Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs.

Court of Appeals deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a

(179 SCRA 95) reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the
circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his
Facts: On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded M/|V Antonio baggage and prepare for his departure. The carrier-passenger
from Occidental Mindoro bound for Manila. Upon arrival on May relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person
12, 1975, the passengers therein disembarked through a transported has been carried to his destination if, for example,
gangplank connecting the vessel to the pier. Viana, instead of such person remains in the carrier’s premises to claim his
disembarking through the gangplank, disembarked through the baggage.
third deck, which was at the same level with the pier. An hour
after the passengers disembarked, Pioneer stevedoring started The reasonableness of the time should be made to depend on
to operate in unloading the cargo from the ship. Viana then went the attending circumstances of the case, such as the kind of
back, remembering some of his cargoes left at the vessel. At common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the
that time, while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of
where his cargoes were loaded, the crane hit him, pinning him the time element per se without taking into account such other
between the crane and the side of the vessel. He was brought factors.
to the hospital where he died 3 days after (May 15). The parents
of Anacleto filed a complaint against Aboitiz for breach of Where a passenger dies or is injured, the common carrier is
contract of carriage. presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.
This gives rise to an action for breach of contract where all that
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Then both Aboitiz is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract of
and Pioneer filed a motion for reconsideration, upon which the carriage and its non-performance by the carrier, that is, the
trial court issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability but not failure of the carrier to carry the passenger safely to his
Aboitiz. On appeal, CA affirmed the trial court ruling. Hence, this destination, which, in the instant case, necessarily includes its
petition. failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence
while such relation subsists.
Issue: Whether or not Viana is still considered a passenger at
the time of the incident? La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. L-20761, 27 July 1966, 17 SCRA 739)
Held: Yes. The La Mallorca case is applicable in the case at
bar. Facts: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their three
minor daughters (Milagros, 13 years old, Raquel, about 4 years
The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues old and Fe, 2 years old) boarded the Pambusco at San
until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination Fernando Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico, Pampanga.
and has left the vessel owner’s dock or premises. Once created, Such bus is owned and operated by the defendant.
the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger
has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the They were carrying with them four pieces of baggage containing
carrier’s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave their personal belonging. The conductor of the b us issued three
the carrier’s premises. All persons who remain on the premises tickets covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child
a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both
were below the height which fare is charged in accordance with Held: There can be no controversy that as far as the father is
plaintiff’s rules and regulations. concerned, when he returned to the bus for his bayong which
was not unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier
After about an hour’s trip, the bus reached Anao where it between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. The
stopped to allow the passengers bound therefore, among whom relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease
were the plaintiffs and their children to get off. Mariano Beltran, where the latter, after alighting from the car aids the carrier’s
carrying some of their baggage was the first to get down the servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car.
bus, followed by his wife and children. Mariano led his
companion to a shaded spot on the left pedestrian side of the It is a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not
road about four or five meters away from the vehicle. cease the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s
Afterwards, he returned to the bus in controversy to get his vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of
paying, which he had left behind, but in so doing, his daughter destination but continues until the passenger has had a
followed him unnoticed by his father. While said Mariano Beltran reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the
was on he running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to carrier’s premises.
hand him his bayong which he left under one its seats near the
door, the bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading The father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which
suddenly started moving forward, evidently to resume its trip, was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel must
notwithstanding the fact that the conductor was still attending to have followed her father. However, although the father was still
the baggage left behind by Mariano Beltran. Incidentally, when on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to
the bus was again placed in a complete stop, it had traveled hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even
about 10 meters from point where plaintiffs had gotten off. he had jumped down from the moving vehicle. It was that this
instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over
Sensing the bus was again in motion; Mariano immediately and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the
jumped form the running board without getting his bayong from carrier’s agent had exercised the “utmost diligence” of a “very
conductor. He landed on the side of the road almost board in cautious person” required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be
front of the shaded place where he left his wife and his children. observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation
At that time, he saw people beginning to gather around the body to transport safely its passengers. The driver, although stopping
of a child lying prostrate on the ground, her skull crushed, and the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. He started to
without life. The child was none other than his daughter Raquel, run the bus even before the conductor gave him the signal to go
who was run over by the bus in which she rode earlier together and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggage of
her parent. the passengers Beltran and family. The presence of the said
passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are,
For the death of the said child, plaintiffs comment the suit therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier,
against the defendant to recover from the latter damages. entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

Issue: Whether or not the child was no longer the passenger of

the bus involved in the incident, and therefore, the contract of DANGWA TRANSPORTATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS
carriage was already terminated?
