos de % horas. be attributed to his desire to be at the bac8 so that he could sit on a ba. 2ven if e ad+it as true the facts found b. The findin. to acco++odate hi+ considerin. pues el de+endado conociendo el estado delicado de salud de /ara. atacado de +alaria. to their place of destination for there is nothin.ence of a .rese a Davao en su pic8)up> si Buerria prestar a aBuel un favor. and if defendant a. to conduct his passen.ence of defendant but to circu+stances be. Endencia and Felix. rou. .ence or ithout ta8in. It should also be noted that the passen..roso llevar " pasa<eros en la parte trasera del pic8)up> particular+ente. on a national road and the traffic then as not heav. en aeroplano para clasificar los troCos del de+andado. the decision appealed fro+ is reversed. con piedras salientes . position. The reason for this can onl. ".ond his control and so he should be e:e+pt fro+ liabilit. the trial court. his o n ne.a Bue el de+endado es un +illionario> si no podia prestar a aBuel este favor. his feverish condition and his reBuest that he be so acco++odated.li. at +ore than != 8ilo+eters per hour is not supported b. It should also be noted that defendant as not in dut. it to <er8 considerin. to avoid in<ur. el de+andado debia de saber Bue era su+a+ente peli.ravedad. concur..ood father of a fa+il.ado una defensa. It should be noted that /ara ent to the lu+ber concession of defendant in ans er to a call of dut. 'eng#on. the trial court considerin.. '. the evidence. para co.h and full of stones. ne #ivil #ode1. the precaution that an ordinar. hich he as bound to perfor+ because of the reBuire+ent of his office and he contracted the +alaria fever in the course of the perfor+ance of that dut. C. reason to believe that the unfortunate happenin. to hi+self7 0$rticle &63&. 4e +a. 4herefore.rese a Davao. con dolores de cabeCa . %. $aras. that the pic8)up as open and he as then in a crouchin.ularl. para evitar un posible accidente fatal. $ll the circu+stances therefore clearl. of the trial court that the pic8)up as runnin.e a <uicio del DuC.er +ust observe the dili. Reyes. and the ti+e the accident occured in relation to the distance covered b. hich +eans that if the in<ur. +a8es trips for the public. the carrier cannot be held liable. the fact that at the ti+e the deceased as half asleep and +ust have fallen fro+ the pic8)up hen it ran into so+e stones causin. that the. /a ne. cara infla+ados. due to an unforeseen accident accused b. There is ever. still e sa. prudent +an ould have ta8en under si+ilar circu+stances.er aBuel un ca+ion de pasa<ero de #otabato a Davao. /ara estaba enfer+o de cierta .. This is a +ere sur+ise +ade b. to #otabato there as a line of transportation that re.ers ho rode in the pic8)up of defendant too8 their respective seats therein at their o n choice and not upon indication of defendant ith the particularit. no debio de haber per+itido Bue aBuel re.. .ence. rather attribute the incident to lac8 of care on the part of the deceased considerin. $ll thin. that such speed is not unreasonable considerin. as onl.. that defendant invited the deceased to sit with him in the front seat but which invitation the deceased declined .s considered. Concepcion.

defendant Pioneer Stevedorin. &". as found b. #orporation and defendant $boitiC Shippin. No. North 9arbor. o ned b. plaintiff)appellees the a+ount of P?=. the side of the vessel to the pier. &'6" 02:h. the court a . 6erenio E.: In this appeal b. affir+ed ith the +odification that appellant $boitiC Shippin.== as support for deceased5s parents> P(=. hi+ bet een the side of the vessel and the crane. to 72)"71. On Ma. the car.side the vessel and one 0&1 hour after the passen. 5-51. &'6". .ers of said vessel had dise+bar8ed. purchased a tic8et 0No. $nacleto Viana ho had alread./ GORGONIA . herein plaintiff. 9e as thereafter brou. fort. to the cre of the said vessel to the place here his car.plan8 havin. &'%%.ers therein dise+bar8ed. its crane operator $le<o Fi. +edical.== for unearned inco+e> P6. #orporation. &&.ht to the hospital here he later e:pired three 0?1 da.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S2#OND DIVISION G. annuall. pinnin. Manila. on Ma. 0!=1 . The undisputed facts of the case. havin. of the decision 1 of 492R2FOR2. the order of October (6.E(ORING CORPORATION.e annual inco+e as a far+er or a far+ supervisor as !== cavans of pala. . ent bac8 to the vessel. dated Dul. burial and other +iscellaneous e:penses. The evidence disclosed that on Ma. unloadin. spent a total of P'... Instead of usin. the Pioneer Stevedorin. the decretal portion of hich reads.IANA .R. the cause of his death accordin.&= 02:h.oes loaded on said vessel pursuant to the Me+orandu+ of $. For his hospitaliCation. $nacleto Viana boarded the vessel M@V $ntonia. is hereb. 72)&7. defendant. re+e+berin. 5251 as in .===.ood health.==> P&"=. Occidental Mindoro.R.es> P&=.uo and adopted b. ANTONIO . the third part. 7#71 bein.== as +oral da+a. bound for Manila. #orporation too8 over the e:clusive control of the car. ('. LUCILA C. that so+e of his car. and it as hile he as pointin. the urinar. :445: No*$1<$2 6. &'6". 19:9 A OITI= SHIPPING CORPORATION.===.===. $fter said vessel had landed.oes ere loaded that the crane hit hi+. to trau+atic fracture of the pubic bone laceratin. 4artine# for petitioner.ree+ent dated Dul. SPS.. $nacleto5s ife. The crane o ned b. certiorari.oes fro+ said vessel. petitioner. . REGALA(O.es of P'.== as attorne. is hereb. petitioner $boitiC Shippin. 4. said vessel arrived at Pier !. dise+bar8ed fro+ said vessel obviousl.an. been provided connectin.ueroa as placed alon. a . vs.plan8 $nacleto Viana dise+bar8ed on the third dec8 hich as on the level ith the pier. it started operation b.ENTH (I. &&6?'(1 in the su+ of P(?.s thereafter. to the Death #ertificate 02:h. COURT O! APPEALS. #orporation see8s a revie respondent #ourt of $ppeals.IANA.===. the costs.postatic pneu+onia secondar. ordered to pa. defendant and operated b.5s fees> and to pa. 9is .oes ere still loaded in the vessel. and the passen.== for the death of $nacleto Viana> actual da+a.ears old hen he +et said fateful accident 02:h.ISION. 4hile the crane as bein. operated. &'6". J. 9is avera. HON. *illalu# 3aw 2ffice for private respondent. $nacleto Viana ho as onl. respondents. (3.%==. bladder7 0See also 2:h. at the port at San Dose.(==. the <ud.IANA. said . 5(51 bet een the third part.+ent appealed fro+ as +odified b. ELE. 7-71.== 02:hibits 727.an./ PIONEER STE. respondent court. &'%(. &(.%==. are as follo s. 7h.

herein plaintiffs $ntonio and *or. : the trial court absolved Pioneer fro+ liabilit.33! cavans of pala.li. had to hire a la .es a.h rec8less i+prudence filed a. of the third)part. defendant Pioneer Stevedorin.ees as ell as in the prevention of da+a. of car. 0&1 Orderin. 7 $boitiC as ordered to pa. the third part. of the cri+inal case for ho+icide throu. that $boitiC is bein. sued b. aside fro+ the fact that the +e+orandu+ of a.ood father of a fa+il. that at the ti+e of the accident. +odified insofar as third part. the latter cannot be held liable under the fello )servant rule.(==.ueroa.es incurred.li. $le<o Fi.ross ne. and costs> and 0(1 orderin. 2 Private respondents Vianas filed a co+plaint 6 for da+a.ears for deceased 0sic1 parents. co+plaint as pre+ature b.+ent is hereb. to plaintiffs the su+ of P&(. For the filin. establish a case of ne. ste+s fro+ a breach of contract of carria.== as attorne.es> P"??. <ud.e to . $boitiC alle. because its liabilit.== as actual da+a. filed a third)part. co+puted at P"=. co+plaint. for brevit. and Pioneer as ordered to rei+burse $boitiC for hatever a+ount the latter paid the Vianas. rendered in favor of the plantiffs.ears pursuant to $rt.ross ne. 0&1 orderin.e. The dispositive portion of said order reads.ed.==. of the instant case. that under the +e+orandu+ of a. thereto for $nacleto Viana5s death as havin.oes fro+ the vessel of $boitiC. plaintiff $boitiC Shippin. #orporation to pa.===. it but not in the case of personal in<uries.uo ruled is never presu+ed.1 for breach of contract of carria.uish and e:tre+e orr. contendin.ainst the crane operator. as support or P&(=. refers onl. that $boitiC cannot properl.== as +oral da+a..edl. 0(=1 cavans of pala.ence of a . #orporation to rei+burse defendant and third part.ence a.ainst Pioneer considerin.li. defendant $boitiC Shippin.===. and arisin. the ne.ree+ent the liabilit.%==.ainst petitioner corporation 0$boitiC. In a decision rendered on $pril &6.> that Pioneer had observed the dili. &'%= b. of the #ivil #ode> P(=.== per cavan> P&=.onia Viana co+puted at P"=. It is also averred that since the crane operator as not an e+plo. or +oral da+a. in opposition to Pioneer5s +otion. In its ans er. (. the.== value of the &=. 4 $boitiC denied responsibilit.===. The dispositive portion of said decision provides. the trial court. reason of the pendenc. #orporation is concerned rendered in favor of the plaintiffs). liabilit. as third)part. evidence presented in support thereof. contractor of $boitiC. raised the trial court5s failure to declare that $nacleto Viana acted ith . in its ans er to the third)part.es or losses hatsoever occasioned b. #orporation to pa. Pioneer.== +onthl.es. <ud. -ecause of $nacleto5s death.one includin. to an. the vessel as co+pletel.es.ee of $boitiC. and. of Pioneer as contractor is auto+atic for an. si+ilarl.ence as the direct and pro:i+ate cause of his death> and that the filin. da+a. In an order dated October (6. 492R2FOR2.ainst the crane operator hich the court a . the Vianas for da+a. #orporation 0Pioneer. service.reed fee of ten thousand 0P&=. 6 raised the defenses that $boitiC had no cause of action a. herein plaintiffs $ntonio and *or. the victi+ $nacleto Viana> that $nacleto Viana5s .parents. for failure of the Vianas and $boitiC to preponderantl. 492R2FOR2.ree+ent supposedl. In addition. -oth $boitiC and Pioneer filed separate +otions for reconsideration herein the.onia Viana..5s fees> F ". to Pioneer5s liabilit.== a +onth for five .===.e or in<ur. $boitiC.+ent is hereb. &'%(. under the control of respondent Pioneer Stevedorin.li.== for the death of $nacleto Viana P'. defendant Pioneer Stevedorin. hich handled the unloadin. plaintiff. invo8e the fello )servant rule si+pl. for short1 as the e:clusive stevedorin. #orporation the said a+ounts that it is ordered to pa. both in the selection and supervision of its e+plo. caused b. finall. in case of loss or da+a. been alle.===. co+plaint 5 a.== per cavan> P6.e.(==.oods handled b.e to hich Pioneer is not a part. value of the &== cavans of pala.ence of the crane operator ho as an e+plo.ainst Pioneer i+putin. prior to his death had been recipient of t ent. Par.== as support for deceased5s parents co+puted at P&(=. as support for five 0"1 . Thereafter.ence despite the over hel+in. defendant $boitiC Shippin.==1 pesos. ((=3. plaintiffs suffered +ental an. fro+ the operation of its arrastre and stevedorin. the Vianas for breach of contract of carria. the plaintiffs the su+ of .er for an a. to herein plaintiffs.ee of Pioneer under its e:clusive control and supervision.

