PNR CORPORATION vs VISCARA

GR No. 190022 February 15, 2012

FACTS:

On May 14, 2004, Reynaldo Vizcara, along with his companions, was driving a
passenger jeepney to deliver onion crops in Bicol. A Philippine National Railways (PNR)
train, operated by Japhet Estranas, suddenly rammed the jeepney, resulting in the
deaths of Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel, and serious injuries to Dominador
and Joel. The accident was caused by the lack of level crossing at the railroad crossing
and poorly maintained "Stop, Look and Listen" signage.

Survivors, Joel and Dominador, along with the heirs of the deceased victims, filed
an action for damages against PNR, Estranas, and Ben Saga, the alternate train driver.
They alleged that the proximate cause of the fatalities and serious physical injuries was
the petitioners' gross negligence in not providing adequate safety measures to prevent
injury to persons and properties. The petitioners claimed that they exercised due
diligence in operating the train and monitoring its roadworthiness.

The petitioners argued that Estranas was driving at a moderate speed before the
collision, but the heavy weight of the train caused it to not immediately come to a
complete stop until the jeepney was dragged 20-30 meters away from the point of
collision.

ISSUE:

Whether PNR’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and is thus
liable for damages?

RULING:

YES, the PNR’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Article
2176 of the New Civil Code prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a person's
act or omission constituting fault or negligence.
In the present case, the petitioners fell short of the diligence expected of it, taking
into consideration the nature of its business, to forestall any untoward incident. In
particular, the petitioners failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists from
crossing the tracks in order to give way to an approaching train. Aside from the absence
of a crossing bar, the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage installed in the area was poorly
maintained, hence, inadequate to alert the public of the impending danger. A reliable
signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated "Stop, Look and Listen"
signage, is needed to give notice to the public. It is the responsibility of the railroad
company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure to
do so would be an indication of negligence. Having established the fact of negligence
on the part of the petitioners, they were rightfully held liable for damages.

Kenneth Mar R. Agrpa

J.D. 3A
GV FLORIDA TRANSPORT vs BATTUNG
G.R. No. 208802 October 14, 2015

FACTS:

In 2003, Romeo L. Battung, Jr. boarded a petitioner's bus bound for Manila,
where he slept and was shot at the head by a man in the fourth row. The bus conductor,
Daraoay, informed Duplio of the incident and brought him to the hospital, where he was
pronounced dead. Respondents filed a complaint for damages in the amount of
P1,826,000.00 based on a breach of contract of carriage against the petitioner, Duplio,
and Baraoay. Respondents argued that as a common carrier, they were responsible for
the passenger's safety and should be held civilly liable. In defense, petitioner et al.
argued that they had exercised the necessary extraordinary diligence and that Battung's
death should be considered a fortuitous event. They prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint and payment of counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees.

ISSUE:

Whether G.V. Florida Transport is liable for damages to respondent arising

from culpa contractual?

RULING:

YES, the petitioner is liable for the damages. Articles 1733 and 1755 exacts from
common carriers the highest degree of diligence in ensuring the safety of its
passengers. The Supreme Court held that it is imperative for a party claiming against a
common carrier under the above-said provisions to show that the injury or death to the
passenger/s arose from the negligence of the common carrier and/or its employees in
providing safe transport to its passengers.
In this case, Battung's death was neither caused by any defect in the means of
transport or in the method of transporting, or to the negligent or willful acts of petitioner's
employees, namely, that of Duplio and Daraoay, in their capacities as driver and
conductor, respectively. Instead, the case involves the death of Battung wholly caused
by the surreptitious act of a co-passenger who, after consummating such crime,
hurriedly alighted from the vehicle. Thus, there is no proper issue on petitioner's duty to
observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the passengers transported by
it, and the presumption of fault/negligence against petitioner under Article 1756 in
relation to Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code should not apply.

Kenneth Mar R. Agrpa

J.D. 3A
MERCURY DRUG CO. vs BAKING
G.R. No. 156037 May 28, 2007

FACTS:

Sebastian M. Baking, a patient with high blood sugar and triglyceride levels, was
prescribed two medications by Dr. Cesar Sy. He went to Mercury Drug Corporation to
buy the prescribed medicines, but the saleswoman misread the prescription for
Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum, resulting in Dormicum, a sleeping tablet.
Baking took one pill of Dormicum on three consecutive days, unaware that it was the
wrong medicine. On November 8, Baking was involved in a vehicular accident, falling
asleep while driving. He returned to Dr. Sy's clinic, where he discovered Dormicum was
the correct medication, not Diamicron. Baking was shocked to learn that the wrong
medicine was sold to him.

ISSUE:

Whether Mercury Drug Co. was negligent that became the proximate cause of
Sebastian Baking’s accident?

RULING:

YES, Mercury Drug Co. was negligent which became the proximate cause of the
accident.
The Supreme Court defined proximate cause as any cause that produces injury
in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is determined
from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense,
policy, and precedent. Complementing Article 2176 is Article 2180 of the same Code
which states that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioner’s employee
been careful in reading Dr. Sy’s prescription. Without the potent effects of Dormicum, a
sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would fall asleep while driving his car,
resulting in a collision.
Moreover, It is clear that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the
damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an
employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been
negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the
supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted
by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
Here, petitioner's failure to prove that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employee will make it solidarily liable for
damages caused by the latter.

Kenneth Mar R. Agrpa

J.D. 3A