FACTS: Private respondents filed a complaint for damages the driver and conductor in this case could not have been
against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat as a result unaware of such an ordinary practice.
of a vehicular accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at
Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Petitioner Theodore M. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons
Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging to petitioner of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for
corporation in a reckless and imprudent manner and without the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all
due regard to traffic rules and regulations and safety to persons the circumstances of each case. A common carrier is bound to
and property, it ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
Petitioners alleged that they had observed and continued to can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons,
observe the extraordinary diligence and that it was the victim’s with a due regard for all the circumstances.
own carelessness and negligence which gave rise to the subject
It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a
incident.
contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding
RTC pronounced that Pedrito Cudiamat was negligent, which of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it
negligence was the proximate cause of his death. However, responsible to pay the damages sought by the passenger. By
Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court, and contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation
ordered petitioners to pay private respondents damages due to to transport the passenger to his destination safely and observe
negligence. extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the
circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the
ISSUE: passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of
the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that
WON the CA erred in reversing the decision of the trial court negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon
and in finding petitioners negligent and liable for the damages the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence
claimed. as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
HELD: CA Decision AFFIRMED
Bacarro vs. Castano
The testimonies of the witnesses show that that the bus was at
(GR L-34597, 5 November 1982)
full stop when the victim boarded the same. They further confirm
the conclusion that the victim fell from the platform of the bus
FACTS:
when it suddenly accelerated forward and was run over by the
rear right tires of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, it
Respondent Castano boarded a jeep driven by Petitioner
cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of negligence.
Montefalcon who thereafter drove it at around 40 kilometers per
It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt hour. While approaching Sumasap Bridge at the said speed, a
to board a train or streetcar which is moving slowly. An cargo truck coming from behind, blowing its horn to signal its
ordinarily prudent person would have made the attempt board intention to overtake the jeep. The jeep, without changing its
the moving conveyance under the same or similar speed, gave way by swerving to the right, such that both
circumstances. The fact that passengers board and alight from vehicles ran side by side for a distance of around 20 meters.
slowly moving vehicle is a matter of common experience both Thereafter as the jeep was left behind, its driver was unable to
return it to its former lane and instead it obliquely or diagonally
ran down an inclined terrain towards the right until it fell into a 2.) Yes. x x x [T]he fact is, there was a contract of carriage
ditch pinning down and crushing Castano’s right leg in the between the private respondent and the herein petitioners in
process. which case the Court of Appeals correctly applied Articles 1733,
1755 and 1766 of the Civil Code which require the exercise of
Castano filed a case for damages against Rosita Bacarro, extraordinary diligence on the part of petitioner Montefalcon.
William Sevilla, and Felario Montefalcon. Defendants alleged
that the jeepney was sideswiped by the overtaking cargo truck. Indeed, the hazards of modern transportation demand
After trial, the CFI of Misamis Oriental ordered Bacarro, et.al. to extraordinary diligence. A common carrier is vested with public
jointly and severally pay Castano. It was affirmed by the CA interest. Under the new Civil Code, instead of being required to
upon appeal. exercise mere ordinary diligence a common carrier is exhorted
to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
ISSUES: foresight can provide "using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons." (Article 1755). Once a passenger in the
1. Whether or not there was a contributory negligence on the course of travel is injured, or does not reach his destination
part of the jeepney driver. safely, the carrier and driver are presumed to be at fault.
2. Whether or not extraordinary diligence is required of the
jeepney driver. 3.) The third assigned error of the petitioners would find fault
3. Whether or not the sideswiping is a fortuitous event. upon respondent court in not freeing petitioners from any
liability, since the accident was due to a fortuitous event. But,
HELD: We repeat that the alleged fortuitous event in this case - the
sideswiping of the jeepney by the cargo truck, was something
1.) Yes. X x x. The fact is, petitioner-driver Montefalcon did not which could have been avoided considering the narrowness of
slacken his speed but instead continued to run the jeep at about the Sumasap Bridge which was not wide enough to admit two
forty (40) kilometers per hour even at the time the overtaking vehicles. As found by the Court of Appeals, Montefalcon
cargo truck was running side by side for about twenty (20) contributed to the occurrence of the mishap.
meters and at which time he even shouted to the driver of the
truck.

Thus, had Montefalcon slackened the speed of the jeep at the PAL vs. CA and ZAPATOS
time the truck was overtaking it, instead of running side by side G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993
with the cargo truck, there would have been no contact and
accident. He should have foreseen that at the speed he was Facts: Private respondent was among the 21 passengers of
running, the vehicles were getting nearer the bridge and as the Flight 477 that took off from Cebu bound for Ozamiz City. The
road was getting narrower the truck would be to close to the routing of this flight was Cebu-Ozamiz-Cotabato. The pilot
jeep and would eventually sideswiped it. Otherwise stated, he received a radio message that Ozamiz airport was closed due to
should have slackened his jeep when he swerved it to the right heavy rains and inclement weather and that he should proceed
to give way to the truck because the two vehicles could not to Cotabato City instead.
cross the bridge at the same time.
