You are on page 1of 17


FACTS: On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the
train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He was an employee
of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could
ride the train for free. When he was nearing his
destination at about 7pm, he arose from his seat even
though the train was not at full stop.
1. When he was about to alight from the train
(which was still slightly moving) he accidentally
stepped on a sack of watermelons which he
failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim.
2. This caused him to lose his balance at the door
and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train
and he suffered other serious injuries. He was
dragged a few meters more as the train slowed
3. It was established that the employees of MRC
were negligent in piling the sacks of
watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact
that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to
exercise diligence in alighting from the train as
he did not wait for it to stop.

ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages.

HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is
slowing down is a common practice and a lot of people
are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco
has the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was
by no means so risky for him to get off while the train
was yet moving as the same act would have been in
an aged or feeble person. He was also ignorant of the
fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there
were no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly

The Court also elucidated on the distinction between
the liability of employers under Article 2180 and their
liability for breach of contract [of carriage]:

Manresa: Whether negligence occurs the course of the performance of undertaking or in itself the source contractual undertaking obligation. an incident in a contractual of an extraits essential Vinculum Juris: (def) It means “an obligation of law”. NOTES: But. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. figuratively speaking. that is to say. has caused damage to another. the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extracontractual liability to such person. without willful intent. characteristics are identical. he is not liable for the acts of the latter. whatever done within the scope of his employment or not. . The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which. if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant. if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured. or the right of the obligee to enforce a civil matter in a court of law.These two fields. concentric. but by mere negligence or inattention.

Upon arrival at their destination. It is a recognized rules that the relation between carrier and passengers does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s premises. 3. to be determined from the circumstances. and as plaintiffs did not appeals the award of P3. she was no longer a passenger and therefore the contract of carriage terminated. ISSUE: WON the contractual obligation between the parties ceases the moment the passenger alighted form the vehicle HELD: On the question whether the liability of the carrier. Even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated. still persists. Decision MODIFIED.00 the increase by the CA of the award to P6. 4. together with their minor children. although stopping the bus. He was followed by her daughter Raquel. Raquel. While the father was still on the running board awaiting for the conductor to give his baggage. Rule 1). the presence of said passenger near the bus was not unreasonable and the duration of responsibility still exists. there was no utmost diligence. Firstly. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Plaintiffs husband and wife (Spouses Beltran). Here. the driver. Only question raised in the briefs can be passed upon. Averment of quasi-delict is permissible under the Rules of Court. In this case. 2. although incompatible with the contract of carriage. did not put off the engine.LA MALLORCA V. The Rules of Court allows the plaintiffs to allege causes of action in the alternative. boarded a La Mallorca bus. herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver pursuant to Art. La Mallorco contended that when the child was killed. 1.000. the bus started to run so that the father had to jump.00 cannot be sustained. holding La Mallorca liable for quasi-delict and ordering it to pay P6. as to the child who was already led a place 5 meters from the bus under the contract of carrier. . Lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff which was affirmed by CA. Secondly. 2. we rule in the affirmative. who was near the bus. be they compatible with each other or not (Sec.000 plus P400.000. The father returned to the bus to get a piece of baggage which was not unloaded. he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal and while the latter was unloading cargo. plaintiffs and their children alighted from the bus and the father led them to a shaded spot about 5 meters from the vehicle. was run over and killed. 2180 of NCC.

