CASE DIGESTS

LRT 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 the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and
was killed when a train came and ran over him.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver,
(Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent).
The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the
heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero
jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and
replacing it with nominal damages.

The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad
and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused
by the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the
LRTA and operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert
evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death.
(2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable.
(3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.

HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to
exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier.
(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New
Civil Code.
(3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages.

RATIO:

Liability of LRTA – Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code

A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence
in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not
only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises
where they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.

Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through
the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence
of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise
of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such
death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by
simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or
negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to
prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under
Art. 2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is
established, the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did
not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision
of its employees.

Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability
of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other
hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort
and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual
and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a
liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the
contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have
itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between
the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the
rules on tort to apply.

Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is

untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which
has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an
established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The
award was deleted.