Cesar Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen Trans. Co.

G.R.No. L-9671 August 23, 1957

BENGZON, J

Cesar Isaac boarded bus No. 31 of A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc from Albay to
Camarines Sur. But before reaching his destination, the bus collided with a motor
vehicle coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which his left arm was
completely severed. He was rushed to a hospital to save his life. He incurred expenses
amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which were paid by defendant.

As an aftermath, he brought this action against defendant 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 the bus operated by defendant and that
defendant incurred in culpa contractual arising from its non-compliance with its
obligation to transport plaintiff safely to his destination.

Defendant 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 and to the contributory negligence of Isaac himself.
Defendant further claims that the accident is a fortuitous event.

The Trial Court dismissed the complaint - collision occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the pick-up car.

Issue
W/N there is negligence on the part of the common carrier

Held:
No, there is no negligence on the part of the bus. The Court affirmed the appealed
decision. The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation.
There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances
of each case in carrying its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person. The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel where a carrier's
employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, failure on his part to exercise the
best judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his
part. The driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the
collision. It is true that Isaac's contributory negligence cannot relieve A.L. Ammen of its
liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article
1762, new Civil Code.
Mariano, Jr. vs. Callejas and De Borja
G.R. No. 166640 – July 31, 2009
Puno, C.J.:

Facts:
Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano who was a
passenger of a Celyrosa Express bus bound for Tagaytay when she met her death.
Ildefonso C. Callejas is the registered owner of Celyrosa Express, while Edgar de Borja
was the driver of the said bus.
The said bus collided with an Isuzu trailer truck coming from the opposite direction. Due
to the impact, the passenger bus fell on its right side and caused the death of Dr.
Mariano and physical injuries to four other passengers.
Petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against
respondents. Respondents denied liability for the death of Dr. Mariano. They claimed
that the proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness of the driver of the trailer
truck. Thus, respondent Callejas filed a third-party complaint against Liong Chio Chang,
the owner of the trailer truck.
The trial court found the respondents Callejas and De Borja together with Liong Chio
Chang, jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not Callejas and De Borja were negligent
Ruling:
No. Callejas and De Borja exercised utmost diligence in the discharge of their duty.
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe
transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it
does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.
Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a transportation
company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that its liability for personal
injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the
degree of diligence that the law requires.

The totality of evidence shows that the death of petitioners spouse was caused by the
reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck which lost its brakes and
bumped the Celyrosa Express bus. De Borja had every right to expect that the trailer
truck coming from the opposite direction would stay on its proper lane. He was not
expected to know that the trailer truck had lost its brakes.
Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119756, 18 November 1999, 305 SCRA 15
MENDOZA, J p:

FACTS:

A bus of Fortune Express, Inc figured in an accident with a jeepney resulting in the
death of several passengers of the jeepney. Generalao found that the owner of the
jeepney was a Maranao planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of
its buses. He went to see Bravo, the operations manager, and informed him about the
plot of the Maranaos. Bravo assured him that the necessary precautions to insure the
safety of lives and property would be taken.

Several days later, Atty. Caorong was on board a bus to Iligan when 3 Maranaos went
on board the vehicle. The leader of the group ordered the passengers to leave the bus.
Atty. Caorong later went back to get something when he saw that the Maranaos were
already pouring gasoline on the bus and on the driver. Caorong was shot to death as a
result.

ISSUE:

1. W/N Petitioner is liable for the death of Atty. Caorong by failing to take necessary
precautions to ensure the safety of its passengers;
2. W/N the attack by the Maranaos constituted causo fortuito?

RULING:

1. Petitioner is liable.
Article 1763 holds common carriers liable for the injuries to passengers caused by the
wilful act of other passengers, if its employees failed to exercise the diligence of a good
father in preventing the act. Despite the warning by the constabulary officer, petitioner
did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers. A common carrier is liable for failing
to prevent hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting baggages.

• Petitioner is solely liable for Atty. Caorong’s death. There was no contributory
negligence on the part of the victim, since all he did was pleading for the life of the
driver. His heroic effort was neither an act of negligence or recklessness.
From the foregoing, it is evident that petitioner’s employees failed to prevent the attack
on one of petitioner’s buses because they did not exercise the diligence of a good father
of a family. Hence, petitioner should be held liable for the death of Atty. Caorong.

2. Seizure of Petitioner’s Bus is not a Case of Force Majeure

Art. 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event as an occurence which could not
be foreseen, is inevitable. To be considered as force majeure, it is necessary that
(1) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will;
(2) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
(3) the occurence must be render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a
normal manner; and
(4) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the
creditor.
The absence of any of the requisites mentioned above would prevent the obligor from
being excused from liability.

Despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were going to attack its
buses, petitioner took no steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers.
The seizure of the bus of the petitioner was foreseeable and, therefore, was not a
fortuitous event which would exempt petitioner from liabilty.