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passen. 11 Once created. safel.===. be le.co+puted at P"=. of the court a Buo and confir+ed b. ((=3. his destination.uilt. such person re+ains in the carrier5s pre+ises to clai+ his ba.. 0$1 In holdin. Court of "ppeals. to unload his car. ali.5s fees> P". that it as the ne. and includes a reasonable ti+e to see after his ba.er of M@V $ntonia o ned b. #ourt of $ppeals. petitioner liable for da+a. 10 is not applicable to the case at bar. et al.er continues until the passen.es> P"??. $ll persons ho re+ain on the pre+ises a reasonable ti+e after leavin. conde+ned to pa. it is to be observed that both the trial court and respondent #ourt of $ppeals found the victi+ $nacleto Viana . hich.(==.== per cavan> P&=. it insists that the doctrine in 3a 4allorca vs. to the private respondents Vianas. co+puted at P"=. defendant third part.ance or had a reasonable opportunit.ence of $boitiC in pre+aturel.== as support for deceased5s parents co+puted at P&(=. as support for five 0"1 . to it. the relationship ill not ordinaril.ers.ears pursuant to $rt.ainst private respondent Pioneer Stevedorin. i++ediate and pro:i+ate cause of the victi+5s death. &'331 is applicable to the case in the face of the undisputable fact that the factual situation under the /a Mallorca case is radicall.er.a. ne.li.oes hich as the direct. sub+it that it co++itted a reversible error hen it dis+issed petitioner5s third part. the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if. Dul.er relationship is not ter+inated +erel. ne. liabilit. b. different fro+ the facts obtainin.li.ence of its crane operator has not been established therein.== value of the &== cavans of pala. and hat is a reasonable ti+e or a reasonable dela. $rt.== as +oral da+a. ceased to be a passen.e and prepare for his departure..== as attorne. ith this rationale that the doctrine in the aforesaid case of /a Mallorca as . of contributor.P&(. defendant Pioneer Stevedorin.iven +ore than a+ple opportunit. after reachin. to leave the carrier5s pre+ises. plaintiff $boitiC Shippin. 12 The carrier)passen.== per cavan> P6. &63( of the Ne #ivil #ode> 0#1 In the alternative assu+in. 4e respectfull. #orporation it appearin. Par.oes prior to the operation of the crane.es to the private respondents e respectfull. #orporation for 0sic1 an.es. 0&6 S#R$ 6?'.onia Viana.33! cavans of pala. 16 It as in accordance enunciated.li. $nacleto Viana as .er reasonable e and he conseBuentl.hted fro+ the carrier5s conve. the latter to rei+burse the petitioner for hatever da+a. of contributor. third)part. I. this honorable #ourt in /a Mallorca vs. for e:a+ple. ter+inate until the passen. herein plaintiffs $ntonio and *or.ence as the pro:i+ate cause of his death> specificall. 9ence.es a arded to the Vianas. this petition herein petitioner $boitiC postulates that respondent court erred.===.ears for deceased5s parents.s of of the trial court e:cept as to the a+ount of da+a. of the 9onorable respondent #ourt of $ppears that petitioner +a. co+plaint a. da+a. be co+pelled to pa.ance are to be dee+ed passen. over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloadin.li. of the #ivil #ode> P(=. sub+it contributor.===. 9 $t threshold.== for the death of $nacleto Viana> P'. but holdin. ithin this rule is to be deter+ined fro+ all the circu+stances.== a +onth for five .ence.===. (. the 9onorable respondent court of $ppeals that the deceased.er has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel o ner5s doc8 or pre+ises. for the death of $nacleto Viana the passen.===.li.(==.== value of the &=. the conve. elapsed fro+ the ti+e $nacleto Viana dise+bar8ed fro+ the vessel and that he as . Not satisfied ith the +odified <ud. Petitioner contends that since one 0&1 hour had alread. turnin.es in the face of the findin. that the doctrine laid do n b.e. and costs> and 0(1 $bsolvin.es it +a. that the ne. (6. #orollaril. of car. in this case> 0-1 In holdin. the holdin..uilt. et al. his presence on the vessel as no lon.all.== 0sic1 as actual da+a.ence.a. #orporation instead of co+pellin.+ent of the trial court. the honorable respondent #ourt of $ppeals failed to appl. ne. $boitiC appealed the sa+e to respondent #ourt of $ppeals hich affir+ed the findin.er has.

petitioner cannot cate.. the vessel had alread.a. that the rulin. The presence of said passen. It is thus of no +o+ent hether in the cited case of 3a 4allorcathere as no appreciable interre. ho +ust be near the bus. even if he had alread.ht to do. to their destination but also to afford the+ a reasonable ti+e to clai+ their ba. therefore. entitled to the protection under their contract of carria.er.in. in the difficult.a.oes. it +a. In consonance ith co++on shippin. doc8ed an hour earlier. $nd. the passen. the station platfor+ is considered still a passen. he is dee+ed reasonabl. or bayong. On the contrar.It has been reco.. standard procedure in the case of petitioner5s vessels that the unloadin. fro+ petitioner5s vessel. to be considered still as passen. ali.e in a ver. are. for the conductor to hand hi+ the ba. after ali. a person ho.ers. the victi+ as in the act of unloadin. #onseBuentl. the carrier at the point of destination..hted at his destination and is proceedin. short period of ti+e. his presence in petitioner5s pre+ises as not ithout cause. RacBuel. 4e believe there e:ists such a <ustifiable cause..et one of his ba. in 3a 4allorca is inapplicable to the case at bar. so that even he 0the father1 had to <u+p do n fro+ the +ovin. and therefore precludes a consideration of the ti+e ele+ent per se ithout ta8in.. as run over and 8illed.. b.ers safel. a ship passen. the report that his brother. its passen.er bus.ood faith and ithout intent of en. the victi+ had alread. the bus started to run. the presence of the victi+ on or near the petitioner5s vessel.er entitled as such to the protection of the railroad co+pan.er volu+e of both as co+pared to the capacit. In the present case. Veril.ular co++uter bus. the nature of its business. dise+bar8ed fro+ the vessel. so is halted b.oes.h the bare e:pedient of co+parin. his car.a.a. doin.ent had e:ercised the 5ut+ost dili. al8s alon. a co++on carrier in the dischar.oin. .e that. throu.er can easil. an interval of one 0&1 hour had elapsed before the victi+ +et the accident..ers near the bus as not unreasonable and the. circu+stances of the case.er. +ust have follo ed the father. to brin. its passen. The pri+ar. one 0&1 hour after the vessel arrived since it as ad+ittedl.e of its obli.niCed as a rule that the relation of carrier and passen.er has had a reasonable ti+e or a reasonable opportunit. the doctrine enunciated therein to the instant petition. .h the father as still on the runnin. dise+bar8ed an hour earlier. but before actuall. and he in .ence5 of a 5ver. So also. the period of ti+e entailed in . such vessels are capable of acco++odatin.er period of ti+e to dise+bar8 fro+ the ship than other co++on carriers such as a passen.er therein to leave the carrier5s pre+ises hereas in the case at bar.ers it can load. cautious person5 reBuired b.oricall. clai+. after . 4ith respect to the bul8 of car. the child that she as. 14 It is apparent fro+ the fore. 4hat is clear to us is that at the ti+e the victi+ as ta8in.nu+ for the passen.er ill need at least an hour as is the usual practice. 9o ever. $s earlier stated. 4hen the accident occurred.er has ali. fro+ a train.a. Petitioner failed to prove this. hich he had ever. his car.a. and its a.es hich as not unloaded hen the. It is of co++on 8no led. nature of petitioner5s business as a shipper. such as the 8ind of co++on carrier.ers of the carrier.. and necessaril.ed and thus continues to be a passen.er5s car. the father returned to the bus to .. dela. Thus.5s pre+ises.ers to dise+bar8. a bi.hted fro+ the bus. ri. In the circu+stances.ation to transport safel.er does not cease at the +o+ent the passen. here a passen. operations shall start onl. board of the bus aitin.e hich as possible onl..e. sho n that one 0&1 hour prior to the incident. to dise+bar8 fro+ the vessel and clai+ his ba. be presu+ed that the victi+ had <ust .ers of vessels are allotted a lon. b. bound not onl. the ver. has been shot.hts fro+ the carrier5s vehicle at a place selected b. $rticle &6"" of the #ivil #ode to be observed b..otten off the vessel hen he ent to retrieve his ba. returns to relieve his brother.e.. That reasonableness of ti+e should be +ade to depend on the attendin.er ali. Net. and so forth. if e are to appl. it cannot be clai+ed that the carrier5s a. that hat pro+pted the #ourt to rule as it did in said case is the fact of the passen. a carrier is dut. of a re. the usual a.et off the bus and retrieve his lu. a fello passen.a. althou. to leave the carrier5s pre+ises.ettin. to leave the co+pan.. into account such other factors. vehicle. ithin this rule is to be deter+ined fro+ all the circu+stances. factor to be considered is the e:istence of a reasonable cause as ill <ustif. hat is a reasonable ti+e or a reasonable dela. procedure as to the +ini+u+ ti+e of one 0&1 hour allo ed for the passen.e hereas a bus passen.htin. It as at this instance that the child. the passen. the custo+s of the place. It is not definitel. but continues until the passen.oes.ents.er at the ti+e of the incident. The victi+ had to clai+ his ba.e.oes and the nu+ber of passen. e cannot in reason doubt that the victi+ $nacleto Viana as still a passen.er5s reasonable presence ithin the carrier5s pre+ises.

and li8e ise inceptivel.ns in the vicinit.ers ere sufficientl.ainst it.ives rise to an action for breach of contract of carria. necessaril. This is in consonance ith the avo ed polic.ht can provide7 hich is reBuired b. Gnder the facts obtainin. 4e cannot in reason den. the carrier.er to hich the deceased as e:posed. 16 Thus. because it could definitel. still petitioner5s aforesaid failure to e:ercise e:traordinar. ne. co++on carriers li8e $boitiC. and the correspondin. that petitioner as e:traordinaril. here a passen.er dies or is in<ured. to all the circu+stances of each case. ith a due re. observed b. $boitiC <oined Pioneer in provin. of estoppel and for lac8 of evidence on its present theor. the #ourt of $ppeals. of . dili.ence hile such relation subsists. +easures ere strictl.uards insofar as its unloadin.li. the failure of the carrier to carr. established. in para. i+posin. have prevented.ross ne. a confir+ation of the trial court5s findin. enforced to subserve their purpose of preventin. present.li.li. $s found b. si. of the dan.er5s death or in<ur.oods and for the safet.er of said carrier at the ti+e of his tra.id posture in the application of the la b.ence to prevent the accident fro+ happenin.ainsaid that petitioner had inadeBuatel. The presu+ption is. area and the . and it is incu+bent upon it to rebut the sa+e. the passen. 19 petitioner has e:pressl.ainst it. acts appro:i+ate the 7ut+ost dili. $s correctl. at bar.ence of ver.ers..that ti+e.ent. both courts. to Pioneer5s bein.. co+plied ith the reBuired de. fro+ the nature of their business and for reasons of public polic.ross ne.ence reBuired of. Moreover. cautious persons.ree of dili.li. placed around the unloadin. e are li8e ise bound b.ravit.ed presence of visible arnin. the for+er5s death.ence fro+ co++on carriers. of respondent #ourt of $ppeals that petitioner did not present sufficient evidence in support of its sub+ission that the deceased $nacleto Viana as . alle. after ten 0&=1 +onths fro+ the institution of the suit a.. even assu+in. to it that said precautionar. its third)part. la that in case of a passen. the victi+ $nacleto Viana is still dee+ed a passen.er safel. the hi. Thus.ence as the pro:i+ate and direct cause of. into the forbidden area. circu+stances.ence.ence foisted on.uilt. havin..uard its passen. these ere at +ost insufficient precautions hich pale into insi.ilance over the . in the present case.raph ".ence. dili. includes its failure to safe..ainst entr.nificance if considered vis)a)vis the . absolved of an. into the area in Buestion as frau.e and its non)perfor+ance b. as far as hu+an care and foresi. and actuall. #orporation. or seein. dili. There is no sho in. Parentheticall. co++on carriers are. co+plaint onl. circu+stance bein.ent in reBuirin.li. Pioneer as a defendant.ent.li. the alle. as disputable and not indubitabl.ers safel. cautious persons7 to be e:ercised 7as far as hu+an care and foresi.ers transported b.. obli.li. la of co++on carriers ith respect to their passen. 17 This .oin.ation upon the latter. a co++on carrier is bound to carr. $boitiC b. Pioneer is not ithin the a+bit of the rule on e:traordinar. the ut+ost dili. venturin.ht can provide.ree of care and dili.ed that Pioneer had ta8en the necessar. established b. operations ere concerned.ence of ver. not i+pleadin.er ith e:traordinar.. 1: hich. dili. filin. does not . no stretch of liberal evaluation can such perfunctor. entr. the e:istence of the supposed cordon of dru+s loosel. -. Definitel.er as due to the ne. bound to observe e:traordinar. in the instant case. this #ourt has li8e ise adopted a ri.ic death. It also adverted to the fact that the alle.ard for all the circu+stances...ed . dili. that is. This. to that effect. contributoril. as clai+ed b. of the State to afford full protection to the passen. failed to e:ercise e:traordinar. the+.3 of its petition.ent statutor.li. Gnder the la . therefore. that petitioner failed to rebut the presu+ption a. under the fore.hest de.ence on the part of Pioneer Stevedorin. hence our confor+it.ence in the vi. 15 More particularl.ence of the victi+. therein. of the passen.ers of co++on carriers hich can be carried out onl. it cannot be . e are not inclined to accept petitioner5s e:planation that the victi+ and other passen. usin. Petitioner cannot no be heard to clai+ other ise. No e:ceptin. bearin. II.uard5s ad+onitions a. 4hile the victi+ as ad+ittedl. b. the operator of the vessel as at fault or ne. petitioner. the evidence does not sho that there as a cordon of dru+s around the peri+eter of the crane. to his destination. liabilit. a fact hich appears to have been accepted b. e:actin. #onseBuentl. b. the co++on carrier is presu+ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne. a strin.e here all that is reBuired of plaintiff is to prove the e:istence of the contract of carria. conceded the factual findin. hence its present contention that the death of the passen. 2ven in its ans er filed in the court belo it readil.rounds. safe.ence of the crane operator cannot be sustained both on . the passen.ers ho often beco+e hapless victi+s of indifferent and profit)oriented carriers. #onco+itantl. arned that +erel. respondent court5s declaration that there as no ne. of course.ht ith serious peril. the plaintiff therein b. dili. accordin. presu+ption of ne..entl. ut+ost in +ind the elfare of the passen.

