HONORIO LASAM, ET AL vs.

FRANK SMITH, JR
FACTS:
Defendant was the owner of the public garage in San Fernando, La Union and was engaged in
the business of carrying passengers for hire from one point to another in the province of La Union and
surrounding provinces. Plaintiffs were passengers. The driver allowed his assistant, who held no drivers
license but had some experience in driving, to drive. Later defects developed in the steering gear and the
vehicle fell down a steep embankment. Plaintiff suffered injuries. They bought an action for damages
based on breach of contract. Lower court found defendant liable.

RULING:
The source of defendants liability is the contract of carriage, binding himself to carry the plaintiffs
safely and securely to their destinations; and having failed to do so he is liable in damages unless he
shows fortuitous events. The expression events which cannot be foreseen and which having been
foreseen are inevitable is synonymous with the term fortuitous event. One essential element of
fortuitous event is that it was independent of the will of the obligor or of his employees. In this case, this is
lacking, the accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its
driver.
Judgment AFFIRMED.

` AMPANG VS. GUINOO

FACTS:
The plaintiffs were paying passengers in a bus owned by defendant. The bus turned turtle as a
result of which Lambayong died and Amsia suffered Physical injuries. Plaintiffs action for damages were
dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
RULING:
An affidavit made by Amsia and Lumpitan in a criminal case on the accident stated nothing
attributing the accident to any fault of the driver. This was introduced at the hearing without any objections
from the counsel of plaintiffs. Lasam vs. Smith comes to the aid of the defendant because the carrier is
excused from liability if the accident is due to a fortuitous event.
In this case the driver swerved his bus to the left so as to prevent it from falling into the canal and
striking a free after the bus was hit by a Quitranco Bus, an extraordinary circumstances independent of
defendants driver.
Judgment AFFIRMED.

BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY vs. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL

FACTS:
Bian Trans. Companys bus, trying to pass through the space between the BTCo bus and the
Calesa, hit first the left side of the BTCo bus, killing two passengers and then bumped and struck the
calesa, killing the horse and the driver. The widow and children of the deceased Pedro Caguimbal
instituted present action. CFI rendered a decision which was reversed by CA. CA sentenced BTCo, Bian
and Ilagan (driver of Bian bus) to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs P10,000. BTCo. Appealed.
RULING:
Ilagan, the driver of Bian bus was negligent by trying to pass between the small space between
BTCo and calesa. BTCo is also liable because its driver had failed to exercise the extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance for the safety of the passengers. He could have brought the bus completely
outside the asphalted portion of the road when it made a stop to let the passenger alight, since he saw
the Bian bus approaching and the calesa. The case of Isaac v. A.L Ammen Trans. Co. is different since
the driver in that case swerved the bus to the very extreme right side of the road.

In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or
negligence on the part of the carrier to hold it responsible to pay damages sought for by passengers. By
the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport passengers to their
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all circumstances, and any
injury that might be suffered by a passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the
carrier. This is exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved.
Judgment AFFIRMED.

ANTONIA MARANAN vs. PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL.,

FACTS:
Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned by Pascual Perez when he was stabbed
and killed by the driver, who was found guilty of Homicide in the CFI. While on appeal at the CA. Antonia
Maranan, Rogelios mother filed an action of damages for the death of his son. The CFI awarded her
P3,000 as damages against Perez, dismissing the claim against the driver.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the carrier is liable for the assault of its employees upon the passengers.
RULING:
The case Gillaco vs. MRR is different. In this case the killing of the passenger took place in the
course of duty of the guilty employee and when the employee was acting within the scope of his duties.
Moreover the Gillaco case was decided before the new civil code, which now provides in Art. 1759 that
common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts
of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority
or in violation of the orders of the common carrier.
It is the carrier strict obligation to select its drivers and similar employees with due regard not only
to technical competence but also to their total personality, their behavior and their moral fiber.
The dismissal of the claim against the driver is correct. Plaintiffs action was predicated on breach
of contract of carriage and the cab driver was not a part thereto. His civil liability is covered in the criminal
case.
Judgment MODIFIED. Moral damages awarded.

