CALALAS VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R No. 122039
May 31, 2000

FACTS:

Eliza Sunga was a passenger of a jeepney owned and operated by the petitioner Calalas.
Private respondent Sunga sat in the rear protion of the jeepney where the conductor gave Sunga
an extension seat. When the jeep stopped, Sunga gave way to a passenger going outside the jeep.
However, an Isuzu Truck driven by Verene and owned by Salva, accidentally hit Sunga causing
the latter to suffer physical injuries where the attending physician ordered a three months of rest.
Sunga filed an action for damages against the petitioner for breach of contract of common
carriage by the petitioner.

On the other hand, the petitioner Calalas filed an action against Salva, being the owner of
the truck. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner, thus the truck owner is liable for the
damage to the jeep of the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is liable.

RULING:

Yes. The petitioner is liable for the injury suffered by Sunga. Under Article 1756
of the New Civil Code, it provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in
Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the
burden of proof.

In this case, the law presumes that any injury suffered by a passenger of the jeep
is deemed to be due to the negligence of the driver. This is a case on Culpa Contractual where
there was pre-existing obligations and that the fault is incidental to the performance of the
obligation. Thus, it was clearly observed that the petitioner has negligence in the conduct of his
duty when he allowed Sunga to seat in the rear portion of the jeep which is prone to accident.