Upon arrival at Cotabato City, the PAL Station Agent informed considering the then ongoing battle between government forces
the passengers of their options to return to Cebu on the same and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact that the private
day and then to Ozamiz, or take the next flight to Cebu the respondent was a stranger to the place.
following day, or remain at Cotabato and take the next available
flight to Ozamiz City. Flight 560 bound for Manila would make a A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and
stop-over at Cebu to bring some of the diverted passengers; degree from any other contractual relation. Because of the
that there were only 6 seats available. relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its business
is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of
Private respondent chose to return to Cebu but was not the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air
accommodated because he checked-in as passenger No. 9 on carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public
Flight 477. duty.
He was forced to stay at Cotabato City despite the local war
between the military and the muslim rebels. He tried to ferry the
Ford Fiera loaded with PAL personnel but said pick-up vehicle Since part of the failure to comply with the obligation of common
did not accommodate him. The personnel of PAL did not secure carrier to deliver its passengers safely to their destination lay in
his accommodation in Cotabato City. the defendant’s failure to provide comfort and convenience to its
stranded passengers using extra-ordinary diligence, the cause
He received a free ticket on a flight to Iligan, but chose to buy of non-fulfillment is not solely and exclusively due to fortuitous
his own. He lost his personal belongings, including a camera. event, but due to something which defendant airline could have
prevented, PAL becomes liable to plaintiff.
Issue:
2. WON the exemplary damages was properly awarded by
1. WON PAL can properly invoke the defense of fortuitous the appellate court? NO
event of bad weather in Ozamiz to exempt itself from paying
damages to the PR? NO The award of moral damages was excessive and was reduced
by the Court. There was no clear basis that PAL failed to
PAL remissed in its duty of extending utmost care to private entertain the plaintiff and answer its queries. In fact, the
respondent while being stranded in Cotabato City. manager accommodated him in his office. Moral damages are
not intended to enrich the private respondent. They are awarded
PAL’s diversion of its flight due to inclement weather was a
only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he
terminate PAL’s contract with its passengers. Being in the
has undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable action.
business of air carriage and the sole one to operate in the
country, PAL is deemed equipped to deal with situations as in The plaintiff’s claim on loss of business opportunities was based
the case at bar. The relation of carrier and passenger continues only on pure speculation. It must depend on competent proof.
until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and
has left the carrier’s premises. Hence, PAL necessarily would Tiu vs. Arriesgado
still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004
comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers
until they have reached their final destination. PAL grossly failed
Facts: At about 10:00 p.m. of March 15, 1987, the cargo truck his driver, Virgilio Te Laspiñas on May 27, 1987. The
marked "Condor Hollow Blocks and General Merchandise" respondent alleged that the passenger bus in question was
bearing plate number GBP-675 was loaded with firewood in cruising at a fast and high speed along the national road, and
Bogo, Cebu and left for Cebu City. Upon reaching Sitio Aggies, that petitioner Laspiñas did not take precautionary measures to
Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu, just as the truck passed over a avoid the accident.
bridge, one of its rear tires exploded. The driver, Sergio
Pedrano, then parked along the right side of the national The petitioners, for their part, filed a Third-Party Complaint
highway and removed the damaged tire to have it vulcanized at against the following: respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and
a nearby shop, about 700 meters away. Pedrano left his helper, Insurance, Inc. (PPSII), petitioner Tiu’s insurer; respondent
Jose Mitante, Jr. to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, and Benjamin Condor, the registered owner of the cargo truck; and
instructed the latter to place a spare tire six fathoms away respondent Sergio Pedrano, the driver of the truck. They alleged
behind the stalled truck to serve as a warning for oncoming that petitioner Laspiñas was negotiating the uphill climb along
vehicles. The trucks tail lights were also left on. It was about the national highway of Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, in
12:00 a.m., March 16, 1987. a moderate and normal speed. It was further alleged that the
truck was parked in a slanted manner, its rear portion almost in
At about 4:45 a.m., D Rough Riders passenger bus with plate the middle of the highway, and that no early warning device was
number PBP-724 driven by Virgilio Te Laspiñas was cruising displayed. Petitioner Laspiñas promptly applied the brakes and
along the national highway of Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, swerved to the left to avoid hitting the truck head-on, but despite
Compostela, Cebu. The passenger bus was also bound for his efforts to avoid damage to property and physical injuries on
Cebu City, and had come from Maya, Daanbantayan, Cebu. the passengers, the right side portion of the bus hit the cargo
Among its passengers were the Spouses Pedro A. Arriesgado truck’s left rear.