LA MALLORCA vs. VALENTIN DE JESUS

FACTS:
Lolita de Jesus, daughter of respondent de Jesus, was a passenger of the bus La Mallorca and
Pampanga Bus Co., the petitioner herein, when it met a head-on collision with a freight truck resulting to
her death. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the bus lost control of the
wheels when its left front tire suddenly exploded. Petitioner claimed that the tire blow-out was fortuitous.
RULING:
The cause of the blow-out was that the inner tube of the left front tire was pressed between the
inner circle of the left wheel and the rim which had slipped out of the wheel. This is a mechanical defect
which was easily discoverable if there was a thorough check up before the trip . The owner of the vehicle
is therefore liable for the accident. It was not due to force majeure. Moreover, the bus was running fast.
In this jurisdiction moral damages are recoverable by reason of the death of a passenger caused
by the breach of contract of the common carrier, as provided for in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206 of the
NCC.

CESAR L. ISAAC vs. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.,

FACTS:
Plaintiff boarded defendants bus as paying passenger from Albay. The bus collided with a pickup truck which was coming from the opposite direction trying to swerve from a file of gravel. His left arm
was completely severed. Plaintiff chose to hold defendant liable on its contractual obligation. Plaintiff

brought this action for damages which the lower court dismisses, holding the driver of the pick-up car
negligence and not that of the bus. Appeal.
RULING:
The bus was running at a moderate speed. The driver of the bus upon seeing the speeding pickup car swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road. Said driver couldnt move the bus farther
without endangering the safety of his passengers. Notwithstanding all these efforts, the rear left side was
hit. This finding of the lower court is sustained. Also, if the carriers employee is confronted with sudden
emergency, he is not held to the same degree of care he would otherwise be required in the absence of
such emergency.
By placing his left arm on the window, he is guilty of contributory negligence, and although
contributory negligence cannot relieve the carrier but can only reduce its liability, this is a circumstances
which further militates against plaintiffs position. It is prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for
passengers on a railroad to protrude any part of his body and that no recovery can be had for an injury.
Judgment AFFIRMED.

ROBERTO JUNTILLA vs.CLEMENTE FONTANAR

FACTS:
Plaintiff Roberto Juntilla was a passenger of a public utility jeepney 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 lacerated wound on his left palm. Aside from
this, he had also injuries on 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 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.
The wrist watch, which he bought for P852.70 could no longer be found.
The City court of Cebu rendered judgment for damages in favor of the plaintiff which was
reversed by the CA.
RULING:
In the case at bar, there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendants. The records
show that jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch immediately after its right rear tire exploded. The
evidence shows that the jeepney was running at a fast speed. 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. The petitioner stated that there were three passengers in the
front seat and fourteen 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 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 the 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 vs. Smith we laid down the essential characteristics of caso fortuito.
In this case, 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 the
mechanical defects in the tire. Common carrier should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles,
not to exceed safe and legal limits, and to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows up thus
insuring the safety of the passengers at the times.
The source of a common carriers 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 outmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances.
The records show that this obligation was not met by the respondents.
The City Court decision is REINSTATED.

LA MALLORCA vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Plaintiffs husband and wife, together with their minor children, boarded a La Mallorca bus. Upon
arrival at their destination, plaintiffs and their children alighted from the bus and the father led them to a
shaded spot about 5 meters away from the vehicle. The father turned to the bus to get a piece of baggage
which was not unloaded. He was followed by her daughter Raquel. While the father was still on the
running board awaiting for the conductor to give his baggage, the bus started to run so that the father had
to jump. Raquel, who was near the bus, was run over and killed.
Lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff which was affirmed by the CA, holding La Mallorca
liable for Quasi-delict and ordering it to pay P6,000 plus P400. La Mallorca contended that when the child
was killed, she was no longer a passenger and therefore the contract of carriage was terminated.
RULING:
On the question whether the liability of the liability of the carrier, as to the child who was already
led to a place 5 meters from the bus under the contract of carrier, still persist, we rule in the affirmative. It
is recognized rule that the relation between carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the
passenger alight from carriers premises, to be determined from the circumstances.
In this case, there was no utmost diligence. Firstly, the driver, although stopping the bus, did not
put off the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal
and while the latter was unloading the cargo. Here the presence of said passenger near the bus was not
unreasonable and the duration of responsibility still exist.
Averment of quasi-delict is permissible under the Rules of Court allows the plaintiffs to allege
causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not. Even assuming arguendo
that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence
of its driver pursuant to Art. 2180 of NCC.
Decision modified. Only question raised in the briefs can be passed upon, and as plaintiffs did not
appeal the award of P3,000, the increase by the CA of the award to P6,000 can be sustained.

SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN vs. MARIANO MEDINA

FACTS:
The bus of Medina Trans. Left Cavite for Pasay with 18 passengers. At about 2am, the front tires
burst and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell into a canal on the right side of the road and turned turtle.
Some passengers manage to get out of the bus. Four were trapped including Bataclan. Later 10 men
came to help, one of them carrying a lighted torch, evidently fueled with petroleum. A fire started, burning
the bus and the four passengers. It would appear that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak.
Deceased widow brought action for damages. CFI awarded damages. Both parties appealed.

RULING:
We disagree with the trial court that the proximate cause of death was not the overturning of the
bus but the fire that burned the bus. We do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause was the
overturning of the bus, for this reason that when the bus overturned the leaking of the gasoline was not
unnatural nor unexpected. Also the coming of the men with torch was to be expected and was a natural
sequence of the overturning of the bus. Moreover the driver and conductor who were there could have
warned the men of the gasoline leak, which can even be smelled. They were negligent under the NCC
provisions.

NECESITO, ETC. vs.NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL.

FACTS:
A mother and her son boarded a passenger auto truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Line. While
entering a wooden bridge, its front wheels swerved to the right , the driver lost control and the truck fell
into a breast-deep creek. The mother drowned and the son sustained injuries. These cases involve ex
contructo against the owner of the PRBL by the son and the heirs of the mother. Lower court dismissed
the actions, holding that the accident was a fortuitous event.

RULING:
While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers, it should never the less be held
to answer for the flaws of its equipment if such defects will discoverable. In this connection, the
manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the good refute
of the manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the good
repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of the carriers liability is
the fact that the passenger has no privity with the manufacturer of the defective equipment; hence he has
no remedy against him, while the carrier has. We find that the defect could be detected. The periodical
usual inspection of the steering snuckle did not measure up to the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person as far as human care and foresight can provide and therefore the knuckles failure cannot be
considered a fortuitous event that exempt the carrier from responsibility.
Judgment REVERSED, PRBL to pay indemnity.
RESOLUTION
FACTS: (same)
RULING:
We reiterate the ruling in Lasam v Smith. While under art. 2220 of NCC there can be no recovery
of moral damages for a breach of contract in the absence of fraud (malice) or bad faith, the case of the
violation of the contract of carriage leading to passengers death escapes this general rule, in view of Art.
1764 in connection with Art. 2206, No. 3.
Under the NCC, in case of an accident due to the carriers negligence, the heirs of a deceased
passenger may recover moral damages, even though a passenger who is injured but manages to
survive, is not entitled to them.
Motion for reconsideration DENIED.

LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. vs. TIONGSON

FACTS:
The LTB bus collided with a 7-up delivery truck coming from the opposite direction while trying to
evade a road depression. As a consequence the bus fell on its right side on the shoulder of the road
resulting in the death of Ricardo Tiongson. Both drivers were prosecuted criminally but the separate
action was filed by the heirs of the deceased against the petitioner LTB. CA affirmed the CFI decision
ordering LTB to pay P50,000 by way of actual, compensatory and moral damages. LTB filed a petition for
certiorari.
RULING:
The liability of a carrier is contractual an arises upon its breach of the obligation, and there is a
breach if it fails to exercise extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case. A carrier
is obliged to carry its passengers with utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due regard for
all circumstances surrounding the case. A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in
case of death of, or injury to its passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary
diligence.
LTB has not successfully discharged the burden of disproving its presumptive negligence
because of its failure to transport its passenger to his destination and has not sufficiently established its
defense of fortuitous event. On the contrary the driver applied the brakes on his bus too late (distance of
10 meters) to avoid the accident, the driver was aware of the depression, driving along the same route for
a considerable period of time. This sufficiently showed that the company had not exercise due care and
diligence in connection with the hiring of the driver. The CA therefore found that the petitioner has failed to
disprove the presumption of negligence and that its negligence had been established by more than mere
preponderance of evidence.
Petitioners liability for moral damages cannot now be seriously questioned in view of Arts. 1764
and 2206 of the NCC and the ruling in Necesito v. Paras.
Decision AFFIRMED.