1755.000 were filed with the Tarlac CFI against the carrier. FACTS: Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito boarded a passenger truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines driven by Francisco Bandonell. Garces died due to drowning while Necesito suffered injuries. and whether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier exercised the diligence required by law NECESITO V.dismissed the complaints holding that the accident was exclusively due to fortuitous events. The driver lost control. 3. Thus. ISSUE: WON the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle. 1. with a due regard for the all the circumstances. with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. and after wrecking the bridge's wooden rails. and in case of a passenger's death or injury the carrier bears the burden of satisfying the court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence required. his failure to exercise the "utmost" degree of diligence that the law requires. the truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep. and the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of the carrier’s liability is the fact that the passenger has no privity with the manufacturer of the defective equipment. The truck entered a wooden bridge. the manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier. In this connection. but the front wheels swerved to the right. while the carrier usually has. While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers. The trial court found that the bus was proceeding slowly due to the bad condition of the road and that accident was due to the fracture of the truck’s right steering knuckle which could not be known by the carrier. it HELD: Yes. 4. Two actions for damages and attorney's fees totalling over P85. whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it. he has no remedy against him. hence. Carrier’s liability rests upon negligence. . a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer. 2. The carrier pleaded that the accident was due to "engine or mechanical trouble" independent or beyond the control of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. PARAS RELATED LAW: Civil Code: ART.

he had been having periodic dizzy spells and had been suffering from general debility andnervousness 6. Notwithstanding said complaint.PHILIPPINE AIRLINES V. defendant allowed the pilot to continue flying. notwithstanding the diligent efforts of the Samson to avert an accident. instead of expert and proper medical treatment called for by the nature and severity of his injuries. January 8. the airplane crash landed beyond the runway. On attempting to land the plane at Daet airport. dizziness and headache everytime he flew as a co-pilot and everytime he went to the clinic no less than 25 times We also find the imputation of gross negligence by respondent court to PAL for having allowed Capt.000. and was never given any examination 5. that the jolt caused the head of the plaintiff to hit and break through the thick front windshield of the airplane causing him severe brain concussion.00 as attorney’s fees d. P1988. Bernardo and Dr. CA: modified entitled to the legal rate of interest n unearned income ISSUE: WON PAL was negligent and was liable HELD: YES. P5. Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur.00 for moral damages c.00 Even the doctors presented by PAL admit vital facts about the brain injury. 1951 to be correct . Samson flew as copilot on a regular flight from Manila to Legaspi with stops at Daet. with Captain Bustamante as commanding pilot of a PAL C-47 plane 2. Reyes admits that due to the incident.000. December 21. PAL simply referred him to a company physician.000. 1951: Jesus V. CA AND SAMSON FACTS: December 1950. wounds and abrasions on the forehead with intense pain 3.00 as expenses of litigation 7. Samson complained to PAL through its authorized official about the slow reaction and poor judgment of Captain Bustamante. P50.000. Delfin Bustamante to fly on that fateful day of the accident on January 8. who limited the treatment to the exterior injuries without examining the severe brain concussion 4. affirmed with slight modification in that the correct amount of compensatory damages is P204. Captain Bustamante due to his very slow reaction and poor judgment overshot the airfield and as a result. Several days after the accident. the plaintiff continuously complained of his fainting spells.00 as unearned income or damages b. 1.000. Dr. 1953: he was discharged due to his physical disabilityCFI: PAL to pay the Samson a. a general medical practitioner. PAL called back the Samson to active duty as co-pilot. P20.

or voluntary act. 6. 1755. When the employee’s lack of due care contributed to his death or injury. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. the employer shall not be liable for compensation. Article 2205 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines “damages may be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Art. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the employment. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. workmen. One month prior to the crash-landing. 1712. At least. Samson’s compassion would not upturn the truth about the crash-landing Art. considering that a miscalculation would not only cause the death of the crew but also of the passengers. Common carriers. even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. Art. the latter and the Art. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. If the mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious negligence. if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. Nos. A common carrier is bound to carry the passenger safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. He admittedly had tumor of the nasopharynx (nose) the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. 1733. plaintiff warned him that they were not in the vicinity of Daet but above the town of Ligao. the compensation shall be equitably reduced.Bustamante was sick. The plane hit outside the airstrip. The fact that the complaint was not in writing does not detract anything from the seriousness thereof. 5. and 7. according to all the circumstances of each case. 1756. The report was prepared by his pilot and because the latter pleaded that he had a family too and would have nowhere to go if he lost his job. the pilot would hit the Mayon Volcano had not Samson warned him." PAL would want to tie Samson to the report he signed about the crash-landing. In another instance. mechanics or other employees. with a due regard for all the circumstances. Art. when the pilot was preparing to land in Daet. 1711. while the extraordinary diligence for . Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734. and 1745. the law presumes the employer negligent imposing upon it the burden of proving that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. or drunkenness. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death or injuries to their laborers.

