PNR vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

217 SCRA 401
The imputation of culpa on the part of PNR as a result of the collision
between its train bound to Manila from La Union, with Baliwag Transit bus
at the railroad crossing on the road going to Hagonoy Bulacan on August
10, 1974, is the subject of petition at bar directed against the judgement
of affirmance rendered by respondent court.
FACTS:
The case arose from a collision of a passenger express train of defendant PNR,
coming from San Fernando, La Union and bound to Manila. It collided at railroad
crossing at Barrio Balungao, Calumpit Bulacan at around 1:30 PM on August 10
1974. The collision resulted to damage to plaintiffs bus and passengers, eighteen
of whom died and 53 were reported wounded. Plaintiff alleging that the proximate
cause of the collision was the negligence and imprudence of defendant PNR and its
locomotive engineer, Honorio Cirbado, in operating its train in a busy intersection
without any bars, semaphores, signal lights, flagman or switch man. On the other
hand, defendant endeavoured to show that the proximate and immediate cause of
the collision was the negligence of the bus driver, failure to make a stop before
ascending the railtrack, and failure to stop, look & listen a violation of sec 42 (d)
of RA 4316. (Land Transportation and Traffic Code)
ISSUES:
1. Who between the petitioner and respondent was negligent in the
operation of their vehicle?
2. Whether or not PNR is immune from suit
HELD:
1. There is no admissible evidence that the bus driver did not take
precautionary measure in traversing the railtrack. Contributory negligence
cannot be ascribed to the bus driver for he has taken necessary precautions
before passing over the railway track. The failure of PNR, to put a cross bar,
signal light, flagman or switchman and semaphores is evidence of negligence
on their part.
2. By the doctrine of implied powers, the power to sue and be sued is implicit
from the faculty to transact private business.
PNR is not exercising
governmental powers, in such it is not immune from suit.
Ratio:
A railroad company has been adjudged guilty of negligence and civilly liable for
damages when it failed to install semaphores, or where it does not see to it that its
flagman or switchman comply with their duties faithfully, to motorist injured by a

crossing train as long as he had crossed without negligence on his part. (Lilius Vs.
MRR, 39 Phil. 758)