and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, who were seated at the right side
of the bus, about three (3) or four (4) places from the front seat. HELD: The rules which common carriers should observe as to
the safety of their passengers are set forth in the Civil Code,
As the bus was approaching the bridge, Laspiñas saw the Articles 1733, 1755and 1756. It is undisputed that the
stalled truck, which was then about 25 meters away. He applied respondent and his wife were not safely transported to the
the breaks and tried to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the destination agreed upon. In actions for breach of contract, only
truck. But it was too late; the bus rammed into the trucks left the existence of such contract, and the fact that the obligor, in
rear. The impact damaged the right side of the bus and left this case the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger
several passengers injured. Pedro Arriesgado lost safely to his destination are the matters that need to be proved.
consciousness and suffered a fracture in his right colles. His This is because under the said contract of carriage, the
wife, Felisa, was brought to the Danao City Hospital. She was petitioners assumed the express obligation to transport the
later transferred to the Southern Island Medical Center where respondent and his wife to their destination safely and to
she died shortly thereafter. observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all
circumstances. Any injury suffered by the passengers in the
Respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for course thereof is immediately attributable to the negligence of
breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorneys fees the carrier. Upon the happening of the accident, the
before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 20, against presumption of negligence at once arises, and it becomes the
the petitioners, D Rough Riders bus operator William Tiu and duty of a common carrier to prove that he observed
extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. It must be use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the
stressed that in requiring the highest possible degree of manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the
diligence from common carriers and in creating a presumption passenger has no remedy against him, while carrier usually has.
of negligence against them, the law compels them to curb the It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of
recklessness of their drivers. While evidence may be submitted the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to
to overcome such presumption of negligence, it must be shown answer for flaws of his equipment if such cause were at all
that the carrier observed the required extraordinary diligence, discoverable.
which means that the carrier must show the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can Roberto Juntilla V. Clemente Fontanar
provide, or that the accident was caused by fortuitous event. As
correctly found by the trial court, petitioner Tiu failed to G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985
conclusively rebut such presumption. The negligence of
FACTS: Jeepney was driven by Berfol Camoro from Danao City
petitioner Laspiñas as driver of the passenger bus is, thus,
to Cebu City. It was Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned
binding against petitioner Tiu, as the owner of the passenger
by defendant Fernando Banzon.
bus engaged as a common carrier.
When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire
Necessito vs. Paras exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Roberto Juntilla was
(104 Phil 75) sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle.

Facts: On January\y 28, 1954, Severina Garces and her one Upon landing on the ground, he momentarily lost
year old son, Precillano Necesito boarded passenger auto truck consciousness. When he came to his senses, he found that he
bus of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines at Agno, Pangasinan. had a lacerated wound on his right palm. He also injured his left
arm, right thigh and on his back.
After the bus entered a wooden bridge, the front wheels
swerved to the right. The driver lost control, and after the Because of his shock and injuries, he went back to Danao City
wrecking the bridge wooden rails, the truck fell on its right side but on the way, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch
into a creek where water was breast deep. The mother, worth P 852.70 was lost. Upon his arrival in Danao City, he
Severina was drowned and the son Precillano was injured. immediately entered the Danao City Hospital to attend to his
injuries, and also requested his father-in-law to proceed
Issue: Whether or nor the carrier is liable for manufacturing immediately to the place of the accident and look for the watch.
defect of the steering knuckle? Roberto Juntilla filed for breach of contract with damages
Held: It is clear that the carrier is not an insurer of the Respondents: beyond the control since tire that exploded was
passenger’s safety. His liability rest upon negligence, that his newly bought and was only slightly used
failure to exercise utmost degree of diligence that the law
requires. RTC: favored Roberto Juntilla
CA: Reversed since accident was due to fortuitous event
The passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in
the selection and use of the equipment and the appliances in
ISSUE: W/N there is a fortuitous event any amount for failure to prove such damages during the trial
findings of facts of the City Court of Cebu
HELD: NO. CA reversed, RTC reinstated.
Maranan vs. Perez
passenger jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the
accident at a regular and safe speed will not jump into a ditch FACTS
when its right rear tire blows up passenger jeepney was - Rogelio Carachea rode a taxi owned and operated by Pascual
overloaded 3 passengers in the front seat 14 passengers in the Perez when he was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon
rear caso fortuito presents the following essential Valenzuela
characteristics: - Valenzuela was found guilty for homicide in the CFI
- While appeal was pending in CA, Maranan (Rogelio’s mom)
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or
filed an action in CFI to recover damages from Perez (taxi
of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be
owner) and Valenzuela for her son’s death
independent of the human will.