== and@or the total su+ of P"6. $adilla and (armiento. the heirs of Dud.A. 'elo and "ssociates for defendant+appellant. 9e as listed as the No. ESTELA A ETO. No.===. has held the various positions in the .== and> To pa.?= in the afternoon of Nove+ber (?.e $beto.li.==> "th K For attorne.detract fro+ hat e have said that no ne. Ne.6" 0! Q1 . an annual co+pensation of P6.===. CONCEPCION A ETO. Municipal President of Iloilo> Provincial Fiscal of $ntiBue. capacit.. (iguion Reyna. defendant) appellant as ordered to pa. CECILIA A ETO. vs.er in its /oad Manifest 02:hibit $1.e $beto. $aras. na+el. L82:692 July 60. INCORPORATE(..ence for the safet. Province of Mindoro. $ppeal fro+ the decision of the #ourt of First Instance of Iloilo findin.es in favor of the plaintiffs in the su+ of P&=. dili. -aco. the failure of $boitiC to e:ercise e:traordinar. 4elencio+6errera /Chairperson0. of its passen. MARIA A ETO. $fter three ee8s. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES..(==.. but on the contrar. defendant)appellant.== per annu+ in the a+ount of P?!. it as ascertained that the plane crashed at Mt.s.1 Dud. boarded the Philippine $ir /ines5 PI)#&?? plane at the Mandurriao $irport.5s fees.ht can provide . $ll the passen. PATRIA A ETO .%==.== received under Voucher 2:hibit 595 the a+ount of Pl.ers. plaintiffs. prior to the plane crash.er is the rationale for our findin.ence and indifference for the safet.===.ers that it as bound to transport.li. SO ORD2R2D. and their re+ains ere scattered all over the area.(A.== +inus P!==. +ust have been 8illed instantl.e Ouirico $beto. 7ui8ano. the follo in.3==. P7 and for the death of Dud. concur.==> and before that. &% passen. the costs of this proceedin. for Manila.es in the su+ of P(.ence or prudence as far as hu+an foresi. Dud. includin./ AL ERTO A ETO.e Ouirico $beto. &st K For the death of Dud.R.==> (nd K For the loss of his earnin.. PERLA A ETO.overn+ent. Dud. Iloilo #it. tic8ets. the su+ of P3.. the articles recovered on the site of the crash as a leather ba. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.==> !th K For actual da+a.(==..ears at the rate of P6..e of . (E A ETO. The plane hich ould then ta8e t o hours fro+ Iloilo to Manila did not reach its destination and the ne:t da. the a+ount of P3. 7 02:hibit #. ith the necessar. dili.ence can be i+puted to Pioneer but. for !. &'3=. %%. that defendant)appellant 7did not e:ercise e:traordinar. CARME0000LO A ETO.. 4ontecillo ) 2ngsia5o. 19:2 CONRA(A . J. plaintiffs) appellees. as a Technical $ssistant in the Office of the President receivin.(==. that on the contrar. on its liabilit. "rroyo ) $adilla 3aw 2ffices for plaintiffs+appellees. $+on.===.. sho ed ne. ith the na+e 7Dud. Plaintiff5s evidence sho s that about ". the petition is D2NI2D and the <ud.e Ouirico $beto. of the passen. there as ne s that the plane as +issin.ros Occidental and #ebu> Dud.e Ouirico $beto.==> ?rd K For +oral da+a. RELO. 492R2FOR2..+ent appealed fro+ is hereb.e $beto. $FFIRM2D in toto.

&st K That the Pilot of the plane disobe. passen. deviation fro+ its prescribed route as due to the bad eather conditions bet een Mt. in findin.ence and indifference for the safet.ears. Personal belon.==. the ver.li.ence of the defendant5s pilot of the plane on that fli.h chec8s.ood health before the incident even if he as alread. plaintiffs)appellees ere co+pelled to hire counsel for the institution and prosecution of this case. hich ere lost a+ounted to P?==. -aco as be. de $beto as appointed ad+inistratri: of the estate of Dud. &'3?. la on that particular fli. The +e+bers of the fa+il.h perusal of the evidences.ht test on plane PI#)&?? before the sa+e too8 off fro+ Mandurriao $irport to Manila in order to find out a possible defect of the plane. The plane at the ti+e of the crash as air orth.ulation. life e:pectanc. the plaintiffs have established the follo in.nificant facts hich proved the ne. si.. Defendant)appellant tried to prove that the plane crash at Mt.ers that it as bound to transport. The plane had under.6==. $beto as shoc8ed and until it as ascertained that the plane had crashed three ee8s after. Gnder the circu+stances. reportin. There as navi. inds hich caused the plane to drift to Mt..ence reBuired b. for the plaintiffs.li.e as 4hen defendant)appellant ould not hear de+ands for settle+ent of da+a. dili. the route of $+ber & prescribed b. 4hen the. she could not sleep and eat. Third K 4hen the defendant allo ed durin.ht chec8s. -esides. point.in. as sho n b. The other plaintiffs)appellees are the children of the deceased. -aco. These chec8s ere part of the Bualit. re. Fourth K 4hen the Pilot durin. as sho n b.ht in Buestion. of Dustice. also suffered.ed instruction . She felt sic8 and as +iserable after that. therefore. 9e as in .in. '"6 ter+inatin.ence or +alfeasance on the part of the pilot.ht) in Buestion.h $+erican e:perience.%(( pre) fli. I ..s P&.es. and Secretar. chec8s and "=& after +aintenance chec8s. appellant ar. still on his left le. that the appellant as ne. of !. the evidence of the plaintiff lead to the inevitable conclusion that the defendant did not e:ercise e:traordinar.ht can provide i+posed upon b. These facts as established b. s8ill and dili. received the ne s of the plane crash. the /a . to this #ourt. -urial e:penses of the late <ud. Mrs. defendant clai+ed that the trial court erred.ence or prudence as far as hu+an foresi.ardin.e of 6' ould still live or have a life e:pectanc.ears old at that ti+e. Second K The defendant failed to perfor+ the pre)fli. the fli. to the evidence. of the passen. contrar. the #$$ in Violation of Standard Re. 6' . student Officer Rodri.ht in Buestion failed or did not report his position over or abea+ Ro+blon hich is a co+pulsor. sho ed ne. control operation of defendant airline Further.in. appellant tried to prove that it had e:ercised all the cares.ent> .==. -aco and Ro+blon and stron.ues that the crash as a fortuitous event and.6" . Section #hief of the $ctuarial Depart+ent of the Insular /ife Insurance #o+pan. evidence of the defendant.ht in Buestion. findin.the #ourt of First Instance of Manila.one &. as proved hen his bod. defendant)appellant cannot be held liable under the provisions of $rticle &&6! of the Ne #ivil #ode.e $beto.ers across the countr. the fli. the late Dud. the certificate of air orthiness issued b.li. Plaintiff)appellee #onrada Vda. dated Dece+ber &?.. for the purpose of conve. $ppealin. as found on the plane5s coc8pit ith its +icrophone han. the deposition of one Dose $banilla.ond the control of the pilot. both parties has co+e into the conclusion that the evidence introduced b. The #ourt after a thorou.ueC on trainin. throu. but on the contrar.li.ational error but no ne. testi+onial and docu+entaries sub+itted b.e $beto at the a. the #ivil $eronautics $d+inistration 0#$$1. ?3! thorou.iven in not follo in. -. said. The trial court.

or other ise.ers transported b. the ut+ost dili. PedroCa. are clear and e:plicit. $ssistant Director #esar Mi<ares of the #ivil $eronautics $d+inistration testified that the pilot of said plane as 7off course. 7to carr. to defendant5s itness. this tra. of a co++on carrier for the safet.p.es to the appellees> and IV . as far as hu+an care and foresi. obviousl. stipulation. &'3=.sir.. 9ereunder is Mr.nated route because it as so+e ?= +iles to the est hen it crashed at Mt.&'3? hearin. in the conduct and operation of PI)#&??.ers of PI #&?? of e:traordinar. de Mesa..ht can provide.ers . of passen. cautious person ith due re. The issue before Gs in this appeal is carria. of the passen. b.. cautious persons.ht as 3. on this point.((.ht can provide. in not findin.ou found hi+ out. PedroCa5s testi+on.ic crash ould have not happened had the pilot continued on the route indicated. Inc.ence of ver. 0To the itness1 O -ecause Mt. e:ercised its statutor. hich is. reasons of public polic.. prove that the. that he as off courseA $ Nes. dili. the ut+ost dili... The fact is. deno+inated as air a. observed e:tra) ordinar. cannot be dispensed ith or lessened b. .1 ::: ::: ::: $nd.=== ft. . as $+ber $)lA the route prescribed for .ence as far as hu+an care and foresi. Nour 9onor $TTN.6". obli..7 and the prescribed elevation of the fli. -aco.. da+a. 7$+ber l. usin. the plane did not ta8e the desi.entl. as the pilot.ilance . state+ents on tic8ets. O $nd the route for hi+ to follo $ Nes. $rticle &6?? binds co++on carriers.. $ccordin. dili. unless the. ith due re. that the crash of PI)#&?? as caused b. of plane PI)#&?? that afternoon of Nove+ber (?. sir. the+ accordin. as Iloilo)Ro+blon)Manila. dili....7 $rticle &6"3 fi:es the burden of proof b. for the safet.ers safel. ith #apt. b.Oct. that 7in case of death of or in<uries to passen. usin. that appellant acted in .7 $rticle &6"" establishes the standard of care reBuired of a co++on carrier.ence in the vi. fortuitous events> . in not findin. sir.A $ Nes. hether or not the defendant is liable for violation of its contract of The provisions of the #ivil #ode on this Buestion of liabilit. $rticle &6"6 states that 7the responsibilit.III .7 /astl. O $nd off course. the postin.ood faith and e:erted efforts to +ini+iCe da+a. providin. to all the circu+stances of each case. of notices..e.7 O -ut the fact is that ..li. Ra+on $. to observe e:traordinar.ers.ence as prescribed in $rticles &6?? and &6"". the passen.. that the appellant. $d+inistrative $ssistant of the Philippine $ir /ines. 7fro+ the nature of their business and b.es.7 The prescribed air a.0TSN.ard for all the circu+stances and in not findin. in a ardin.ence of a ver. O 9ad the pilot continued on the route indicated. 9I/$DO. co++on carriers are presu+ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne.ard for all the circu+stances.. sir. -aco is ?= +iles fro+ $+ber IA $ Nes.ation over the passen. $+ber $)& there ould have been no crash.ou +ean that he did not follo hi+A $ Nes.

ht bet een Ro+blon and Manila.al interest thereon fro+ the finalit. vs. of fault or ne.ht for b. he +ade a strai. attributable to the fault or ne.nated route for his fli.+ent.ht be suffered b.==.ht to Manila in violation of air traffic rules. (E ROSALES./ A>LON SALES . 19:: ATANGAS LAGUNA TA>A AS US COMPAN> ? ARMAN(O PON. THE HEIRS O! PA= . .ed herein appellant to pa.ui+bal.er to his destination safel. #ertiorari. -. and to observe e:traordinar. In an action based on a contract of carria. the passen. it is at fault.sir. Ro+blon to Manila.e. ith le. PARAS.li. 4itness that a disre. The <ud. The eather as clear and he as supposed to cross air a.es sou. Custodia.. 4elencio+6errera. passin.ofuente for petitioners. 0-atan. (ibal. the court need not +a8e an e:press findin. petitioners./ NENA . (antos ) . is on leave.%==. rate. and an.ht a a.. the plaintiffs is P"6. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S2#OND DIVISION G. respondents.as Transportation #o+pan. 0TSN. in<ur. dili.ence of the carrier 0$rt. the da+a. or disre. the decision 1 of the respondent appellate court hich . 7$+ber I7 over Ro+blon> instead.1 The total of the different ite+s hich the lo er court ad<ud. &'3?1 ::: ::: ::: It is clear that the pilot did not follo the desi. (E PAM!ILO.er is ri. O $nd .li.R. in the absence of a satisfactor.uo is +odified in the sense that the defendant is hereb. e:planation b. J. the carrier assu+es the e:press obli.e.O $nd the route for Iloilo direct to Manila.ue#.ard or. &6"3. $lana and *as.Dec. %r. Citi#ens 3egal "ssistance 2ffice for .. Teehan5ee /Chairman0.. %.ence ith a due re.ou found that he as not at all follo in. sir.eneral rule that ne. (=.(A. . violation. 4a5asiar. is passin.ainst defendant)appellant. O Nou 8no Mr. #a. Restituto 3. $t an. ordered to pa. This is an e:ception to the . 2pis for respondents $amfilos and Rosaleses. the passen. of this <ud...ence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pa.er. %%. appellant as to ho the accident occurred. the contract of carria. (( S#R$ &6&. la A $ Nes.ence +ust be proved.(!6)(!%. vs. concur.li.: -efore Gs is a Petition to Revie b. that +i. No+.pp. 4ith costs a. the presu+ption is. the said a+ount to the plaintiffs. Ro+blon to ManilaA $ Nes.ht fli. the route to Ro+blon to ManilaA $ Nes. THE HEIRS O! NORMA NERI.+ent of the court a . 746:7890 No*$1<$2 14.(A. Ne #ivil #ode1.ation to transport the passen.ard for all the circu+stances. 1utierre#.eri and 'aylon (ales. INTERME(IATE APPELLATE COURT.ard of instruction is punishable b.