The correct amount of compensatory damages upon which legal interest shall accrue from the filing of the complaint is P204. 4. If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury. Hermogenes Buencamino. On appeal to the CA.00 as herein computed and not P198.000.employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. accused-appellant. They boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company at about 2pm. But the lower court acquitted Milan and Buencamino.000.00 BRINAS V. the train suddenly picked up speed. the assistant conductor and Clemente Brinas for Double Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence. Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the railroad station in Tagkawayan. 3. The two were bound for Lusacan in Tiaong. The old woman and the child stumbled from the train causing them to fall down the tracks and were hit by an oncoming train. ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling the accusedappellant was negligent . Lusacan!” 2. 2209 and 2212 of the Civil Code govern when interest shall be computed. When they were near the door. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag at 8pm. Quezon. The old woman walked towards the train exit carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other. 1957. Quezon for his 55-year old mother Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo. unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiffs fellow-worker. 1. Clemente Brinas. Articles 1169. PEOPLE FACTS: In the afternoon of January 6. causing their instant death. shouted “Lusacan. the driver. respondent CA affirmed the decision. the employer shall not be answerable. A criminal information was filed against Victor Milan. the train slowed down and the conductor.

3. Cesar L. The appellant was negligent because his announcement was premature and erroneous. some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit. where he underwent treatment for 3 months. There was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from the findings. 1. the bus collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite direction.40. is a corporation engaged in the business of transporting passengers by land for compensation in the Bicol provinces and one of the lines it operates is the one connecting Legaspi City. As an aftermath. Albay with Naga City. He was moved later to the Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on and stayed there for another 2 months. One of the buses which Ammen Transportation was operating is Bus 31. Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to save his life. but before reaching his destination. excluding medical fees which were paid by Ammen Transporation. ISAAC V. Without said announcement. he incurred expenses amounting to P623. Camarines Sur. the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked and picked up speed.HELD: No. Ammen Transportation Co. Inc. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. After 4 days. On 31 May 1951. 2. he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco. AL AMMEN TRANPORT CO FACTS: A. For these services. Albay bound for Pili. Camarines Sur. L. Albay. Isaac brought an action against Ammen Transportation for damages alleging that the collision which resulted in the loss of his left arm was mainly due to the gross incompetence and recklessness of the driver of . there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped. The premature announcement prompted the two victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit.. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitionerappellant. Isaac was rushed to a hospital in Iriga. Isaac boarded said bus as a passenger paying the required fare from Ligao. 4. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark. for it took a full 3 minutes more before the next barrio of Lusacan was reached. as a result of which Isaac’s left arm was completely severed and the severed portion fell inside the bus. ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop.

The court after trial found that the collision occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the pick-up car and not to that of the driver of the bus it appearing that the latter did everything he could to avoid the same but that notwithstanding his efforts. in justifying this extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier.” 3. This extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that frequently occur in connection with rapid modern transportation. Ammen Transportation set up as special defense that the injury suffered by Isaac was due entirely to the fault or negligence of the driver of the pick-up car which collided with the bus driven by its driver and to the contributory negligence of Isaac himself. Rationale for extraordinary diligence requirement for a common carrier The Code Commission. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. 6.the bus operated by Ammen Transportation and that Ammen Transporation incurred in culpa contractual arising from its non-compliance with its obligation to transport Isaac safely to his destination. This high standard of care is imperatively demanded by the preciousness of human life and by the consideration that every person must in every way be safeguarded against all injury. said “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. with due regard for all circumstances.” 2. and 1745. Nos. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. “ 5.” 4. Isaac appealed. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. 1. Article 1733 NCC Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that “Common carriers. with costs against Isaac. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. and 7. with a due regard for all the circumstances. Principles governing liability of a common carrier From the legal provisions. Article 1756 NCC Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that “In case of death of or injuries to passengers. 7. . 1735. 5. Article 1755 NCC Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides that “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. the court dismissed the complaint. As a consequence. he was not able to avoid it. the following restatement of the principles governing the liability of a common carrier can be made: (1) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. 5. 6.