- Perez and Valenzuela assert that Rogelio was killed in self-
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes defense since he first assaulted driver from behind. Perez also
the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible claimed that the death was a caso fortuito for which the
to avoid. carrier was not liable.
- CFI ruled in favour of plaintiff Maranan
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for - CA affirmed
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner.
ISSUE: WoN Perez, taxi owner and operator, should be held
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the liable for the death of the taxi passenger? YES.
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected Perez relies on the ruling in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co.
occurrence was not independent of the human will. The where it held that the carrier is under no absolute liability for
accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver assaults of its employees upon the passengers.
or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers
should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to HELD
exceed safe and legal speed limits, and to know the correct
measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the safety 1. In the Gillaco1 case, the passenger was killed outside the
of passengers at all times scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee. In this
case, the killing was done by the driver of the taxi transporting
the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of the passenger, in whose hands the carrier had entrusted the
carriage, and by entering into the said contract, it binds itself to duty of executing the contract of carriage. Unlike in the Gillaco
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight case, the passenger’s killing here happened in the course of
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. 1
When the crime happened, the guard had no duty to discharge in connection with
Respondents likewise argue that the petitioner cannot recover the transportation of the deceased….
duty of the guilty employee and within the scope of his duties. (3) The carrier must bear the risk of wrongful acts or
negligence of the carrier’s employees against
Moreover, the Gillaco case was decided under the Civil Code passengers since it has the power to select and remove
of 1889 provisions, which (unlike the new Civil Code) did them
not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the
safety of the passengers against wilful assaults or It is the carrier’s strict obligation to select its drivers and
negligent acts committed by their employees. Unlike the old similar employees with due regard not just to their
Civil Code, the new Civil Code expressly makes the technical competence and physical ability but also to their
common carrier liable for intentional assaults committed by total personality, behaviour, moral fiber and social attitude.
its employees upon its passengers under Art. 1759 CC.
De Gillaco v. MRR
The Civil Code provisions on common carriers were taken from Liability for acts of others
Anglo American Law which based the common carrier’s liability
for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers on either: Facts: Lieut. Tomas Gillaco, husband of the plaintiff, was a
(a) the doctrine of respondeat superior OR passenger in the early morning train of the Manila Railroad
(b) the principle that it is the carrier’s implied duty to transport Company from Calamba, Laguna to Manila. When the train
the passenger safely. reached the Paco Railroad station, Emilio Devesa, a train guard
of the MRR happened to be in said station waiting for the same
Under (a) the doctrine of respondeat superior, the carrier is train which would take him to Tutuban Station, where he was
liable only when the employee’s act is within the scope of his going to report for duty. Emilio had along standing personal
authority and duty. BUT under the (b), it’s not enough that the grudge against Tomas. Because of this, Emilio shot Tomas with
assault happens within the course of the employee’s duty. the carbine furnished to him by the MRR for his use as such
The carrier’s liability is absolute such that it practically train guard upon seeing him inside the train coach. Tomas died.
secures the passengers from assaults committed by its Emilio was convicted of homicide. A complaint for damages was
own employees. filed by the victim’s widow. Damages were awarded to the
plaintiff, hence the instant petition. Appellant's contention is that,
Under Art. 1759 CC, Philippines follows (b) the principle that it is no liability attaches to it as employer of Emilio because the
the carrier’s implied duty to transport the passenger safely. The crime was not committed while the slayer was in the actual
rule is based on 3 reasons: performance of his ordinary duties and service and that no
(1) the carrier’s special undertaking requires that it furnish its negligence on appellant's part was shown.
passengers full measure of protection afforded by the
exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by law Issue: Whether or not MRR could be held liable for the acts of
from violence and insults from strangers, passengers and its employee.
most especially from its owns employees charged with
Held: No. While a passenger is entitled to protection from
passengers’ safety
personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees,
(2) It is the result of the carrier’s confiding in the employees’
since the contract of transportation obligates the carrier to
hands the performance of his contract to safely
transport a passenger safely to his destination, the responsibility
transport the passenger, delegating the duty of protecting
of the carrier extends only to those acts that the carrier could
the passenger with the utmost care prescribed by law
foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of care and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin .
diligence required of it. In the present case, the act of the train LRTA and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of merit. CA
guard of the Manila Railroad Company in shooting the held LRTA and Roman liable, hence the petition.
passenger (because of a personal grudge nurtured against the
latter since the Japanese occupation) was entirely unforseeable ISSUE:
by the Manila Railroad Co. The latter had no means to ascertain
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of carriage
or anticipate that the two would meet, nor could it reasonably
between Navidad and LRTA
forsee every personal rancour that might exist between each
one of its many employees and any one of the thousands of HELD:
eventual passengers riding in its trains. The shooting in question
was therefore "caso fortuito" within the definition of Art. 1105 of AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award
the old CivilCode (which is the law applicable), being both of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo
unforeseeable and inevitable under the given circumstances; Roman is absolved from liability
and pursuant to established doctrine, the resulting breach of the
company's contract of safe carriage with the deceased was Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment
excused thereby. Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the
premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, protection under a contractual relation. The appellate court had
versus MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad
NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY in failing to exercise.

