PNR v. Brunty d.
Mercelita disregarded the warning signs, the whistle
G.R. 169891 | Nov. 2, 2006 | Callejo, Sr.,J. | Concha
FACTS
1. Rhonda Brunty, an American citizen, and daughter of
Ethel Brunty came to the PH for a visit in 1980.
2. Prior to her departure, Rhonda, with Juan Manuel Garcia,
traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedez Benz sedan,
which was driven by Rodolfo Mercelita.
3. By 2AM., the car was already approaching the railroad
crossing at Brgy. Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac.
4. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr., drove past
a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead, and
that they were about to collide with a PNR Train No. T-71
(La Union-Tutuban, Manila)
5. Upon collision, Mercelita was instantly killed while the 2
other passengers suffered serious physical injuries and
were brought to the hospital.
6. Brunty was brought to Central Luzon Doctor’s Hospital in
Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead 10 minutes from
arrival.
7. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was
transferred to other hospitals (Manila Doctor’s Hospital
and Makati Med) for further treatment.
8. Ethel Brunty, Rhonda’s mother, sent a demand letter to
PNR, demanding actual, compensatory, and moral
damages as a result of her daughter’s death.
9. When PNR did not respond, Ethel and Garcia filed a
complaint for damages against the PNR in RTC Manila.
They alleged that the proximate cause of the death of
Mercelita and Rhonda, as well as the physical injuries
suffered by Garcia, was the gross and reckless negligence
of PNR in not providing the necessary equipment at the
railroad crossing:
a. No flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who
were about to cross the railroad track, and that the
flagman or switchman was only equipped with a hand
flashlight
10. PNR claimed that it exercised diligence of good father of
family in selection and supervision of its employees. It
also stressed:
a. It had the right of way on the railroad crossing, and
that it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light
signal in any such crossing
b. There were adequate, visible, and clear warning signs
strategically posted on the sides of the road before
the railroad crossing
c. Immediate and proximate cause of the accident was
Mercelita's negligence, and that he had the last clear
chance to avoid the accident
blasts of the oncoming train and the flashlight signals
to stop given by the guard
11. RTC ruled in favor of Brunty and Garcia. Awarded 30k for
Rhonda’s death; 1M for moral and actual damages due
the heirs of Rhonda; 72,760 for damages sustained by
car; 50k atty’s fees.
12. CA affirmed RTC with modifications. Safety measures
installed by PNR did not satisfy safety standards in
transportation. It also held that Mercelita was not guilty
of contributory negligence as he could not have foreseen
harm that would befall him and 2 passengers. 50k death
indemnity and deleted 72,760 for Mercedez Benz.
ISSUES:
WON PNR’s negligence resulted in the unfortunate collision.
– YES.
 PNR was made liable under Art. 2176 CC because of its
negligence or failure to provide the necessary safety
device to ensure the safety of the motorists in crossing
the railroad track. *SC did not disturb findings of fact of
RTC and CA.
 Negligence - 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.
 Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company: negligence is want of
the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute, term and its application
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree
of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require.
 (Picart v. Smith) Test: Did the defendant, in doing the
alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have
used in the same situation?
o The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed
to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law.
 Applying the elements of quasi-delict, respondents
sustained damages/injury as a result of collision;
negligence of PNR - PNR's safety measures inadequate
due to the following:
i. absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars
ii. inadequacy of the installed warning signals
iii. lack of proper lighting within the area
o Thus, even if there’s flagman, it would still
be impossible to know or see the railroad
crossing /tracks ahead, or that there is an
 approaching train as it would be blocked by  SC noted the damages awarded by CA. No damages,
a cockpit arena. however, were awarded for the injuries suffered by
o Also, vehicle coming from the Moncada side Garcia, yet, the latter never interposed an appeal before
would have difficulty in knowing that there the CA nor even before this Court.
is an approaching train because of the slight  The record is, likewise, bereft of any allegation and
curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2AM proof as to the relationship between Mercelita (the
o Failure of the PNR to put a cross bar, or driver) and Rhonda Brunty. Hence, the earlier finding of
signal light, flagman or switchman, or contributory negligence on the part of Mercelita, which
semaphore is evidence of negligence and generally has the effect of mitigation of liability, does
disregard of the safety of the public, even if not apply.
there is no law or ordinance requiring it,
because public safety demands that said WON doctrine of last clear chance was applicable. – NO.
device or equipment be installed.  Doctrine of last clear chance: where both parties are
DUE DILIGENCE REQUIRED OF RAILROAD COMPANIES negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
 It may broadly be stated that railroad companies owe to than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the
care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss
crossings, which duties pertain both in the operation of but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.
trains and in the maintenance of the crossings  PNR argued that since there is freedom of control and
 Moreover, every corporation constructing or operating a greater maneuverability on the part of motor vehicles, it
railway shall make and construct at all points where such is obvious that in railroad crossings, they have the last
railway crosses any public road, good, sufficient, and clear chance to prevent or avoid an unwanted accident
safe crossings and erect at such points, at a sufficient from taking place.
elevation from such road as to admit a free passage of  Last clear chance doctrine does not apply once the
vehicles of every kind, a sign with large and distinct proximate cause of the injury has been established.
letters placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity of
the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of looking RULING: CA affirmed with modifications. Actual damages
out for trains. deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages P25k. Award
of moral damages reduced to P500,000.
WON driver of the car that collided with the train was guilty
of contributory negligence. – YES.
 Contributory negligence - conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection
 Must be shown that injured person performed an act
that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or
signs of an impending danger to health and body
 To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to
establish a causal link, although not proximate, between
the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury.
 In this case, Mercelita was negligent because, even
though he was not familiar with the road, yet, he was
driving at 70 km/hr and had overtaken a vehicle a few
yards before reaching the railroad track.
 But while his acts contributed to the collision, they
nevertheless do not negate the railroad company's
liability.
 Under Art. 2179, the only effect would be to mitigate
liability, which, however, was not applicable in this
case.