Isabon.ation e:penses plus costs.-us No. The collision bet een -us No. for the plaintiffs 0private respondents herein1.in. a lone error. overta8in.1 driven b. Seein. Ruben Dasco too8 place at the hi. Francisco Pa+filo and Ro+eo Neri and in several in<uries to Nena Rosales 0 ife of $necito1 and -a.ued b. the lo er court e:onerated defendants Superlines and its driver Dasco fro+ liabilit.li.and its driver Pon. da+a. to it. !=! of Superlines as co+in. +erel.and $r+ando Pon appealed fro+ the decision of the lo er court to respondent appellate court hich affir+ed ith +odification the <ud.a.ers of -/T. The. -aran.ence of the driver of the -/T.and Superlines to..+ent appealed fro+ is hereb. p. bend of the hi.h a. to pa. ith the +odification that the death inde+nit. Petitioners5 contentions deserve no +erit. bend of the hi. ?".affir+ed ith +odification the <oint decision of the trial court in four 0!1 cases involvin. heirs of the deceased Francisco Pa+filo. #osts a.h a. thus. OueCon in the afternoon of $u. it tried to overta8e a Ford Fiera car <ust as -us No.una Ta.h a. petitioners that if the intention of private respondents ere to file an action based on culpa contractual or breach of contract of carria. fro+ the opposite direction.as /a. attorne. a. T92 INT2RM2DI$T2 $PP2//$T2 #OGRT 2RR2D IN $DDGD*IN* T9$T T92 $#TIONS OF PRIV$T2 R2SPOND2NTS $R2 -$S2D ON C93$" C2. the bend of the hi. of the respondent court5s decision sho s that it anchored petitioners5 liabilit.-us No.es.uiliana. private respondents filed an action a.ust &&. clai+in. p. October !. 3&> 2:hibit 3 Superlines. $r+ando Pon 0driver of the -/T. &'6%. &=!3 of the -atan.ainst -/T.abas -us #o+pan.ello strip 0tsn. all passen. &(. affir+ed in toto. denied liabilit. !61 hich as divided into t o lanes b. the ascendin.ainst all the defendants basin.otiatin.abas. ho rec8lessl. &'6'. si. p. It as an unsuccessful tr. 0p. could have done so b.and its driver Pon. and severall. Defendants -/T.ainst each other. $niceto Rosales and Ro+eo Neri instituted separate cases in the #ourt of First Instance of MarinduBue a. Rollo1 Fro+ the records of the case 4e have .as the ne. (=. in the death of three and in<uries to t o of the passen. hich collision resulted in the death of $niceto Rosales. -/T. as follo s. the dispositive portion of said appellate <ud. a Ford Fiera car as he as ne. The evidence sho s that as -/T.ello line on the ascendin. Nena Vda.-us1 +ade a belated atte+pt to slac8en the speed of his bus and tried to return to his proper lane.es to the plaintiffs. to defendants -/T. traversin. is raised to P?=. Defendants -/T. 9e had a valid reason to presuppose that no one ould overta8e in such a dan. certiorari of defendant -/T. 0-/T-. These facts sho that patient i+prudence of the . si+ilar facts and issues. the rest of the <ud. antecedent facts.+ent of the lo er court as earlier stated.h a.1 driven b. operated and drove said bus b.ainst the defendants)appellants. a continuous .otiatin. 492R2FOR2. the lo er court. 9ence. &=!3 as ne.uiliana or tort. October !.+ent readin. ')&=.ether ith their drivers Pon and Dasco. for brevit. &'6'. both on culpa contractual and culpa a. 0Superlines. $ readin. #ri+inal cases a.ether ith their respective drivers pra. for brevit. ?31.===. October !. Rollo1 It is ar. de Rosales and -a. $fter trial on the +erits. the. all interposed counterclai+s a. to. to it. 0p. pp. as the t o 0(1 buses collided ith each other. Ta.lon Sales. 0tsn.5s fees and liti.ainst the plaintiffs and crossclai+s a. this petition to revie b. i+pleadin.erous situation. that the. SO ORD2R2D. their action on culpa a. for da+a.bus. &'6'.. &=!3. It is no surprise then that the driver of the Superlines bus as e:onerated b.and Superlines.== to each set of the victi+s5 heirs. ?31. ?3. !=! of Superlines Transportation #o+pan.nifies a no)overta8in. $s it as in the trial court.ainst each other.TR"CT9"3.ainst the drivers of the t o buses ere filed in the #ourt of First Instance of OueCon. e:ercised due care and dili. findin. and attributed sole responsibilit.ence and shifted the fault. $r+ando Pon and -us No. The driver of the -/T.ers of the -/T.athered the follo in.lon Sales and the survivin. Cone 0tsn. The pro:i+ate cause of the collision resultin. b.assi. favorabl.e.nin. and ordered the+ <ointl.bus ad+itted in his cross)e:a+ination that the continuous .

ard for all the circu+stances. failed to act the dili.ence of its e+plo. drivin. ". are presu+ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne.er of a collision. RSreTTanUV&W X On the other hand the liabilit. his proper lane for the purpose of overta8in. &'"1. divided into t o lanes b. dili.li. does not cease even upon proof that -/T.in. != O.had e:ercised all the dili. .-/T. direct and i++ediate in vie of the fact that the death of or in<uries to its passen. the driver of the overta8in. applicable in this case hen the overta8in. a +otor vehicle has been ne. 2nc. the circu+stances. the truc8 o ned b..driver.ees 0$rticle &6"'.li. The co++on carrier5s liabilit.ers as throu. Sec. to their destination. 0pp. to see that the road is clear and not to proceed if he can not do so in safet.er. upon havin. his e+plo.ers safel. The. the latter +ust slac8en his speed so as to avoid the dan.ee 0Marahan v.+ent of the da+a. 0?)! 9udd. the fact that the bus driver of -/T. #ivil #ode1.ulations. Traffic Rules and Re. (&3". 4e no co+e to the sub<ect of liabilit.. -efore atte+ptin. is not allo ed b. fro+ contract. or the driver ahead does not turn out so as to afford opportunit.e.ation to transport the passen. of the driver sprin. ho rec5lessly operated and drove said bus in a lane here overta8in..li. of Pon5s e+plo. &3 S#R$ 6!(. That obli. #ourt of $ppeals. Such ne.al presu+ption as confir+ed b..e. the carrier -/T. a curve there is special necessit. the court need not +a8e an e:press findin. and to observe e:traordinar. fro+ the opposite direction co+es into vie . unless the. the appellants have failed to prove e:traordinar. '%!1.h a. It is ell settled that a driver abandonin. #ivil #ode1.clopedia of $uto+obile /a .ht to drive on the left hand side rel. Gnless there is proof to the contrar. of fault or ne.ers to their destination safel. in the selection and supervision of its e+plo.D.as ne.s fro+ Buasi delict hile that of the bus co+pan. or if.ers. situation has the dut. for the death of or in<uries to its passen.ht if a car is approachin. to the ri. Indeed.entl.h the liabilit.es sou. even brin. (! S#R$ %%%. prove that the. dili.ence of a .ence in rec8lessl. 0!( #. MendoCa.li. The above rule beco+es +ore particularl.ence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the pa. the rear driver +ust see that the road is clear and if there is no sufficient roo+ for a safe passa. of the appellants.ence. No. 0$rt. a continuous . #ivil #ode1.ence of ver.ulation.*. appellant $r+ando Pon is pri+aril.ht side of the road and the driver has not the ri.oin. his car to a stop if necessar. 0People v. have observed e:traordinar.. an. to observe these si+ple precautions. appellant -/T-. In failin. p. another vehicle in ordinar.er. -/T-5s driver undoubtedl.in. The liabilit. and such liabilit. traffic re. to pass. (&(. this le. %'!1. &6)&'.li.ht b. It +ust follo that both the driver and the o ner +ust ans er for in<uries or death to its passen. ith For his o n ne. vehicle finds that he cannot +a8e the passa. 2nriBueC.ood father of a fa+il. 4hen a +otor vehicle is approachin. -.e in safet.ainst petitioner -/T-. #ivil #ode1.ence de+anded b. In the present case.ent.h the ne.assu+ed the e:press obli. he as violatin.ent if at the ti+e of the +ishap. findin.is also solidaril.li.ence7 0$rticle &6"3.ation to carr. to pass the vehicle ahead. in the death of three and in<uries to t o of the passen. it is presu+ed that a person drivin. $ppellant Pon should have re+e+bered that. therefore in consideration of the fore. cautious person 0$rticle &6"".ers is based on its contractual obli. a. ti+e to turn to the ri. 6!61 even thou. #ivil #ode1.e.ation is so serious that the #ivil #ode reBuires 7ut+ost dili.er.li. to pass. +ore so hen 4e consider the fact that in an action based on a contract of carria. is also pri+ar. too8 place on an ascendin. liable 0$rticle (&63.-us.. the passen. Rollo1 #onclusivel. ith its driver 0Viluan v. . for 8eepin. of -/T. curved hi. dili.ers of -/T.s of the respondent appellate court it is settled that the pro:i+ate cause of the collision resultin. the contract of carria.ence and rec8lessness is bindin. after atte+ptin.ello line. or roundin. its passen.ence ith a due re.as the sole negligence of the driver of the -/T. !( '=31.

roup of the plaintiffs. suddenl. 4hile said Mariano -eltran as on the runnin. since both ere belo the hei. J. husband and ife. that +i.ence of the carrier 0$rt. No.a1. issued three tic8ets 02:hs. &? .ht a a. follo ed b. et al. (armiento and Regalado.hter RaBuel follo ed hi+. MARIANO ELTRAN. but in so doin. briefl. 492R2FOR2.er prescribed in $rticles &6?? and &6"" of the Ne #ivil #ode is not susceptible of a precise and definite for+ulation. hich he had left behind. ET AL. to respondents Mariano -eltran. ith the+ four pieces of ba. then carr. Pa+pan.hter RaBuel -eltran. started . Mila.ht at hich fare is char.R. &6"3.ros.et do n the bus.: /a Mallorca see8s the revie of the decision of the #ourt of $ppeals in #$)*.===.et off. R. about !Y .ers is ri. the bus reached $nao hereat it stopped to allo the passen. he returned to the bus in controvers. unnoticed b. petitioner. and Fe. 4ith respect to the .ed on RaBuel and Fe. No. plate TPG No. it liable for Buasi)delict and orderin. :abut. $FFIRM2D.== for the death of his +inor dau. Rollo1 Petitioners5 contention holds no ater because the. as the first to . -.in. had totall. RaBuel.a.ainst all ris8s of travel and are not liable for acts or accidents hich cannot be foreseen or inevitable and that responsibilit. failed to point out an.ht of the undisputed fact that the cause of the collision as the sole negligence and rec5lessness of petitioner $r+ando Pon.ears old.in. their personal belon.. to . 3agman for petitioner.. On Dece+ber (=. Mila. P3. Pa+pan. the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child. ithout hu+an intervention. concur. $fter ards. Mariano led his co+panions to a shaded spot on the left pedestrians side of the road about four or five +eters a a. are. for the conductor to hand hi+ his bayong hich he left under one of its seats near the door. over ( .ears old. The conductor of the bus. respondents. hose +otor as not shut off hile unloadin. $adilla. of its passen. the appealed decision is hereb.. SO ORD2R2D. 4elencio+6errera /Chairperson0. Me:ico. plaintiffs. bound for $nao.ht be suffered b. vs.R. Z #1 coverin.C. so+e of their ba. in<ur..es. For the defense offorce ma8eure or act of *od to prosper the accident +ust be due to natural causes and e:clusivel..== as actual da+a. his ife and his children. No fare as char. !oo&.in.o&$+ Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 2N -$N# G. E. &?. boarded the Pa+busco -us No. ?"(.es. his dau.a. the bus. ere carr.hters.a. of a co++on carrier for the safet.ers bound therefor.es containin. factual basis for their defense of force ma8eure in the li. (?(36)R.. 6"6 0&'"? Pa+pan. ho happened to be a half)brother of plaintiff Mariano -eltran. o ned and operated b.a. attributable to the fault or ne. L820761 July 27. fro+ the vehicle. Ne #ivil #ode1. $fter about an hour5s trip. board of the bus aitin. $.ears old. bearin. it to pa. Mariano -eltran. &'"?. "hmed 1arcia for respondents.ros..li. the defendant.et his other bayong. na+el. the #ourt of $ppeals. ho+ ere the plaintiffs and their children to . %%. her father. the.ether ith their +inor dau. HONORA LE COURT O! APPEALS. 1966 LA MALLORCA. ARRERA.ed in accordance ith the appellant5s rules and re. holdin. The facts of the case as found b.. to.7 0p. at San Fernando. Petitioners also contend that 7a co++on carrier is not an absolute insurer a. a+on. 4onterey and 4.. its passen.ulations. 1. $t the ti+e. plus P!==. at about noonti+e.and an. pre+ises considered.