e. was running at a moderate speed because it had just stopped at the school zone of Matacong. Facts. The driver of the bus. Considering all the circumstances. the fact that he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into account. swerved to avoid reckless pick-up car Herein. having due regard for all the circumstances. the rear left side of the bus was hit by the pick-up car. Thus. such however cannot always be expected from one who is placed suddenly in a predicament where he is not given enough time to take the proper course of action as he should under ordinary circumstances. (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person. it was held that “where a carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden emergency. and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel. And notwithstanding all these efforts. Albay. upon seeing the manner in which the pick-up was then running. The pick-up car was at full speed and was running outside of its proper lane. immediately prior to the collision. and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part which renders the company. it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. Isaac guilty of contributory negligence .There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of each case. authorities abound where failure to observe the same degree of care that as ordinary prudent man would exercise under ordinary circumstances when confronted with a sudden emergency was held to be warranted and a justification to exempt the carrier from liability. i. or injury to. without endangering the safety of his passengers. the driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision and this relieves the transport company from liability under the law. Bus 31. swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road until its front and rear wheels have gone over the pile of stones or gravel situated on the rampart of the road. the peak of which was about 3 feet high. 8. 6. Coolness and accuracy of judgment required in ordinary circumstances cannot be expected in sudden emergency. Polangui. For this reason. liable. One who is placed in such a predicament cannot exercise such coolness or accuracy of judgment as is required of him under ordinary circumstances and he cannot therefore be expected to observe the same judgment. Said driver could not move the bus farther right and run over a greater portion of the pile. (3) a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of. Acts of a prudent man in situation done While the position taken by Isaac. and he is not held to the same degree of care that he would otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and conditions. 7. appeals more to the sense of caution that one should observe in a given situation to avoid an accident or mishap. that the driver of the bus should have stopped the bus to allow the other vehicle to pass rather than squeezing between the oncoming pick-up and the pile of gravel. care and precaution as in the latter. Bus running at moderate speed. passengers.

It is for this reason that the collision resulted in the severance of said left arm from the body of appellant thus doing him a great damage. perhaps the injury would have been avoided as is the case with the other passengers. At this juncture. that at the same time the Biñan bus was about 100 meters away likewise going northward and following the direction of the calesa. BATANGAS TRANSPORT CO V. then driven by Makahiya was at a distance of several meters facing the BTCO bus coming from the opposite direction. CAGUIMBAL FACTS: Caguimbal who was a paying pasenger of Batangas Transportation Company (BTCO) bus died when the bus of the Biñan Transportation Company (Binan) which was coming from the opposite direction and a calesa managed by Makahiya. which was then ahead of the Biñan bus met an accident. Had he not placed his left arm on the window sill with a portion thereof protruding outside. 3. Without diminishing its speed of about seventy (70) kilometers an hour. and that no recovery can be had for an injury which but for such negligence would not have been sustained.Herein. It is apparent that Isaac is guilty of contributory negligence. the Biñan bus passed . that upon seeing the Biñan bus the driver of the BTCO bus dimmed his light. the Biñan bus following the calesa swerved to its left in an attempt to pass between the BTCO bus and the calesa. 1. the driver slowed down his bus swerving it farther to the right in order to stop 2. It is to be noted that Isaac was the only victim of the collision. when Isaac boarded the bus in question. this being his position in the bus when the collision took place. that as the calesa and the BTCO bus were passing each other from the opposite directions. this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by Isaac in this case. 9. It is the prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for a passenger on a railroad voluntarily or inadvertently to protrude his arm. or any other part of his body through the window of a moving car beyond the outer edge of the window or outer surface of the car. hand. No recovery due to negligence by passenger Although contributory negligence cannot relieve the carrier of its liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762. so as to come in contact with objects or obstacles near the track. he seated himself on the left side thereof resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the window. a calesa. A passenger requested the conductor of BTCO to stop as he was going to alight. elbow. new Civil Code). and when he heard the signal of the conductor.

