You are on page 1of 6

01. Bacarro vs. Castaño, G.R. No.

L-34597, November 5, 1982

Facts:

Castaño boarded the jeep at Oroquieta bound for Jimenez.


While approaching Sumasap Bridge, a cargo truck coming from
behind blew its horn to signal its intention to overtake the jeep. Without
changing its speed, the jeep gave way by swerving to the right, such
that both vehicles ran side by side, and that thereafter as the jeep was
left behind, its driver was unable to return it to its former lane and
instead it diagonally ran down an inclined terrain towards the right until
it fell into a ditch pinning down and crushing Castaño’s right leg.

Issue:

Whether or not the jeepney driver shall be held liable.

Ruling:

Yes, the jeepney driver shall be held liable.

Art. 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, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.”

Here, the hazards of modern transportation demand


extraordinary diligence. A common carrier is vested with public
interest. Under the new Civil Code, instead of being required to
exercise mere ordinary diligence a common carrier is exhorted to carry
the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide
"using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons." (Article 1755).
Once a passenger in the course of travel is injured, or does not reach
his destination safely, the carrier and driver are presumed to be at
fault.
02. Dangwa Transportation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95582
October 7, 1991

Facts:

While the passenger bus is at full stop, and the victim Cudiamat
was already on the platform of the said bus, it suddenly made a
sudden jerk movement as the driver commenced to accelerate the
bus. Cudiamat fell off, the bus ran over him, resulting to his death.

Issue:

Whether or not the bus driver is negligent and liable for damages.

Ruling:

Yes, the bus driver is negligent and liable for damages.

In Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 900 (1929), it was held
that, “it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time
the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing
the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same.”

Here, the premature acceleration of the bus in this case was a


breach of such duty. The victim herein, by stepping and standing on
the platform of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is
entitled to all the rights and protection pertaining to such a
contractual relation. Hence, it has been held that the duty which the
carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding
the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.
03. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84458
November 6, 1989

Facts:

While the crane of Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation was being


operated, Anacleto Viana, one of the passengers of M/V Antonia who
had already disembarked an hour ago from said vessel, remembering
that some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, went back and
the crane hit him, pinning him between the side of the vessel and the
crane. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where he later died.

Issue: Whether or not the victim is still considered as a passenger.

Ruling:

Yes, the victim is still considered as a passenger.

In La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 7 SCRA 739 (1966), it


was held that, “It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of
carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger
alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at
the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a
reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's
premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within
this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances.”

Here, even if he had already disembarked an hour earlier, his


presence in petitioner's premises was not without cause. the victim had
to claim his baggage which was possible only one (1) hour after the
vessel arrived since it was admittedly standard procedure in the case
of petitioner's vessels that the unloading operations shall start only after
that time. Consequently, under the foregoing circumstances, the
victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of said carrier at the
time of his tragic death.
04. Raynera vs. Hiceta, G.R. No. 120027, April 21, 1999

Facts:

Reynaldo Raynera crashed his motorcycle into the left rear


portion of the truck trailer, which was without tail lights. Due to the
collision, Reynaldo sustained head injuries. He was rushed to the
hospital but upon arrival thereat, Raynera was pronounced dead on
arrival.

Issue:

Whether or not the truck driver’s negligence was the proximate


cause of the death of Raynera.

Ruling:

No, the truck driver’s negligence was NOT the proximate cause of
the death of Raynera.

In Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA


695, 703, it was held that, “Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not
do. Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.”

Here, the direct cause of the accident was the negligence of the
victim. Traveling behind the truck, he had the responsibility of avoiding
bumping the vehicle in front of him. He was in control of the situation.
His motorcycle was equipped with headlights to enable him to see
what was in front of him. He was traversing the service road where the
prescribed speed limit was less than that in the highway.
05. Maranan vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967

Facts:

Rogelio Corachea, was a passenger in a taxicab owned and


operated by Pascual Perez when he was stabbed and killed by the
driver, Simeon Valenzuela. Antonia Maranan, Rogelio's mother, filed
an action at CFI Batangas for damages from Perez and Valenzuela for
the death of her son.

Issue:

Whether or not the carrier is liable.

Ruling:

Yes, the carier is liable.

Art. 1759 of the Civil Code provides that, “Common carriers are
liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence
or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may
have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the
orders of the common carriers.”

Here, it is the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers and similar
employees with due regard not only to their technical competence
and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total
personality, including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and
social attitude.
06. LRTA vs. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003

Facts:

Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of


the LRT. He got into an altercation with SG Escartin. They had a fistfight
and Navidad fell onto the tracks, the train came and ran over him,
resulting in his death.

Issue:

Whether or not LRTA is liable for the death of Navidad.

Ruling:

Yes, LRTA is liable for the death of Navidad.

In Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423, it was
held that, “The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely
using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for
all circumstances.”

Here, the foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage


and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that
contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required
of the common carrier.