Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985
ROBERTO JUNTILLA, petitioner,
vs.
CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON and BERFOL
CAMORO, respondents.
Valentin A. Zozobrado for petitioner.
Ruperto N. Alfarara for respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is a petition for review, on questions of law, of the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu which reversed the decision of the City Court of Cebu and exonerated
the respondents from any liability arising from a vehicular accident.
The background facts which led to the filing of a complaint for breach of contract and
damages against the respondents are summarized by the Court of First Instance of
Cebu as follows:
The facts established after trial show that the plaintiff was a passenger of
the public utility jeepney bearing plate No. PUJ-71-7 on the course of the
trip from Danao City to Cebu City. The jeepney was driven by defendant
Berfol Camoro. It was registered under the franchise of defendant
Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by defendant Fernando
Banzon. When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire
exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. In the process, the plaintiff who
was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle. Upon landing on
the ground, the plaintiff momentarily lost consciousness. When he came to
his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on his right palm.
Aside from this, he suffered injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his
back. (Exh. "D"). Because of his shock and injuries, he went back to
Danao City but on the way, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch

was lost. Upon his arrival in Danao City, he immediately entered the
Danao City Hospital to attend to his injuries, and also requested his fatherin-law to proceed immediately to the place of the accident and look for the
watch. In spite of the efforts of his father-in-law, the wrist watch, which he
bought for P 852.70 (Exh. "B") could no longer be found.
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner Roberto Juntilla filed Civil Case No. R-17378 for breach of contract with
damages before the City Court of Cebu City, Branch I against Clemente Fontanar,
Fernando Banzon and Berfol Camoro.
The respondents filed their answer, alleging inter alia that the accident that caused
losses to the petitioner was beyond the control of the respondents taking into account
that the tire that exploded was newly bought and was only slightly used at the time it
blew up.
After trial, Judge Romulo R. Senining of the Civil Court of Cebu rendered judgment in
favor of the petitioner and against the respondents. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants and the latter are hereby ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P750.00 as reimbursement for the
lost Omega wrist watch, the sum of P246.64 as unrealized salary of the
plaintiff from his employer, the further sum of P100.00 for the doctor's fees
and medicine, an additional sum of P300.00 for attorney's fees and the
costs.
The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XIV.
Judge Leonardo B. Canares reversed the judgment of the City Court of Cebu upon a
finding that the accident in question was due to a fortuitous event. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered exonerating the defendants
from any liability to the plaintiff without pronouncement as to costs.
A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of First Instance.
The petitioner raises the following alleged errors committed by the Court of First
Instance of Cebu on appeal

a. The Honorable Court below committed grave abuse of discretion in

failing to take cognizance of the fact that defendants and/or their
employee failed to exercise "utmost and/or extraordinary diligence"
required of common carriers contemplated under Art. 1755 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines.
b. The Honorable Court below committed grave abuse of discretion by
deciding the case contrary to the doctrine laid down by the Honorable
Supreme Court in the case of Necesito et al. v. Paras, et al.
We find the petition impressed with merit.
The City Court and the Court of First Instance of Cebu found that the right rear tire of
the passenger jeepney in which the petitioner was riding blew up causing the vehicle to
fall on its side. The petitioner questions the conclusion of the respondent court drawn
from this finding of fact.
The Court of First Instance of Cebu erred when it absolved the carrier from any liability
upon a finding that the tire blow out is a fortuitous event. The Court of First Instance of
Cebu ruled that:
After reviewing the records of the case, this Court finds that the accident in
question was due to a fortuitous event. A tire blow-out, such as what
happened in the case at bar, is an inevitable accident that exempts the
carrier from liability, there being absence of a showing that there was
misconduct or negligence on the part of the operator in the operation and
maintenance of the vehicle involved. The fact that the right rear tire
exploded, despite being brand new, constitutes a clear case of caso
fortuito which can be a proper basis for exonerating the defendants from
liability. ...
The Court of First Instance relied on the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Rodriguez v.
Red Line Transportation Co., CA G.R. No. 8136, December 29, 1954, where the Court
of Appeals ruled that:
A tire blow-out does not constitute negligence unless the tire was already
old and should not have been used at all. Indeed, this would be a clear
case of fortuitous event.
The foregoing conclusions of the Court of First Instance of Cebu are based on a
misapprehension of overall facts from which a conclusion should be drawn. The reliance