the width of which being more than sufficient to accommodate the bus. he must have known. The widow and children of Caguimbal sued to recover damages from the BTCO. 5. BTCO has not proven the exercise of extraordinary diligence on its part. Ilagan. Issue: Whether BTCO is liable to pay damages for failure to exercise extraordinary diligence? Held: YES. in view of which the Biñan bus hit the left side of the BTCO bus and then the calesa. The second and all other posts supporting the top of the left side of the BTCO bus were completely smashed and half of the back wall to the left was ripped open. he overtook Makahiya's horse-driven rig or calesa and passed between the same and the BTCO bus despite the fact that the space available was not big enough therefor. BTCO appealed to SC. in turn. CFI dismissed the complaint insofar as the BTCO is concerned. Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides the general rule that extraordinary diligence must be exercised by the driver of a bus in the vigilance for the safety of his passengers. Yet. to include therein.through the space between the BTCO bus and the calesa hitting first the left side of the BTCO bus with the left front corner of its body and then bumped and struck the calesa which was completely wrecked. The latter. The record shows that. that the Biñan bus would overtake the calesa at about the time . he could have and should have seen to it — had he exercised "extraordinary diligence" — that his bus was completely outside the asphalted portion of the road. without prejudice to plaintiff's right to sue Biñan and Ilagan. that the driver was seriously injured and the horse was killed. Subsequently. the Caguimbals amended their complaint. 4. a major factor in the occurrence of the accident which resulted in the death of Pedro Caguimbal.As a consequence of this occurrence. the BTCO bus driver drove partly to the right shoulder of the road and partly on the asphalted portion thereof. apart from others who were injured. The recklessness of the driver of Binan was. said Biñan and Ilagan. therefore. 6. Caguimbal and Tolentino died. manifestly. When the BTCO bus driver slowed down his BTCO bus to permit said passenger to disembark. in order to permit one of them to disembark. Indeed. The BTCO bus suffered damages for the repair of its damaged portion. as defendants. and fully within the shoulder thereof. CA reversed said decision and rendered judgment for Caguimbal. filed a third-party complaint against the Biñan and its driver. as driver of the Biñan bus.

a fierce fire started. Bataclan. BATACLAN V. 4. though he must have suffered physical injuries. and. It is true that the driver of the Biñan bus should have slowed down or stopped. was reckless in not doing so. It appeared that gasoline began to leak from the overturned bus. hence.when the latter and BTCO bus would probably be on the same line. burning the four passengers trapped inside. including Bataclan. 102 PHIL 181 (1957) FACTS: Juan Bataclan rode Bus No. and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the new Civil Code. but for the physical injuries suffered by him . Perez was thus under obligation to avoid a situation which would be hazardous for his passengers. that at the time the fire started. driven by Saylon. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved. was still alive. The trial court was of the opinion that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was not the overturning of the bus. 2. shortly after midnight. he had no especial obligations toward the passengers of the BTCO unlike the BTCO bus driver whose duty was to exercise "utmost" or "extraordinary" diligence for their safety. and that the space between the BTCO bus and the "calesa" would not be enough to allow the Biñan bus to go through. Salud Villanueva. One of them carried a torch and when he approached the bus. including himself and his co-passengers who were unable to leave it. perhaps serious. In an action based on a contract of carriage. brought the present suit to recover damages from Mariano Medina. MEDINA. and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier (Article 1756. but. The bus fell into a canal and turned turtle. but rather. and. 3. While the bus was running very fast on a highway. Four passengers could not get out. his widow. 1. the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances. one of the front tires burst. By reason of his death. the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought for by the passenger. By the contract of carriage. and so damages were awarded. in her name and in behalf of her five minor children. make their safety dependent upon the diligence of the Biñan driver. not for his death. the fire that burned the bus. new Civil Code). on opposite sides of the asphalted portions of the road. Ten men came to help. 30 of the Medina Transportation.