FACTS: In affirming the LRTA’s liability and exonerating Roman, the

Supreme Court ruled that a common carrier, both from the
Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is
after purchasing a “token” (representing payment of the fare). burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in
While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT ensuring the safety of passengers. The Civil Code requires
tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost
approached him. A misunderstanding or an altercation between diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety
however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of
between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises
fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of
LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming carriage. In case of death or injury, a carrier is presumed to
in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed have been at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of
instantaneously. The widow of Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the
with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito fault or negligence of the carrier to prove that the injury is due to
Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of
her husband. Trial court ruled in favor Navidad’s wife and Marchan vs Mendoza
Facts: Between 9:00 and 9:30pm, passenger bus of Philippine Issue: 1) Whether there was a contract of carriage?
Rabbit Bus Lines being driven by petitioner Silverio Marchan fell
into a ditch while on its way to Manila. 2) Whether there award of damages was proper?

Respondents Arsenio Mendoza, his wife and child, boarded this Held: YES to both!
bus bound for Manila and paid their fares. The bus was
It is undisputed that Marchan was at the steering wheel
travelling at a high rate of speed so much so that one of the
of the bus. The riding public is not expected to inquire before
passengers had to call the attention of the driver to slow down
they board the bus if the person at the steering wheel was
but this request was not heeded. On the contrary, Marchan
authorized to drive, or was acting within his authority and
even increased his speed while approaching a 6 by 6 truck
observing the existing rules of the management.
which was parked ahead in order to overtake the parked truck
and to avoid an incoming vehicle (according to the driver, he To hold otherwise would be to render nugatory the civil
wanted to overtake because if he would apply the brakes he code provision that common carriers cannot escape liability for
would bump the truck). the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or
willfull acts of the employees, although they have acted beyond
However, when Marchan tried to veer his bus to the right to
the scope of their authority or in violation of orders. (no mention
resume to their normal lane, the rear tires of the bus skidded
of any allegation that Marchan was not authorized to drive)
because of their speed. They then fell on a ditch.
Compensatory damage: the P40K is proper given the
As a result, respondents Arsenio Mendoza, his wife and child
circumstances. This is to consider that Mendoza had suffered
were thrown out to the ground. Arsenio Mendoza damaged his
paralysis on the lower extremities which will incapacitate him to
vertebrae causing paralysis of his lower extremities. The
engage in his customary occupation. If we take into account that
physician who treated Arsenio opined that he may never walk
Mendoza was only 26yrs old at the time of the accident, and
again. given the average life span of a Filipino, he may be expected to
Thereafter, the driver of the bus, Silverio Marchan, was tried live for 30yrs or more, and his income was almost P100/month
and found guilty for slight physical injuries resulting from from the business of his father in law as assistant supervisor of
reckless imprudence. small fairs and another income of P100 as a professional boxer.

Respondents Mendoza sought to recover damages from Exemplary damages: it is argued that the court was
Marchan as driver, and from Bienvenido Buan and Natividad without jurisdiction to award this since there was no allegation
Paras who are the administrator and administratix of the late nor prayer, nor proof in the complaint to adjudicate exemplary
Florencio Buan doing business under the name Philippine damages. However, the complaint stated, “prayed for such other
Rabbit Bus Lines. The basis for recover of damages was the and further relief.” When plaintiffs prayed in their complaint for
breach of contract and the criminal negligence of the driver. such other relief and remedies, the court is called upon to
exercise and use its discretion whether the imposition of
The CA affirmed the P40K compensatory damages, and exemplary damages even though not specifically prayed for is
modifying the exemplary damages to P30K and sustaining the proper or not.
attorney’s fees in the amount of P5K.