uilt. $fter trial on the +erits. his bayong fro+ the conductor. In its brief before us.re. It +a. of a child l.es for the death of the child. Thus. she as no lon.ranted b.a. so is halted b. but increased the da+a. the trial court found defendant liable for breach of contract of carria.ain in +otion.5s pre+ises. evidentl.er.& The issue to be deter+ined here is hether as to the child.hter RaBuel. the contract of carria. and ithout life. led b.es a arded the plaintiffs)appellees to P3.es fro+ P?. $nd. fro+ a train.er.ainst the defendant see8in.ain placed into a co+plete stop. There can be no controvers. the a ard of da+a.er and carrier bet een hi+ and the petitioner re+ained subsistin. $t that precise ti+e. in accordance ith $rticle (&%= of the #ivil #ode. of the carrier for her safet.===.e+ent holdin. it had travelled about ten +eters fro+ the point here the plaintiffs had .er a passen. to leave the co+pan.===.== as co+pensator. the bus in hich she rode earlier to.er does not necessaril..ate a+ount of P&3.niCed as a rule that the relation of carrier and passen. The child as none other than his dau..ence of its driver. and he in .et one of his ba.e also persisted. P?.er has had a reasonable ti+e or a reasonable opportunit. <u+ped fro+ the runnin. but continues until the passen. he sa people be. here a passen.===.hts fro+ the carrier5s vehicle at a place selected b. Mariano -eltran i++ediatel.===. ter+inated. Mariano -eltran. not ithstandin. da+a. be pointed out that althou.ee in re+ovin. and its a.ers.li. fro+ the bus.== althou.hted fro+ the bus at a place desi. si.5s fees.es and actual da+a.ether ith her parents. and necessaril.. of passen.ents. to the ba. that the bus as a.uasi+ delict.innin. the usual a.e left behind b.===. dela.ettin. the #ourt of $ppeals. Incidentall. hen the bus as a.+ovin. the trial court. it as also established that the father had to return to the vehicle 0 hich as still at a stop1 to . burial e:penses and costs. considerin. for the reason that hen the child +et her death.nal to start.er of the bus involved in the incident and.. to recover fro+ the latter an a.et one of his ba. but before actuall. $lthou.e and sentenced it to pa. It has been reco.uasi+delict and held the latter liable for da+a. has been shot. Gnder the facts as found b. /a Mallorca clai+ed that there could not be a breach of contract in the case.=== to cover +oral da+a.er entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and co+pan. ho as alread. a fello passen.e fro+ the car. it nevertheless found the defendant)appellant .( So also. board ithout . fro+ the car. /a Mallorca contends that the #ourt of $ppeals erred 0&1 in holdin. her s8ull crushed.h the #ourt of $ppeals sustained this theor. since said conductor as still attendin. $nd. the station platfor+ is considered still a passen.h it is true that respondent Mariano -eltran. and their children 0includin.== for the death of the child and P!==.es.es sustained as a result thereof and attorne. the carrier at the point of destination. after ali. the relation of passen. cease here the latter.a.+ent in Buestion. for ard.round. hat is a reasonable ti+e or a reasonable dela. the liabilit. the court belo rendered the <ud. the #ourt of $ppeals did not onl.es representin. For the death of their said child. On the basis of these facts. returns to relieve his brother. and 0(1 in raisin.a. the relation of carrier and passen. therefore. that as far as the father is concerned. the fact that the conductor has not . the plaintiffs co++enced the present suit a. it liable for . to . hen he returned to the bus for his bayong hich as not unloaded.== to P3... petitioner liable for da+a.s or bayong that as left under one of the seats of the bus. for the ne. instead of P?. doin. to resu+e its trip. prostrate on the .iven the driver the custo+ar. that respondents co+plaint as one for breach of contract.ed and thus continues to be a passen.h respondents did not appeal fro+ the decision of the lo er court.in.. al8s alon. ho as run over b. e have to sustain the <ud. On appeal to the #ourt of $ppeals. the report that his brother. aids the carrier5s servant or e+plo.otten off.in.ood faith and ithout intent of en.hted at his destination and is proceedin. b. the deceased child1 had ali. find the petitioner liable.==.nated for dise+bar8in.er ali. his ife. a person ho.. 9e landed on the side of the road al+ost in front of the shaded place here he left his ife and children.== . in the difficult. he is dee+ed reasonabl. the father to a place about " +eters a a. ithin this rule is to be deter+ined fro+ all the circu+stances.er has ali.a. under the contract of carria. Sensin.er does not cease at the +o+ent the passen.htin. of . his ba.? In the present case. For. to leave the carrier5s pre+ises. RaBuel -eltran.htin. after ali. the father returned to the bus to .es hich as not unloaded .e had alread.ather around the bod. or unloadin.

ence upon hich the clai+ as predicated hen it as alle.hter.ure P?. as caused b. #o. the death of RaBuel -eltran. No costs in this instance. ali. concurs in the result.===. #onseBuentl. R. even before receivin.hter..li. co+patible ith each other or not.3. arguendo that the contract of carria.ers. Neither does it appear that. !oo&.a. pleaded the culpa or ne. Secondl.ed in the co+plaint that 7the death of RaBuel -eltran. 9o ever.. the bus started to run. liable for the death of the child RaBuel -eltran. and hile there ere still persons on the runnin.es..== da+a.er did not e:ercise the dili. 4a5alintal. .uasi+delict.. entitled to the protection under their contract of carria.===. %. "9erein petitioner5s contention.o and hile the latter as still unloadin.ees.es fro+ P?. +ust have follo ed the father.e has alread.. +a..es is.. &S ph[&. the a+ount of the a ard for da+a.ee .ence of its driver. 3= Te:. RaBuel -eltran. $nd this presu+ption.es of the passen. in order that the +atter +a. -oston. In the circu+stances. Va.e. be resolved and deter+ined.o&$+ &Or+ond v. petitioner had failed to overco+e..ence and ant of e:ercise of the ut+ost dili. *enerall. plaintiffs5 dau.ave hi+ the si. The presentation of proof of the ne. -ut even assu+in. etc.hter. cautious person on the part of the defendants and their a. that the #ourt of $ppeals co++itted error in raisin. . the petitioner to pa. or that the inclusion of the fi. as caused b. #o. Regala.ne v. of the a ard.li. the decision of the #ourt of $ppeals is hereb.ence of a ver. The presence of said passen. to transport plaintiffs and their dau.h stoppin. to the end that the real +atter in controvers. So ordered. be the.7 This alle. he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor . in the selection and supervision of its e+plo. (&?. Reyes.er.. +eritorious. althou. a co++on carrier in the dischar. 'eng#on. as appellees in the #ourt of $ppeals. cannot be sustained. are. The inclusion of this aver+ent for . hich reads K That aside fro+ the aforesaid breach of contract.ence7 of a 7ver.li.===.ence of a . 3% 4. for the conductor to hand hi+ the ba. be treated as an e:ception to the . hile inco+patible ith the other clai+ under the contract of carria. the trial that the driver.aldivar. RaBuel.== b. herein petitioner can be held liable for the ne.== for the death of the child.== to P3. board of the bus a aitin. the proper si. cited in &= #..===. ?& /R$NS !&!. evidentl.raph 6 of the co+plaint. therefore. as the #ourt of $ppeals found.ation to transport safel. the su+ of P?..e causes of action in the alternative. an alle. started to run off the vehicle. the child that she as.ood father of the fa+il. #hesapea8e. the bus.ent had e:ercised the 7ut+ost dili. the+ on P?..h the father as still on the runnin. a clerical error.ed peculiaril. ho ever.ine. the appellate court can onl. %%.nal fro+ the conductor. %.ued in appellant5s brief. pursuant to $rticle (&%= of the #ivil #ode.$. to be considered still as passen.li. ho +ust be near the bus. therefore. as run over and 8illed. concur. &!( Mass. sentencin. nevertheless did not put off the en. Di#on. ter+inated. the #ourt of $ppeals. 9a.ation for . petitioner +ust be ad<ud. to the respondents Mariano -eltran. Concepcion.e. 3' S2 6==.ers of the carrier.== as actual da+a. plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadeBuac.. Plaintiffs did not appeal fro+ that portion of the <ud.+ent of the trial court a ardin.ence and ant of e:ercise of the ut+ost dili.e of its obli. (Ieefe v.ence of a ver. ?/a. In the first place.ent.li.%. as far as hu+an care and foresi.\]t 4herefore. its passen. so that even he 0the father1 had to <u+p do n fro+ the +ovin. The increase of the a ard of da+a. +odified b.===.ation as also proved hen it as established durin. board of the bus and near it.'. 3(3.hen the. &%=. cautions person7 reBuired b. 6 N2 %6!.ht can provide in the operation of their vehicle.hted fro+ the bus.nal to . C.ers Mariano -eltran and fa+il. $rticle &6"" of the #ivil #ode to be observed b. vehicle. necessar.ers near the bus as not unreasonable and the. (anche# and Castro. is per+issible under Section ( of Rule % of the Ne Rules of #ourt. pass upon and consider Buestions or issues raised and ar. althou.uasi+delict. etc. It as at this instance that the child..eneral rule. the #ourt of $ppeals.. ("&.ent.hter safel..== as +erel. is clearl. Para. and the a+ount of P!==.es for the death of their dau. the ne. R. %. et al.D. or bayong. it cannot be clai+ed that the carrier5s a.ence of its e+plo.ave rise to the presu+ption that the defendant e+plo. ! The plaintiffs sufficientl. the driver. as ruled b. the ne. part of the ba. hich allo s a plaintiff to alle. cautious person on the part of the defendants and their a. plaintiffs5 dau.

. That at about 6.+ent as rendered upon the follo in. .rud.ee of the #o+pan.. Devesa. +ornin. facts..ees of the carrier.?= a. defendant)appellant. $ppellant5s contention is that. First "ssistant Corporate Counsel Federico C.ates the carrier to transport a passen.er as in the actual perfor+ance of his ordinar. plaintiffs)appellees. . J. &'3=. The <ud. vs. since the contract of transportation obli. ex delicto. Mela. it to pa. sa+e datin. standin.round that a contract of transportation i+plies protection of the passen.oin. final <ud.ence reBuired of it. *. There can be no Buarrel ith the principle that a passen.=== da+a. as a passen.L. ET AL.uard. train of the Manila Railroad #o+pan.er in the earl. because the cri+e as not co++itted hile the sla. the Manila Railroad #o+pan. "li5pala and "ttorney 6igino R. /a Gnion /ine. the a.h the e:ercise of the de.ers a. no liabilit. MANILA RAILROA( COMPAN>. &=? of the Revised Penal #ode. husband of the plaintiff. the ido and children of the late To+as *illaco. as in force in &'!3. for his use as such train . here he as . $u. the Dapanese occupation> That because of this personal . 2+ilio Devesa.ence on appellant5s part. the carrier or its a.li. assi.ree of car and dili. fro+ #ala+ba. to those that the carrier could foresee or avoid throu. bac8 durin. (E GILLACO.e a..er safel. on the fore. a train .ned in the Manila)San Fernando.+ent of the #ourt of First Instance of /a. &'!3.una sentencin.an.. shot b.+. No. happened to be in said station aitin. ('.una to Manila> That hen the train reached the Paco Railroad station.. 3"61. an e+plo.ainst acts of personal violence b. of $pril &. J. under the old #ivil #ode of &%%' 0 hich hen *illaco as shot1 this #ourt said in /asa+ vs.R. personal . the basis of a carrier5s liabilit. to his destination. RE>ES. Devesa shot *illaco ith the carbine furnished to hi+ b. e:tends onl.ents or e+plo. The #ourt belo held the Railroad co+pan. It is also undisputed that Devesa as convicted ith ho+icide b. to report for dut. Discussin. 2+ilio Devesa> that it is not responsible subsidiar.er is entitled to protection fro+ personal violence b. et al. as sho n. P!. Restituto 3una for appellees.es to the appellees herein. et al.R.. &'!3. To+as *illaco. duties and service> nor is it responsible ex contractu. upon seein. /ieut.rud. Rule "&. under $rt.+ent of the #ourt of $ppeals.: The Manila Railroad #o+pan. responsible on the .!Mela.ents or e+plo. "Sec. S+ith 0!" Phil. has appealed fro+ a <ud.oin. /)&!"&%. stipulation of facts.an. since the co+plaint did not aver sufficient facts to establish such liabilit.e.er of the 8iller.> That 2+ilio Devesa had a lon. in $pril. 6. attaches to it as e+plo. v. L8:064 No*$1<$2 1:. for the sa+e train hich ould ta8e hi+ to Tutuban Station. The /a phil Pro<ect ) $rellano /a Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 2N -$N# G. 1955 CORNELIA A.ainst To+as *illaco. -ut under the la of the case. on the +ornin. and no ne.ees. this responsibilit. Francisco for appellant.uard of the Manila Railroad #o+pan. ne Rules of #ourt. hi+ inside the train coach> That To+as *illaco died as a result of the ould hich he sustained fro+ the shot fired b. No. /a.

