PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Petitioner, -versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS and ROSARIO TUPANG, Respondents.

G.R. No. L-55347, SECOND DIVISION, October 4, 1985, ESCOLIN, J.

Article 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a

good father of a family to avoid injury to himself.
A common carrier has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and to observe

extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to

the presumption that it was negligent in the performance of the said obligations. In the case at bar,

PNR failed to overthrow such presumption with clear and convincing evidence. It was found out that

the train boarded by Winifredo was so over-crowded that he and many other passengers had no choice

but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train. Moreover, the train did not slow

down when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time. The train also did not

stop despite the alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fallen off the train.

FACTS:

At about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Winifredo Tupang, husband of the respondent, boarded Train

No. 516 of Philippine National Railways (PNR) at Libmanan, Camarines Sur as a paying passenger

bound for Manila. Due to some mechanical defect, the train stopped at Sipocot, Camarines Sur for

repairs. Unfortunately, upon passing Iyam Bridge at Lucena, Quezon, Winifredo fell off the train

resulting in his death.

The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers that somebody fell from the

train. Instead, Perfecto Abrazado, the train conductor, called the station agent at Candelaria, Quezon

and requested for verification of the information. The lifeless body of Winifredo was eventually

found in Iyam Bridge.

ISSUE:

Whether PNR observed extraordinary diligence in transporting their passengers. (NO)

RULING:

A common carrier has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and to
observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives
rise to the presumption that it was negligent in the performance of the said obligations. In the
case at bar, PNR failed to overthrow such presumption with clear and convincing evidence. It was
found out that the train boarded by Winifredo was so over-crowded that he and many other
passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train.
Moreover, the train did not slow down when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair
at the time. It also did not stop despite the alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fallen
off the train.

However, while PNR failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, it appears that

Winifredo was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform

between the coaches, he should have held tightly on the upright metal bar found at the side of the

said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not

exempting the PNR, nevertheless, meant that moral damages and exemplary damages are not

available.