In the case of Singson vs Aragon, it was held that
exemplary damages cannot be given as a matter of right and
are only given in addition to other damages. The amount of Bachelor Express, Yasay, and Rivera jointly and solidarily liable
exemplary damages depends upon the amount of to pay the Beters and theRautraut the amount of P75,000.00 in
compensatory damages awarded. Hence, if the amount of loss of earnings and support, moral damages, straight death
exemplary damages need not be proved, it also need not be indemnity and attorney’s fees to the heirs of Ornominio Beter;
alleged since it is merely incidental or dependent on the and the amount of P45,000.00 for straight death indemnity,
compensatory damages awarded. moral damages and attorney’s fees to the heirs of Narcisa
Rautraut; with costs against Bachelor Express, et. al. Hence,
Doctrine: A general prayer for damages is sufficient to grant the the petition for review.
court a right to exercise discretion in awarding damages (in this
case, exemplary damages). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and affirmed the
decision dated 19 May 1988 and the resolution dated 1 August
Bachelor Express vs. CA (GR 85691, 31 July 1990) 1988 of the Court of Appeals.
Third Division, Gutierrez Jr. (J): 4 concur
1. Liability of Bachelor Express, et. al. anchored on culpa
contractual. The liability, if any, of Bachelor Express, Yasay, and
Fact: Rivera, is anchored on culpa contractual or breach of contract of
carriage.
On 1 August 1980, Bus 800, owned by Bachelor Express, Inc.
and driven by Cresencio Rivera, came from Davao City on its 2. Article 1732 NCC. Article 1732 of the Civil Code provides that
way to Cagayan de Oro City passing Butuan City. While at “Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City,the bus picked up a passenger. associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
About 15 minutes later, a passenger at the rear portion passengers or goods or both by land, water, or air, for
suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and compensation, offering their services to the public.”
panic among the passengers. When the bus stopped,
passengers Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut were found 3. Article 1733 NCC. Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that
lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of head “Common carriers, from the nature of their business andfor
injuries and the latter also suffering from severe injuries which reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
caused her death later. The passenger-assailant alighted from diligence in the vigilance over the goods andfor the safety of the
the bus and ran toward the bushes but was killed by the police. passengers transported by them, according to all the
circumstances of each case.
Thereafter, the heirs of Ornomino Beter and Narcisa Rautraut
(Ricardo Beter and Sergia Beter are the parents of Ornominio 4. Article 1755 NCC. Article 1755. of the Civil Code provides
while Teofilo Rautraut and Zotera Rautraut are the parents of that “A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely
Narcisa) filed a complaint for “sum of money” against Bachelor as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
Express, its alleged owner Samson Yasay, and the driver utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for
Rivera. After due trial, the trial court issued an order dated 8 all the circumstances.”
August 1985 dismissing the complaint.
5. Article 1756 NCC. Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that
Upon appeal however, the trial court’s decision was reversed “In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers
and set aside. The appellate entered a new judgment finding are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as travelling at an appreciably fast speed. At the same time, the
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.” common carrier itself acknowledged, through its administrative
officer, Benjamin Granada, that the bus was commissioned to
6. Bachelor Express a common carrier, bound to carry travel and take on passengers and the public at large, while
passenger using utmost diligence of very cautious persons equipped with only a solitary door for a bus its size and loading
capacity, in contravention of rules and regulations provided for
Bachelor Express, Inc. is a common carrier. Hence, from the
under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code (RA 4136as
nature of its business and for reasons of public policy Bachelor
amended.). Bachelor Express, et. al. have failed to overcome
Express, Inc. is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as
the presumption of fault and negligence foundin the law
human care and foresight can provide using the utmost
governing common carriers.
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances. 19. Defense of carrier not insurers of passengers not given
merit due to failure to observe required diligence.
7. Bachelor Express presumed to act negligently for death of
passengers. Herein, Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut Bachelor Express’ argument that they “are not insurers of their
were passengers of a bus belonging to Bachelor Express and, passengers” deserves no merit in view of their failure to prove
while passengers of the bus, suffered injuries which caused that the deaths of the two passengers were exclusively due to
their death. Consequently, pursuant to Article 1756 of the Civil force majeure and not to their failure to observe extraordinary
Code, Bachelor Express is presumed to have acted negligently diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their
unless it can prove that it had observed extraordinary diligence destinations as warranted by law.