Manila Railroad #o. and e:haustivel. i+pelled b. bet een each and ever. ith the case of Ra8es vs. and the distinction bet een e:tra)contractual liabilit. i++aterial that the act should be one of private retribution on the part of the servant. The latter had no +eans to ascertain or anticipate that the t o ould +eet.a. '''. a stran.uard Devesa had no duties to dischar. to reBuire of appellant that it should .niCed in this <urisdiction 0*overn+ent vs.ers> but. Note to *assenhei+er vs. even if foreseen. of a carrier as an insurer as not reco. a servant or e+plo.iven circu+stances> and pursuant to established doctrine. Devesa5s assault cannot be dee+ed in la a breach of *illaco5s contract of transportation b.ation itself i+poses such liabilit. if an. 4e a. No doubt that a co++on carrier is held to a ver. &=(=1.er of the #ala+ba)Manila train.ht can provide. hi. *ulf Z Pacific #o.ned to dischar. of the duties that the Railroad had assu+ed b.Manila 2lectric Railroad Z /i. #o. is the contract of carria. of *illaco as not done in line of dut. 0/asa+ vs..ances at an.e> that b. 0See #an. et se..ood reason for +a8in. and securel.ht chance to ride in its conve. Naviera Filipina. has been so abl. In fact. the startin.e nurtured a. Inchausti Z #o. . the Supre+e #ourt of Te:as in a si+ilar case. foresee ever. ?% Off.ees and an. != Phil.rud. of their passen. != /R$ 0NS1.e an. 6=31. 63%> Manila Railroad vs. be. That upon the facts stated the defendant5s liabilit. 7No one shall be liable for events hich could not be foreseen or hich. #o. dili. The shootin. The onl. in its trains.ers ridin. passen. and he as at Paco Station a aitin.. unforeseeable b... is ell settled b. breach of appellant5s contract of safe carria.h de. 06 Phil.ht e:ist bet een each one of its +an. The liabilit. Dur.co vs. b. It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of the defendant5s le. t o hours after the co++ission of the cri+e.ond hat hu+an care and foresi. personal +alice to ard the passen.e ith the late To+as *illaco as e:cused thereb. p. correct. Devesa as therefore under no obli. hich reads as follo s. further need here be said upon that sub<ect. into that contract he bound hi+self to carr. one of the thousands of eventual passen.ree ith the position ta8en b. is that the servant is clothed ith the dele. e+plo. considerin.ned to .ed to .uard the Manila)San Fernando 0/a Gnion1 trains.er 0&= $+.er *illaco 0because of a personal . hen the cri+e too8 place. as to start at '.+. and contractual liabilit. his tour of dut. The stipulation of facts is clear that hen Devesa shot and 8illed *illaco. personal rancor that +i.. the resultin. previous decisions of the court.. and not that of an e+plo. ere inevitable. *aC.. %6"> De *uia vs.1 -ut as can be inferred fro+ the previous <urisprudence of this #ourt . ?"'1.er. nor could it reasonabl. hold carriers to be insurers of the safet. the plaintiff safel. #o+pa\ia Transatlantica and $tlantic.ence be. both unforeseeable and inevitable under the .er.ers a. it bein.ht #o. its contract ith the deceased.ree of care and dili. *ulf Z Pacific #o.al liabilit. Devesa as assi. .es unless he sho s that the failure to fulfill his obli. enterin.er also a aitin. provides other ise and those in hich the obli. the #ivil #ode of &%%' did not i+pose such absolute liabilit..ated authorit. discussed in various other cases that nothin. the carrier responsible for the +isconduct of the servant perpetrated in his o n interest. and not in that of his e+plo.uard the passen. the conclusions of the court belo are entirel.ence in the protection of its passen.ation to safe. != Phil.7 The act of .ee of the carrier. supra1.ainst all possible +isunderstandin.uard a.ainst the latter since the Dapanese occupation1 as entirel. ?% Phil. The lo er #ourt and the appellees both relied on the $+erican authorities that particularl. failed to do so he is liable in da+a. i+portant consideration that +ust be borne in +ind is that. to their destination> and that havin. ?% Phil. (&'> Oriental #o++.. &=%> 2d.. $nother ver.In our opinion.. here it held. here the deceased as ridin.ees and ever. S+ith.uard. bein.. passen.ation as due to causes +entioned in article &&=" of the #ivil #ode. transportation.> and the 8illin.+ent.== a. the Manila Railroad #o. is contractual.e in connection ith the transportation of the deceased fro+ #ala+ba to Manila. stri8es us as de+andin. ti+e. one of its e+plo..e ith the dut. the ... $tlantic. The position of Devesa at the ti+e as that of another ould be passen. or other ise ithin the scope of his e+plo.ee assi.ainst illful assault and intentional ill treat+ent on the part of their servants. and char. the vast and co+ple: activities of +odern rail transportation.. ith the e:ception of the cases in hich the la e:pressl. vs..uard Devesa in shootin. in Buestion as therefore <caso fortuito< ithin the definition of article &=" of the old #ivil #ode. point of the train that he as en. $s a result. 4ester R. transportation to Tutuban.er that +i.innin.

passen.ation of the e+plo. at another or travelin.er and the e+plo. the e+plo. for act or o+issions of the e+plo. J.s. husband of plaintiff Rosario Tupan. Police authorities of /ucena #it. Reyes. in his death. b. hich the e+plo.er b.er ho fell off a train operated b. $adilla. the other passen. %%.. the <ud. of the latter to ard the passen. and not in that of the e+plo. servants actin. in their o n interest. Due to so+e +echanical defect. done to passen.er. in an.== o5cloc8 in the evenin.a+ -rid.+ent> but the onl. for so+e private purpose of his o n. respondent superior. +a8es hi+self liable for ever. and hereb. 4inifredo Tupan.er to represent hi+ in dischar. at about '. in the ver.a.. &'6(. ithout cost. The facts sho that on Septe+ber &=. 19:5 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAIL4A>S. the train conductor Perfecto $braCado.arded as not onl. act. OueCon. ESCOLIN. report. #o.ed in the transportation business ith the co+prehensive dut. ordered. Instead. ith the passen. the train stopped at Sipocot. as a pa.er for the perfor+ance of hich he has put the e+plo. of that servant as indicated b.1 4herefore. to e:ecute his underta8in.ers that so+ebod.er. found the lifeless bod. e are spea8in. the authorities. a. so+e t o hours before the train could resu+e its trip to Manila. reason in our opinion for a broader liabilit.ee ho co++itted the assault as never in a position in hich it beca+e his dut. the respondent court as follo s. ithout re. such servant.ee en. 4ontemayor.. No. 4inifredo Tupan.ee in the scope of his e+plo. passen.R. upon passin. e thin8.. #.. L855647 O3&o<$2 4. fro+ suit. OueCon. $s sho n b. the autops../ ROSARIO TUPANG. ".a+ -rid. the petitioner. of the principle hich holds a carrier responsible for ron. but as bein. 4inifredo Tupan. rule. and Concepcion. Gnfortunatel.The train did not stop despite the alar+ raised b. instituted this petition for revie on certiorari to set aside the decision of the respondent $ppellate #ourt hich held petitioner PNR liable for da+a. Of course.. So 'eng#on. %ugo.er bound for Manila.. That principle is not the ordinar.e here the. ta8in. onl. for repairs. to his e+plo.in.er is held responsible onl. THE HONORA LE COURT O! APPEALS . an. in +istreatin. and reBuested for verification of the infor+ation. on the train. the principle of state i++unit.e at /ucena.+ent appealed fro+ is reversed and the co+plaint ordered dis+issed. failure due to . unsound and oppressive both to the e+plo. ere dispatched to the I. vs.ee. is re. PNR for short.ees at a station ith reference to passen. $nd it cannot be said.er ith ho+ he +a. of 4inifredo Tupan. a pa. I.ee in his place.: Invo8in. 09ouston Z T.+ent. ever.the carrier. concur.er holl.ation to the e+plo. R. #a+arines Sur. violates the contractual obli. "rturo (amaniego for private respondent. respondents. called the station a.ent at #andelaria. dut. boarded 5Train No.es for the death of 4inifredo Tupan. 'autista "ngelo. "&3 of appellant at /ib+anan.in.er e+bar8in.in. ?( /R$ 0NS1. The reason does not e:ist here the e+plo. such dele. e+plo. petitioner. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S2#OND DIVISION G. not sustained b. The proposition that the carrier clothes ever. arises fro+ the fact that the servant. assault co++ited b. -ush.er has co+e ithin the sphere of dut. vs. the Philippine National Rail a. fell fro+ the train.er. passen. &(=". p. of protectin. died of cardio)respirator. co+e in contact.ard to the inBuir. the passen. that there is an. #a+arines Sur. The pertinent facts are su++ariCed b.. hether or not the passen. fell off the train resultin.

$ct !&"3. incidental or conducive to the attain+ent of the purpose of the corporation> and b.. the trial court b. as a defense. b. Court of ndustrial Relations.. the plaintiff an additional su+ of P".and #. pursuant to hich the N$SS#O has been established) 5all the po ers of a corporation under the #orporation /a ^ ^ ^. a. the doctrine of state i++unit. Dustice Fernando cited the #ourt5s holdin. is untenable for.overn+ent enters into co++ercial business. the $ppellate #ourt sustained the holdin. ed.s shall have the follo in.== as +oral da+a.h the instru+entalit.uinistas. This #ourt in both cases ans ered the Buestion in the affir+ative. et al . The ar. Planters5 -an8.arnish+ent or e:ecution. In $hilippine . and the further su+ of P&=. attached or levied upon. %udge $abalan L%? S#R$ "'"M. da+a. The PNR said $ct provides. Court of ndustrial Relations is sBuarel. hether or not the funds of the Philippine National Rail a.7 In support of the above conclusion. It further increased the a+ount ad<udicated b.arnish+ent or e:ecution hardl.===. for reconsideration of the above decision. so as to render the corporation sub<ect to the rules of la . in a particular business throu.arnish+ent. Movin.5s fees. because the funds are . fro+ suit. the characteristics and attributes of a corporation under the #orporation /a . not be .ain.overn+ent) o ned entit.al bar to . the local police authorities.S. as later buried in the public ce+eter. (!!M.es.u+ent based on non)suabilit. 3 /.So it +ust be a. #oncepcion.enc. 6 then Dustice Fernando. It has)pursuant to Section ( of 2:ecutive Order No. L-an8 of the G.== as e:e+plar.ational 'an5 v.n character. Section ! of the The Philippine national Rail a. The petition is devoid of +erit. dated October (?. in $hilippine . as created under Rep. 1 On appeal.+assive cerebral he+orrha.s..round advanced could not be raised for the first ti+e on appeal.== as attorne. be sub<ected to court processes <ust li8e an.===. 4anila 6otel Co. of the trial court that the PNR did not e:ercise the ut+ost dili. necessar. distinct and separate fro+ that of the *overn+ent. be accepted in the sense that the People5s 9o+esite and 9ousin. as a . Rosario Tupan. ?"3..===.in.===. 9nion de 4a.Tupan. the $hilippine . as such. to it. 7The alle. 6on. other corporation.es. 5 laid do n the rule that 7 hen the . the deceased5s ido . therefore.n capacit.== for loss of his earnin. Court of ndustrial Relations L%& S#R$ ?&!M and $hilippine .ational (hipyard and (teel Corporation v.. in point. section. orderin.overn+ental in character as unavailin.overn+ent) o ned and controlled corporation. said. and P(. &'"= ^ ^ ^. *enerall. The +otion as denied> the respondent court ruled that the ..es for breach of contract of carria. and that its funds are . raises a Buestion of first i+pression. stated in the opinion of then Dustice.s and to transact all such business directl.overn+ent ithout distinct or separate personalit. 9ence.overn+ental in character and. the PNR has all the po ers. To do all such other thin.. and costs. PNR to pa.oin. en. the plaintiff the su+ of P&(.e and ordered 7to pa. of the Philippine . It does not follo thou.ation to the effect that the funds of the N$SS#O are public funds of the . of its o n. of a state alle. and that. of a corporation the . plus P(=.h that the.ational 'an5 v. not sub<ect to . LRollo.. #orporation as a . later #hief Dustice. Gnder the fore. or indirectl. 7The +ain issue posed in this certiorari proceedin. It alle. pp.overn+ent divests itself pro hac vice of its soverei.arnish+ent or e:ecution. this petition for revie . as a+ended. the N$SS#O has a personalit. v. later #hief Dustice. ere e:e+pt fro+ . la of a co++on carrier. 4 $s far bac8 as &'!&. 7The pre+ise that the funds could be spo8en of as public in character +a.arnished or levied upon on e:ecution as resolved in t o recent decisions. . the then #ourt of First Instance of RiCal. of its o n.ence reBuired b.edl. '&)'(M Gpon co+plaint filed b.. There can be no Buestion then that the PNR +a. There as no le. the PNR raised for the first ti+e.===. Folder of 2:hibitsM.e due to trau+atic in<ur.a. held the petitioner PNR liable for da+a. of /ucena #it. L2:hibits . -. capacit. after trial. the sa+e +a. it abandons its soverei. this #ourt in the case of 4anila 6otel Employees "ssociation v.ational Railways v. could be . to e:ercise all po ers of a corporation under the #orporation /a .ational 'an5 v. other corporation. po ers. 2 The petitioner5s contention that the funds of the PNR are not sub<ect to . sue and be sued and +a.arnished.== for the death of 4inifredo Tupan.ed that it is a +ere a. and is to be treated li8e an.overn+ent. $s as e:plicitl. ' 4aitch '=!.

Thus.li.. he should have held ti. and "lampay. ne. CAORONG.n prero. C R. a!" r&-r&+&!. la . vs.. S$5. a!" #$!or ch$%"r&! 'ASSER (ING CAORONG.ers that a person had fallen off the train at l. INC.5 that 7 hen the . 6 Of Si+ilar i+port is the pronounce+ent in $risco v.a+ -rid. on the upri. rec8less. Cuevas. fraudulent. the a ard of e:e+plar.e. set up the doctrine of non)suabilit.===.)o. the respondent court. petitioner. da+a.e. No. No costs. as so over)cro ded that he and +an.ers . concur.rant of e:e+plar. SO ORD2R2D. respondents. %r. . COURT OF APPEA S. da+a. the petitioner failed to overthro such presu+ption of ne..overnin.ence in doin. 7 The petitioner has the obli.ation to transport its passen.es in business. .ence ith clear and convincin. nevertheless <ustified the deletion of the a+ount ad<udicated as +oral da+a. despite the alar+ raised b.li.li. be allo ed onl.eable ith contributor. it abdicates part of its soverei. other passen. hile not e:e+ptin. da+a.es +a. so. oppressive or +alevolent +anner. da+a.r!a#&" CAORONG.===. an. dili.a+ -rid.+ SECOND DIVISION [G. as correctl. off fro+ the speedin. other passen. in<ur. -.R. 492R2FOR2. the decision of the respondent appellate court is hereb. ne. and tenaciousl.h&r PAU IE U.ence as reBuired b. respectivel. +alice or bad faith on the part of petitioner.. the deceased 4inifredo Tupan. ROSE )EINNI a!" PRINCE A EXAN*ER.a. the petitioner PNR cannot le. 2:e+plar.ers had no choice but to sit on the open platfor+s bet een the coaches of the train. therefro+ the a+ounts of P&=. the PNR fro+ liabilit.ation under the contract of carria.es +ust be set aside. PAU IE U.&" /0 . train. Since he opted to sit on the open platfor+ bet een the coaches of the train. dili. Death or an. the sa+e to8en. CAORONG. the petitioner does not den.e hich as under repair at the ti+e.ht +etal bar found at the side of said platfor+ to avoid fallin.es. 1999] FORTUNE EXPRESS. evidence. a%% +. private corporations.2. Such contributor.overn+ent en.ence. -ut hile petitioner failed to e:ercise e:traordinar. : it appears that the deceased as char. %%. .ence. as a bar to the plaintiff5s suit for da+a. March 18..ent in the perfor+ance of its obli. of its passen..atives and descends to the level of a citiCen.es. Neither did the train stop.li. The appellate court found.es.. 119756.&$ O5). that the train boarded b. no evidence of fraud.es should be discarded.. 9 There bein.ives rise to the presu+ption that it as ne. ruled b. suffered b. Concepcion. +odified b. in cases here the defendant acted in a anton.htl.== ad<udicated as +oral and e:e+plar. It is li8e ise undisputed that the train did not even slo do n hen it approached the I.ers to their destinations and to observe e:traordinar. 7 In fine.h&$r #o. the .== and P"..all. eli+inatin.