' And more comprehensively. the Court holds that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus. produces the injury. In other words. made not only by the passengers. They. by the driver and the conductor themselves. and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus. the rescuers had to carry a light with them. Under the circumstances of the case. which. and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. and without which the result would not have occurred. the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier. in natural and continuous sequence. and that because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning). the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. or at least. the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. . the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help. cause of death is the Proximate cause is 'that cause. through is driver and its conductor. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. According to the witness. What is more. specially over a large area. 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury. the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was. but most probably. the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected. either immediately or by setting other events in motion. this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back. as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. can be smelt and directed even from a distance. gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus. the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause.ISSUE: What is the proximate cause of death of the four passengers HELD: The proximate overturning of the bus. and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available. this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled.

Carrier not mandated to require opening of baggage Before the box containing the firecrackers were allowed to be loaded in the bus by the conductor. since its “opening was folded and tied with abaca.351. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. Nocum. 1. 1735. 5.’s Bus 120. Refusal by the passenger to have the package opened was no excuse because.00 for actual damages and P500.” 4. NOCUM V.Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734. loaded in said bus and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous items by a co-passenger. Nocum filed a case against Laguna Tayabas Bus for damages. Article 1755 NCC Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides that “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. and 7. 3. Municipality of Bay. contained in a box. inquiry was made with the passenger carrying the same as to what was in it. The CFI of Batangas (Civil Case 834) sentenced Laguna Tayabas to pay Nocum the sum of P1. 6. a passenger in Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. Article 1733 NCC Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that “Common carriers. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO FACTS: Herminio L. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. . 2. was injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Article 1733 is not as unbending. the contents of the box could have been discovered and the accident avoided. the law does not require as much.” Even it that may be true. Article 1733 NCC not too exacting. “if proper and rigid inspection were observed by the defendant. Article 1756 NCC Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that “In case of death of or injuries to passengers. and 1745. while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. Nos. with a due regard for all the circumstances. with legal interest from the filing of the complaint plus costs. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. employees should call the police if there were packages containing articles against company regulations. 2. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. which was then making a trip within the barrio of Dita. as stated by Dispatcher Cornista.00 as attorney’s fees.” According to the judge of the lower court. Laguna. according to all the circumstances of each case. 1. Laguna Tayabas appealed.