of the Court of First Instance on the Rodriguez case is not in order. In La Mallorca and
Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Jesus, et al. (17 SCRA 23), we held that:
Petitioner maintains that a tire blow-out is a fortuitous event and gives rise
to no liability for negligence, citing the rulings of the Court of Appeals in
Rodriguez v. Red Line Transportation Co., CA G.R. No. 8136, December
29, 1954, and People v. Palapad, CA-G.R. No. 18480, June 27, 1958.
These rulings, however, not only are not binding on this Court but were
based on considerations quite different from those that obtain in the case
at bar. The appellate court there made no findings of any specific acts of
negligence on the part of the defendants and confined itself to the
question of whether or not a tire blow-out, by itself alone and without a
showing as to the causative factors, would generate liability. ...
In the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respondents.
The records show that the passenger jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch
immediately after its right rear tire exploded. The evidence shows that the passenger
jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the accident. We agree with the
observation of the petitioner that a public utility jeep running at a regular and safe speed
will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire blows up. There is also evidence to
show that the passenger jeepney was overloaded at the time of the accident. The
petitioner stated that there were three (3) passengers in the front seat and fourteen (14)
passengers in the rear.
While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of the
tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous
event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road
conditions or that precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to compensate for any
conditions liable to cause accidents. The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have
been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that the
jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident.
In Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we laid down the following essential characteristics of
caso fortuito:
xxx xxx xxx
... In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso
fortuito presents the following essential characteristics: (1) The cause of
the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor
to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. (2) It

must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso

fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (3) The
occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
his obligation in a normal manner. And (4) the obligor (debtor) must be
free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor. (5 Encyclopedia Juridica Espanola, 309.)
In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not
independent of the human will. The accident was caused either through the negligence
of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers should
teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed
limits, and to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the
safety of passengers at all times. Relative to the contingency of mechanical defects, we
held in Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al. (104 Phil. 75), that:
... The preponderance of authority is in favor of the doctrine that a
passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury
resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer,
whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the
carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the
circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and
application of the necessary tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the
manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the
carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. According
to this theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the
carrier from liability' (10 Am. Jur. 205, s, 1324; see also Pennsylvania R.
Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451; 20 L. Ed. 141; Southern R. Co. v. Hussey, 74
ALR 1172; 42 Fed. 2d 70; and Ed Note, 29 ALR 788.: Ann. Cas. 1916E
929).
The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has
neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the
equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever
with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the
passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is
but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of
his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his
equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. ...
It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the
contract of carriage, and by entering into the said contract, it binds itself to carry the

passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of a very cautious person, with a due regard for all the circumstances. The
records show that this obligation was not met by the respondents.
The respondents likewise argue that the petitioner cannot recover any amount for failure
to prove such damages during the trial. The respondents submit that if the petitioner
was really injured, why was he treated in Danao City and not in Mandaue City where the
accident took place. The respondents argue that the doctor who issued the medical
certificate was not presented during the trial, and hence not cross-examined. The
respondents also claim that the petitioner was not wearing any wrist watch during the
accident.
It should be noted that the City Court of Cebu found that the petitioner had a lacerated
wound on his right palm aside from injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his back,
and that on his way back to Danao City, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch
was lost. These are findings of facts of the City Court of Cebu which we find no reason
to disturb. More so when we consider the fact that the Court of First Instance of Cebu
impliedly concurred in these matters when it confined itself to the question of whether or
not the tire blow out was a fortuitous event.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IV appealed
from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the City Court of Cebu,
Branch I is REINSTATED, with the modification that the damages shall earn interest at
12% per annum and the attorney's fees are increased to SIX HUNDRED PESOS
(P600.00). Damages shall earn interests from January 27, 1975.
SO ORDERED.
DIGEST
FACTS:

Jeepney was driven by Berfol Camoro from Danao City to Cebu City. It
was Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by defendant Fernando Banzon.

When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire exploded causing the
vehicle to turn turtle. Roberto Juntilla was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of
the vehicle.

Upon landing on the ground, he momentarily lost consciousness. When

he came to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on his right palm.
He also injured his left arm, right thigh and on his back.

Because of his shock and injuries, he went back to Danao City but on the way,
he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch worth P 852.70 was lost. Upon his
arrival in Danao City, he immediately entered the Danao City Hospital to attend to

his injuries, and also requested his father-in-law to proceed immediately to the place
of the accident and look for the watch.

Roberto Juntilla filed for breach of contract with damages

Respondents: beyond the control since tire that exploded was newly
bought and was only slightly used

RTC: favored Roberto Juntilla

CA: Reversed since accident was due to fortuitous event

ISSUE: W/N there is a fortuitous event
HELD: NO. CA reversed, RTC reinstated.

passenger jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the accident

at a regular and safe speed will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire
blows up

passenger jeepney was overloaded

3 passengers in the front seat

14 passengers in the rear

caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:

(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will.

(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito,
or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.

(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
his obligation in a normal manner.

(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.

In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was
not independent of the human will. The accident was caused either through the
negligence of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common
carriers should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe
and legal speed limits, and to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows
up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all times

the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by
entering into the said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, with a due regard for all the circumstances. The records show that this
obligation was not met by the respondents

respondents likewise argue that the petitioner cannot recover any amount for
failure to prove such damages during the trial
findings of facts of the City Court of Cebu