Ili'an City) The aforesaid decision of the trial co rt dis*issed the co*plaint of private respondents a'ainst petitioner for da*a'es for breach of contract of carria'e filed on the 'ro nd that petitioner had not e+ercised the re. cond cted an investi'ation of the accident) 3e fo nd that the owner of the 5eepney was a 0aranao residin' in Delabayan. and /rince %le+ander are their *inor children) On Nove*ber #4. while private respondents 1asser 2in'. (ranch VI. ired de'ree of dili'ence in the operation of one of its b ses) %tty) Talib Caoron'. was a passen'er of the b s and was -illed in the a*b sh involvin' said b s) The facts of the instant case are as follows. 6anao del Norte.$= /)0) on Nove*ber !!. at its *ain office in Ca'ayan de Oro City) (ravo ass red hi* that the necessary preca tions to ins re the safety of lives and property wo ld be ta-en):#. he went to see Diosdado (ravo. ordered the driver. to stop the b s on the side of the hi'hway) 0anan''olo then shot Cabat an on the ar*. #"4". 6anao del Norte and that certain 0aranaos were plannin' to ta-e reven'e on the petitioner by b rnin' so*e of its b ses) 7eneralao rendered a report on his findin's to S't) &eynaldo (astasa of the /hilippine Constab lary &e'ional 3ear. ada*ant as they repeated their warnin' that they were 'oin' to b rn the b s alon' with its driver) D rin' this e+chan'e between %tty) Caoron' and the assailants. sei>ed a b s of petitioner at 6ina*on. . of the Co rt of %ppeals. dated J ly !". J. a vol nteer field a'ent of the Constab lary &e'ional Sec rity 8nit No) 9. identified as one (ashier 0anan''olo. whose heirs are private respondents herein. %tty) Caoron' ret rned to the b s to retrieve so*ethin' fro* the overhead rac-) %t that ti*e.2 This is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari of the decision. incl din' %tty) Caoron'. 3owever. one of the ar*ed *en was po rin' 'asoline on the head of the driver) Cabat an. saw that %tty) Caoron' was hit) Then the b s was set on fire) So*e of the passen'ers were able to p ll %tty) Caoron' o t of the b rnin' b s and r sh hi* to the 0ercy Co** nity 3ospital in Ili'an City. a b s of petitioner fi' red in an accident with a 5eepney in 2a swa'an.*ECISION MEN*O1A. #"4". as the other held the passen'ers at bay with a hand' n) 0anan''olo then ordered the passen'ers to 'et off the b s) The passen'ers. which reversed the decision of the &e'ional Trial Co rt. /etitioner is a b s co*pany in northern 0indanao) /rivate respondent /a lie Caoron' is the widow of %tty) Caoron'. %t abo t <. which ca sed hi* to sl *p on the steerin' wheel) Then one of the co*panions of 0anan''olo started po rin' 'asoline inside the b s. one of the passen'ers. incl din' two 0aranaos) Crisanto 7eneralao. 7odofredo Cabat an. b t he died while nder'oin' operation):?. operations *ana'er of petitioner. #""$. 6anao del Norte while on its way to Ili'an City) %*on' the passen'ers of the b s was %tty) Caoron') The leader of the 0aranaos. &ose 3einni. stepped o t of the b s and went behind the b shes in a field so*e distance fro* the hi'hway):!. three ar*ed 0aranaos who pretended to be passen'ers. res ltin' in the death of several passen'ers of the 5eepney. arters at Ca'ayan de Oro) 8pon the instr ction of S't) (astasa. who had *eanti*e re'ained conscio sness. heard %tty) Caoron' pleadin' with the ar*ed *en to spare the driver as he was innocent of any wron' doin' and was only tryin' to *a-e a livin') The ar*ed *en were. Cabat an cli*bed o t of the left window of the b s and crawled to the canal on the opposite side of the hi'hway) 3e heard shots fro* inside the b s) 6arry de la Cr >. however.

be characteri>ed as ne'li'ence) Einally. defendant did not ta-e proper preca tions) ) ) ) Conse. the fail re of defendant to accord faith and credit to the report of 0r) 7eneralao and the fact that it did not provide sec rity to its b ses cannot. how did defendantGappellee react to the tip or infor*ation that certain 0aranao hotheads were plannin' to b rn five of its b ses o t of reven'e for the deaths of two 0aranaos in an earlier collision involvin' appelleeHs b sC E+cept for the . the presence of a sec rity ' ard is not a ' arantee that the -illin' of %tty) Caoron' wo ld have been definitely avoided) D) %ccordin'ly. The fact that defendant. thro 'h Operations 0ana'er Diosdado (ravo. the plaintiffs char'e. plaintiffs now fa lt the defendant for i'norin' the report) Their position is that the defendant sho ld have provided its b ses with sec rity ' ards) Does the law re.of *erit. #""@. Ili'an City) In his decision. in the li'ht of the circ *stances. the evidence clearly shows that the assailants did not have the least intention of har*in' any of the passen'ers) They ordered all the passen'ers to ali'ht and set fire on the b s only after all the passen'ers were o t of dan'er) The death of %tty) Caoron' was an ne+pected and nforseen occ rrence over which defendant had no control) %tty) Caoron' perfor*ed an act of charity and herois* in co*in' to the s ccor of the driver even in the face of dan'er) 3e deserves the ndyin' 'ratit de of the driver whose life he saved) No one sho ld bla*e hi* for an act of e+traordinary charity and altr is* which cost his life) ( t neither sho ld any bla*e be laid on the doorstep of defendant) 3is death was solely d e to the willf l acts of the lawless which defendant co ld neither prevent nor stop) D) F3E&EEO&E.The private respondents bro 'ht this s it for breach of contract of carria'e in the &e'ional Trial Co rt. the trial co rt dis*issed the co*plaint. in view of the fore'oin'. the co nterGclai* is li-ewise dis*issed) No cost):$. ire co**on carriers to install sec rity ' ards in its b ses for the protection and safety of its passen'ersC Is the fail re to post ' ards an o*ission of the d ty to Ae+ercise the dili'ence of a 'ood father of the fa*ilyB which co ld have prevented the -illin' of %tty) Caoron'C To o r *ind. the co*plaint is hereby dis*issed) Eor lac. will the presence of one or two sec rity ' ards s ffice to deter a deter*ined assa lt of the lawless and th s prevent the in5 ry co*plained ofC 0aybe so. holdin' as follows. however. On appeal. (ranch VI. dated Dece*ber !4. In the case at bench. the dili'ence de*anded by law does not incl de the postin' of sec rity ' ards in b ses) It is an obli'ation that properly belon's to the State) (esides. ently. b t a'ain. was infor*ed of the Ar *orsB that the 0osle*s intended to ta-e reven'e by b rnin' five b ses of defendant is established since the latter also tili>ed Crisanto 7eneralaos as a witness) 1et despite this infor*ation. perhaps not) In other words. the Co rt of %ppeals reversed) It held.

ired of co**on carriers) 3ence. even te*porarily. KaL two 0aranaos died beca se of a vehic lar collision involvin' one of appelleeHs vehiclesI KbL appellee received a written report fro* a *e*ber of the &e'ional Sec rity 8nit. the hand' ns and especially the 'allon of 'asoline sed by the felons all of which were bro 'ht inside the b s wo ld have been discovered. there were. appellee has failed to e+ercise the de'ree of dili'ence re. o r prono nce*ent in this decision sho ld not be constr ed as an advocacy of *andatory fris-in' in all p blic conveyances) Fhat we are sayin' is that 'iven the circ *stances obtainin' in the case at bench that. it has the d ty to post ' ards only on its b ses plyin' predo*inantly 0aranao areas) %s disc ssed in the ne+t precedin' para'raph. that the tribalMethnic 'ro p of the two deceased were plannin' to b rn five b ses of appellee o t of reven'eI and KcL appellee did nothin' J absol tely nothin' J for the safety of its passen'ers travellin' in the area of infl ence of the victi*s. and to repeat. nothin' at all. fris-in' co ld have been cond cted by hi* and perhaps by additional personnel of defendantGappellee) On hindsi'ht. . appellee * st be ad5 d'ed liable) D) F3E&EEO&E. irin' it to provide ' ards on its b ses and that the safety of citi>ens is the d ty of the 'overn*ent. the decision appealed fro* is hereby &EVE&SED and another rendered orderin' defendantGappellee to pay plaintiffsGappellants the followin'. appellee is not e+pected to assi'n sec rity ' ards on all of its b sesI if at all.B nothin' concrete whatsoever was ta-en by appellee or its e*ployees to prevent the e+ec tion of the threat) DefendantGappellee never adopted even a sin'le safety *eas re for the protection of its payin' passen'ers) Fere there available safe' ardsC Of co rse. th s preventin' the b rnin' of the b s and the fatal shootin' of the victi*) %ppelleeHs ar' *ent that there is no law re. Constab lary Sec rity 7ro p.re*ar-s of appelleeHs operations *ana'er that Awe will have o r action ) ) ) ) and IHll be the one to settle it personally. was done by defendantGappellee to protect its innocent passen'ers fro* the dan'er arisin' fro* the A0aranao threats)B It * st be observed that fris-in' is not a novelty as a safety *eas re in o r society) Sensitive places J in fact. nearly all i*portant places J have applied this *ethod of sec rity enhance*ent) 7ad'ets and devices are available in the *ar-et for this p rpose) It wo ld not have wei'hed * ch a'ainst the b d'et of the b s co*pany if s ch ite*s were *ade available to its personnel to cope p with sit ations s ch as the A0aranao threats)B In view of the constit tional ri'ht to personal privacy. is not well ta-en) To be s re. the least appellee co ld have done in response to the report was to adopt a syste* of verification s ch as fris-in' of passen'ers boardin' its b ses) Nothin'. ) ) ) ) appellee *i'ht be le'ally e+c sed fro* liability) Eris-in' of passen'ers pic-ed p alon' the ro te co ld have been i*ple*ented by the b s cond ctorI for those boardin' at the b s ter*inal. one was fris-in' passen'ers partic larly those en ro te to the area where the threats were li-ely to be carried o t s ch as where the earlier accident occ rred or the place of infl ence of the victi*s or their locality) If fris-in' was resorted to.

K%L T3%T /8(6IC &ES/ONDENT E&&ED IN &EVE&SIN7 T3E DECISION OE T3E &E7ION%6 T&I%6 CO8&T D%TED DECE0(E& !4.. %S FE66 %S DEN1IN7 /ETITIONE&HS 0OTION EO& &ECONSIDE&%TION %ND T3E S8//6E0ENT TO S%ID 0OTION.h& Co!. #""@ DIS0ISSIN7 T3E CO0/6%INT %S FE66 %S T3E CO8NTE&C6%I0. if the e*ployees of the co**on carrier co ld have prevented the act the e+ercise of the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a fa*ily) In the present case. before allowin' the* on board co ld have been e*ployed witho t violatin' the passen'erHs constit tional ri'hts) %s this Co rt inti*ated in Gacal v.rac.:<. %0ON7 OT3E&S.@@@)@@ and /=@@)@@ per appearance as attorneyHs feesI and Costs a'ainst defendantGappellee):=. 3ence. F3I6E 3O6DIN7. it is clear that beca se of the ne'li'ence of petitionerHs e*ployees.$$". P&. %S TO (E &E7%&DED %S C%SO EO&T8ITOI %ND KCL T3%T /8(6IC &ES/ONDENT CO8&T OE %//E%6S SE&IO8S61 E&&ED IN 3O6DIN7 T3%T /ETITIONE& CO86D 3%VE /&OVIDED %DEN8%TE SEC8&IT1 IN /&EDO0IN%NT61 08S6I0 %&E%S %S /%&T OE ITS D8T1 TO O(SE&VE E9T&%G O&DIN%&1 DI6I7ENCE %S % CO00ON C%&&IE&) The instant petition has no *erit) F$r+. VIO6ENT. Inc. T3%T /ETITIONE& (&E%C3ED T3E CONT&%CT OE C%&I%7E (1 ITS E%I68&E TO E9E&CISE T3E &EN8I&ED DE7&EE OE DI6I7ENCEI K(L T3%T T3E %CTS OE T3E 0%&%N%O O8T6%FS FE&E SO 7&%VE. the sei> re of the b s by 0anan''olo and his *en was *ade possible) Despite warnin' by the /hilippine Constab lary at Ca'ayan de Oro that the 0aranaos were plannin' to ta-e reven'e on the petitioner by b rnin' so*e of its b ses and the ass rance of petitionerHs operation *ana'er.<$")!@ /68S /=@@)@@ /E& %//E%&%NCE %S %TTO&NE1HS EEES. si*ple preca tionary *eas res to protect the safety of passen'ers. preferably with nonGintr sive 'ad'ets s ch as *etal detectors. Philippine Air Lines. that the necessary preca tions wo ld be ta-en. o5 Carr$a6& %rt) #O<? of the Civil Code provides that a co**on carrier is responsible for in5 ries s ffered by a passen'er on acco nt of the wilf l acts of other passen'ers..$o!&r3+ 4r&ach o5 .?"". Diosdado (ravo. a co**on carrier can be held liable for failin' to prevent a . %ND EINDIN7 EO& /&IV%TE &ES/ONDENTS (1 O&DE&IN7 /ETITIONE& TO /%1 T3E 7%&7%NT8%N S80 OE /?. s ch as fris-in' passen'ers and inspectin' their ba''a'es. petitioner did nothin' to protect the safety of its passen'ers) 3ad petitioner and its e*ployees been vi'ilant they wo ld not have failed to see that the *alefactors had a lar'e . antity of 'asoline with the*) 8nder the circ *stances.<$")!@ as death inde*nityI !L /=@.$.#L /?. this appeal) /etitioner contends. I&&ESISTI(6E. %ND EO&CEE86.