considering how easily the duty to inspect can be made an excuse for mischief and abuse. 7.” “In fact. what must be importantly considered is not so much the infringement of the fundamental sacred rights of the particular passenger involved. constitutional boundaries are already in danger of being transgressed. the constitutional rights of the passenger. Resort to decisions of foreign jurisdiction similar to the present one Decisions in other jurisdictions evidently because of the paucity of local precedents squarely in point. Police officers acting without judicial authority secured in the manner provided by law are not beyond the pale of constitutional inhibitions designed to protect individual human rights and liberties. to its conductors must be understood. after the passenger had already declared that the box contained mere clothes and other miscellanies. could not have justified invasion of a constitutionally protected domain. but beyond this. allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the passengers in regard to their common safety. in the interest of the common safety of all. not necessarily to force the passenger to open his baggage.” 5. the assistance of the police authorities may be solicited. Withal. 6. Passengers presumed that a passenger that will not take with him anything dangerous While it is true the passengers of Laguna Tayabas’ bus should not be made to suffer for something over which they had no control. above all. when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate the contrary. 8. Proper understanding of the service manual issued by Laguna Tayabas When there are sufficient indications that the representations of the passenger regarding the nature of his baggage may not be true. Article 1755 repeats this same qualification: “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search.for it reasonably qualifies the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the safety of the passengers transported by them to be “according to all the circumstances of each case. Calling a policeman to his aid in compelling the passenger to submit to more rigid inspection. but the constant threat any contrary ruling would pose on the right of privacy of all passengers of all common carriers. with due regard for all the circumstances. It is in this sense that the service manual issued by Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. In other words. It is to be presumed that a passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-passengers. but to conduct the needed investigation consistent with the rules of propriety and. as in the case at bar. not to speak of his own. Right to privacy Not to be lightly considered be the right to privacy to which each passenger is entitled. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger’s baggage when such is not outwardly perceptible. fairness demands that in measuring a common carrier’s duty towards its passengers. emphasize that there is need for evidence of circumstances indicating cause or causes for apprehension that the passenger’s baggage is .

it is said: ‘It may be stated briefly. only where the conduct of this passenger had been such before the injury as to induce a reasonably prudent and vigilant conductor to believe that there was reasonable ground to apprehend violence and danger to the other passengers. Louisville The principle that must control the servants of the carrier in a case is correctly stated in the opinion in the case of Clarke v. R. Shields as cited in Clark vs. 32 S. (N. S. The trial court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendant. Vincent. v. In the opinion in that case it is said: ‘It was but a short period of time after the alcohol was spilt when it was set on fire and the accident occurred. 8 Ky. 10. In fact. Co. Louisville “The opinion quotes with approval from the case of Gulf. 742. 135 S.R. Co. W. Rep. 839. Shields. Co. 703. & S. 29 S. (20 Ky L. Wood v. Principle controlling servants of the carrier. Louisville & N. L. It cannot be successfully denied that Harris had the right as a passenger to carry baggage on the train. W. 1049. Louisville & N. Rep. Gulf vs. 590. W. R. C. Civ. R. and injury is done. R. Louisville & N. by reason of which he was severely injured. 49 S. 266] . that then the company is responsible. Co. Principle controlling servants of the carrier. A.) 133. We think it is equally clear that. and doubtless knew that he had the sack on the seat with him. 42 S. W. 33 L. and it was not shown that appellant’s employees knew that the jug contained alcohol. Co. 142 Ky. Co. and if he neglects this reasonable duty. In the opinion. v. 96 S. [Quinn v. affirming the judgment. 652. R. in which case the plaintiff was injured by alcohol which had been carried upon the train by another passenger.W. Louisville & N. 898. 652. and that he had a right to carry it in a sack if he chose to do so. 9 Tex. it is not shown that the conductor or any other employee knew that Harris had a jug with him until it fell out of the sack. in the absence of some intimation or circumstance indicating that the sack contained something dangerous to other passengers.dangerous and that it is failure of the common carrier’s employee to act in the face of such evidence that constitutes the cornerstone of the common carrier’s liability in cases similar to the present one. 231. vs. Louisville & N. R. 349. it was not the duty of appellant’s conductor or any other employee to open the sack and examine its contents. W. that otherwise the railroad is not responsible. F. It ignited and exploded. and in that case asserting it to be the duty of the conductor of the railroad train to use all reasonable means to prevent such injury. 1120). 29 Ky. App. Another passenger took a quantity of gasoline into the same coach in which Clarke was riding. though the conductor had collected his fare. 9. Renfro. 101 Ky. in assuming the liability of a railroad to its passengers for injury done by another passenger. Clark vs. In that case Clarke was a passenger on the defendant’s train.