petitioner too.hi5ac-in' by fris-in' passen'ers and inspectin' their ba''a'es) Ero* the fore'oin'. nothin' was really done by petitioner to protect the safety of . isite *entioned above was not f lfilled) This r lin' applies by analo'y to the present case) Despite the report of /C a'ent 7eneralao that the 0aranaos were 'oin' to attac.$. s ch as tortio s or cri*inal acts of third persons) In the present case.:##. Court of Appeals.:4. isites *entioned above wo ld prevent the obli'or fro* bein' e+c sed fro* liability) Th s.$o!&r3+ 4. Court of Appeals. we held in Pilapil and De Guz an that the respondents therein were not ne'li'ent in failin' to ta-e special preca tions a'ainst threats to the safety of passen'ers which co ld not be foreseen. it was r led that a co**on carrier is not responsible for 'oods lost as a res lt of a robbery which is attended by 'rave or irresistible threat.no steps to safe' ard the lives and properties of its passen'ers) The sei> re of the b s of the petitioner was foreseeable and.on one of petitionerHs b ses beca se they did not e+ercise the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a fa*ily) 3ence. violence. Court of Appeals. res ltin' in the loss of the lives of several passen'ers) The event was foreseeable. or force) It is clear that the cases of Pilapil and De Guz an do not apply to the present case) %rt) #O== of the Civil Code provides that Aa co**on carrier is bo nd to carry the passen'ers as far as h *an care and foresi'ht can provide. or a''ravation of.+ !o. therefore. in s pport of its contention that the sei> re of its b s by the assailants constit tes force *a5e re) In Pilapil v. K#L the ca se of the breach of the obli'ation * st be independent of the h *an willI K!L the event * st be either nforeseeable or navoidableI K?L the occ rrence * st be s ch as to render it i*possible for the debtor to f lfill the obli'ation in a nor*al *annerI and K$L the obli'or * st be free of participation in. isite for an event to be considered force *a5e reL is lac-in') %s already stated. with d e re'ard for all the circ *stances)B Th s. petitioner sho ld be held liable for the death of %tty) Caoron') S&co!".its b ses. in De Guz an v. was not a fort ito s event which wo ld e+e*pt petitioner fro* liability) /etitioner invo-es the r lin' in Pilapil v. we held that to be considered as force *a5e re. it was held that the co**on carrier was liable for its fail re to ta-e the necessary preca tions a'ainst an approachin' typhoon. it is necessary that. Court of Appeals:#@. sin' the t*ost dili'ence of very ca tio s person.:O. and De Guz an v. the in5 ry to the creditor) The absence of any of the re.r& o5 P&.:#!. Court of Appeals:". it is evident that petitionerHs e*ployees failed to prevent the attac. th s. is inevitable) In Yobido v. in Vasquez v.r& The petitioner contends that the sei> re of its b s by the ar*ed assailants was a fort ito s event for which it co ld not be held liable) %rt) ##O$ of the Civil Code defines a fort ito s even as an occ rrence which co ld not be foreseen or which tho 'h foreseen. and. this factor of nforeseeablility Kthe second re. of which it was warned. the second re. Court of Appeals. it was held that a co**on carrier is not liable for failin' to install window 'rills on its b ses to protect passen'ers fro* in5 ries ca sed by roc-s h rled at the b s by lawless ele*ents) On the other hand. S&$7. a Ca+& o5 Forc& Ma8&. despite the report of /C a'ent 7eneralao that the 0aranaos were plannin' to b rn so*e of petitionerHs b ses and the ass rance of petitionerHs operations *ana'er KDiosdado (ravoL that the necessary preca tions wo ld be ta-en.

&ose 3einni. estion this findin' of the trial co rt) Th s.@@@)@@ as *oral da*a'es for the death of %tty) Caoron') E+e*plary Da*a'es) %rt) !!?! provides that Ain contracts and .$%. the leader of the 'ro p which had hi5ac-ed the b s. this act cannot be considered an act of ne'li'ence.passen'ers) Th$r".r$/. le'iti*ate and ille'iti*ate descendants and ascendants of the deceased *ay de*and *oral da*a'es for *ental an' ish by reason of the death of the deceased)B The trial co rt fo nd that private respondent /a lie Caoron' s ffered pain fro* the death of her h sband and worry on how to provide s pport for their *inor children. and /rince %le+ander):#=. ate co*pensation only for s ch pec niary loss s ffered by hi* as he has d ly proved)B The trial co rt fo nd that the private respondents spent /?@.$o!&r $a/%& . provides for the pay*ent of inde*nity for the death of passen'ers ca sed by the breached of contract of carria'e by a co**on carrier) Initially fi+ed in %rt) !!@< at /?. estion of da*a'es that the heirs of %tty) Caoron'.o Pr$9a. P&.h. asiGcontracts.$. estion this findin' of the trial co rt.+ 5or *a#a6&+ Fe now consider the .. the co rt *ay award e+e*plary da*a'es if the defendant acted in a wanton.or0 N&6%$6&!c& The petitioner contends that %tty) Caoron' was ' ilty of contrib tory ne'li'ence in ret rnin' to the b s to retrieve so*ethin') ( t %tty) Caoron' did not act rec-lessly) It sho ld be pointed o t that the intended tar'ets of the violence were petitioner and its e*ployees. The petitioner li-ewise does not . the Aspo se.r. in relation to %rt) !!@< thereof. the a*o nt of the said inde*nity for death has thro 'h the years been 'rad ally increased in view of the declinin' val e of the peso) It is presently fi+ed at /=@. one is entitled to an ade. rec-less. oppressive. *&c&a+&" !o. not its passen'ers) The assailantHs *otive was to retaliate for the loss of life of two 0aranaos as a res lt of the collision between petitionerHs b s and the 5eepney in which the two 0aranaos were ridin') 0anan''olo. fra d lent. or . :#<. it is liable to private respondents in the said a*o nt as act al da*a'es) 0oral Da*a'es) 8nder %rt) !!@<.& R&+-o!"&!./rivate respondents are entitled to this a*o nt) %ct al da*a'es) %rt) !#"" provides that AE+cept as provided by law or by stip lation.@@@)@@.0 o5 Co!. ordered the passen'ers to 'et off the b s as they intended to b rn it and its driver) The ar*ed *en act ally allowed %tty) Caoron' to retrieve so*ethin' fro* the b s) Fhat apparently an'ered the* was his atte*pt to help the driver of the b s by pleadin' for his life) 3e was playin' the role of the 'ood Sa*aritan) Certainly. are entitled to recover fro* the petitioner) Inde*nity for Death) %rt) #O<$ of the Civil Code. we hold that the petitioner is liable to the private respondents in the a*o nt of/#@@. in accordance with recent decisions of this Co rt.@@@)@@):#?. private respondents herein. private respondents 1asser 2in'. Since petitioner does not . G.@@@)@@ for the wa-e and b rial of %tty) Caoron'):#$. let alone rec-lessness) Fo.

*alevolent *anner)B In the present case. and the inde*nity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter)B The for* la established in decided cases for co*p tin' net earnin' capacity is as follows. :#4. dated J ly !".@@@)@@LI ?) *oral da*a'es in the a*o nt of one h ndred tho sand pesosK/#@@. 3ence.?4=)@@:!?.#!#.@@@)@@LI $) e+e*plary da*a'es in the a*o nt of one h ndred tho sand pesos K/#@@. &ose 3einni. 1asser 2in'.of his pro5ected 'ross ann al inco*e. Since %tty) Caoron' was ?O years old at the ti*e of his death. as a lawyer in the Depart*ent of %'rarian &efor* at the ti*e of his death. co*p ted based on his *onthly salary of /##. the Adefendant shall be liable for the loss of the earnin' capacity of the deceased.@@@)@@LI !) act al da*a'es in the a*o nt of thirty tho sand pesos K/?@. and contrary to the ass rance *ade by its operations *ana'er that the necessary preca tions wo ld be ta-en.:#". allowin' for necessary livin' e+penses of fifty percent K=@QL:!=. #""$. as in the instant case. the petitioner and its e*ployees did nothin' to protect the safety of passen'ers) 8nder the circ *stances. %ttorneyHs Eees) / rs ant to %rt) !!@4. was /#$4. :!#. he had a life e+pectancy of !4 !M? *ore years):!!.#!#.@@@)@@):#O. the petitioner is liable to the private respondents in the said a*o nt as co*pensation for loss of earnin' capacity) :)EREFORE. the decision. v.$@$)"@):!<. attorneyHs fees *ay be recovered when. we dee* it reasonable to award private respondents e+e*plary da*a'es in the a*o nt of /#@@. e+e*plary da*a'es are awarded) In the recent case of !ulpicio Lines. Inc) is ordered to pay the followin' a*o nts to private respondents /a lie. of the Co rt of %ppeals is hereby %EEI&0ED with the 0ODIEIC%TION that petitioner Eort ne E+press.@@@)@@LI =) attorneyHs fees in the a*o nt of fifty tho sand pesos K/=@. the private respondents are entitled to attorneyHs fees in that a*o nt) Co*pensation for 6oss of Earnin' Capacity) %rt) #O<$ of the Civil Code. provides that in addition to the inde*nity for death arisin' fro* the breach of contract of carria'e by a co**on carrier.$@$)"@LI and OL costs of s its) .@@@)@@LI <) co*pensation for loss of earnin' capacity in the a*o nt of two *illion one h ndred twentyGone tho sand fo r h ndred fo r pesos and ninety centavos K/!. Court of Appeals. 7ross Necessary Net earnin' P 6ife + Capacity E+pectancy %nn al Inco*e G 6ivin' E+penses 6ife e+pectancy is e. in relation to %rt) !!@< thereof. ivalent to two thirds K!M?L * ltiplied by the difference of ei'hty K4@L and the a'e of the deceased):!@.@@@)@@ as attorneyHs fees to be reasonable) 3ence. Inc. and /rince %le+ander Caoron'. the petitioner acted in a wanton and rec-less *anner) Despite warnin' that the 0aranaos were plannin' to ta-e reven'e a'ainst the petitioner by b rnin' so*e of its b ses. 3is pro5ected 'ross ann al inco*e.@@=)@@):!$. #) death inde*nity in the a*o nt of fifty tho sand pesos K/=@. we held an award of /=@. his total earnin' capacity a*o nts to /!.

#OGRT OF $PP2$/S and $/$T#O TR$NSPORT$TION #OMP$NN. No. on official b siness abroad) #$S2 DI*2ST 0Transportation /a 1. In consideration of the ri.ers and . underta8es to perfor+ certain duties to the public as the la i+poses.hest de. hi+ to a hospital. but eventuall.ence fro+ co++on carriers in the safe transport of their passen.ed an action for recover.ree of dili. and "uena.eEs vision and sustained a per+anent scar. the public to en. and holds itself liable for an. IN#.ers. it does not. a stone hurled b. Petitioner Pilapil. an unidentified b.ers such as the stonin.ers and . %. ho ever. conc r) &uisu bin'. RespondentEs personnel lost no ti+e in brin. %%. Puno. passen. a co++on carrier does not . of its passen. on board respondentEs bus as hit above his e. #$ DOS2 PI/$PI/ vs. +a8e the carrier an insurer of the absolute safet.R.in. Petitioner lod. Dece+ber ((. "(&"'.. in this caseA 92/D. breach thereof. the #ourt of $ppeals reversed said decision. On appeal. 4hether or not co++on carriers assu+e ris8s to passen.stander. and all ris8s to passen..e in the business of transportin.li.a. ::: 4hile the la reBuires the hi. ::: . It +erel. #Chair an$. 0*.ht . Pilapil vs.es before the #ourt of First Instance of #a+arines Sur hich the latter .ence a. ISSG2. &'%'1 F$#TS.ainst the+. "ellosillo.oods. Thus.ive its consent to beco+e an insurer of an.oods. of da+a.SO OR*ERE*. lost his left e.ranted.ranted to it b.e b. petitioner partiall.ers and creates a presu+ption of ne.

could have prevented or stopped the act or o+ission. a stran.er is onl. the+.ees throu. the de.$rticle &63?.er does not accord the latter a cause of action a. #learl. if the co++on carrier5s e+plo. under the above provision. a tort co++itted b.ence of a . as in the instant case. .ent o+ission b.li.ree of care essential to be e:ercised b. to a passen.ence of other passen.ers. $ co++on carrier is responsible for in<uries suffered b. co++itted hen the sa+e could have been foreseen and prevented b..er hich causes in<ur.li.er on account of the ilful acts or ne. under the sa+e provision.ainst the carrier.ence for hich a co++on carrier is held responsible is the ne.ers.h the e:ercise of the dili. it is to be noted that hen the violation of the contract is due to the illful acts of stran. the co++on carrier for the protection of its passen.ees to prevent the tort fro+ bein. Further.ers or of stran. that of a . The ne.ood father of a fa+il.ood father of a fa+il.li. the carrier5s e+plo. a passen.