in accordance with Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil
Code. Fortune Express vs. CA (GR 119756, 18 March 1999)
Proximate cause of incident; Sudden act of passenger who Facts: Fortune Express Inc. is a bus company in northern
stabbed another passenger within context of force majeure. Mindanao. On 18 November 1989, Fortune Express’ bus figured
in an accident with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte,
The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause resulting in the death of several passengers of the jeepney,
of the incident as it triggered off acommotion and panic among including two Maranaos. Crisanto Generalao, a volunteer field
the passengers such that the passengers started running to the agent of the Constabulary Regional Security Unit (X), conducted
sole exit shovingeach other resulting in the falling off the bus by an investigation of the accident. He found that the ownerof the
passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal injuries. The jeepney was a Maranao residing in Delabayan, Lanao del Norte
sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger in and that certain Maranaos were planning to take revenge on
the bus is within the context of force majeure. Fortune Express by burning some of its buses. Generalao
rendered a report on his findings to Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa of
18. Bachelor Express negligent. The negligence of the common
the Philippine Constabulary Regional Headquarters at Cagayan
carrier, through its employees, consisted of the lack of
de Oro. Upon the instruction of Sgt. Bastasa he went to see
extraordinarydiligence required of common carriers, in
Diosdado Bravo, operations manager of petitioner, at its main
exercising vigilance and utmost care of the safety of its
office in Cagayan de Oro City. Bravo assured him that the
passengers, exemplified by the driver’s belated stop and the
necessary precautions to insure the safety of lives and property
reckless opening of the doors of the bus while the same was
would be taken. At about 6:45 p.m. on 22 November 1989, 3
armed Maranaos who pretended to be passengers, seized a one ordering Fortune Express to pay the Caorongs (1)
bus of Fortune Express at Linamon, Lanao del Norte while on its P3,399,649.20 as death indemnity; (2)P50,000.00 and P500.00
way to Iligan City. Among the passengers of the bus was Atty. per appearance as attorney’s fees; and costs against Fortune
Talib Caorong. The leader of the Maranaos, identified as one Express. Hence, the appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
Bashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver, Godofredo Cabatuan,
to stop the bus on the side of the highway. Mananggolo then The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
shot Cabatuan on the arm, which caused him to slump on the Appeals with modification that Fortune Express is ordered to
steering wheel. The none of the companions of Mananggolo pay Paulie, Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander
started pouring gasoline inside the bus, as the other held the Caorong (1) death indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00; (2)
passengers at bay with a handgun. Mananggolo then ordered actual damages in the amount of P30,000.00; (3) moral
the passengers to get off the bus. The passengers, including damages in the amount ofP100,000.00; (4) exemplary damages
Atty. Caorong, stepped out of the bus and went behind the in the amount of P100,000.00; (5) attorney’s fees in the amount
bushes in a field some distance from the highway. However, ofP50,000.00; (6) compensation for loss of earning capacity in
Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve something from the the amount of P2,121,404.90; and (7) costs of suits.
overhead rack. At that time, one of the armed men was pouring
Fortune Express negligent; No precautions was undertaken
gasoline on the head of the driver. Cabatuan, who had
meantime regained consciousness, heard Atty. Caorong Herein, it is clear that because of the negligence of Fortune
pleading with the armed men to spare the driver as he was Express’ employees, the seizure of the busby Mananggolo and
innocent of any wrong doing and was only trying to make a his men was made possible. Despite warning by the Philippine
living. The armed men were, however, adamant as they Constabulary at Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were
repeated their warning that they were going to burn the bus planning to take revenge on Fortune Express by burning some
along with its driver. During this exchange between Atty. of its buses andthe assurance of petitioner’s operation manager,
Caorong and the assailants, Cabatuan climbed out of the left Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary precautions would be
window of the bus and crawled to the canal on the opposite side taken, Fortune Express did nothing to protect the safety of its
of the highway. He heard shots from inside the bus. Larry de la passengers. Had Fortune Express and itsemployees been
Cruz, one of the passengers, saw that Atty. Caorong was hit. vigilant they would not have failed to see that the malefactors
Then the bus was set on fire. Some of the passengers were had a large quantity of gasoline with them. Under the
able to pull Atty. Caorong out of the burning bus and rush him to circumstances, simple precautionary measures to protect the
the Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City, but he died while safety of passengers, such as frisking passengers and
undergoing operation. Paulie Caorong, the widow of Atty. inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets
Caorong, and their minor children Yasser King, Rose Heinni, such as metal detectors, before allowing them on board could
and Prince Alexander brought a suit for breach of contract of have been employed without violating the passenger’s
carriage in the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City (BranchVI). In constitutional rights. As the Court intimated in Gacal v.
its decision, dated 28 December 1990, the trial court dismissed Philippine Air Lines, Inc., a common carrier can beheld liable for
the complaint, and the corresponding counterclaim; without failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and
costs. inspecting their baggages.
On appeal, however, and on 29 July 1994, the Court of Appeals Article 1174 of the Civil Code (Fortuitous event defined); Yobido
reversed the decision of the trial court, and rendered another vs. CA, when unforeseen event considered a force majeure
Article 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event as an knowing that on the same flight were members of the MNLF
occurrence which could not before seen or which though armed with grenades and pistols.
foreseen, is inevitable. In Yobido v. Court of Appeals, the Court
held that to be considered as force majeure, it is necessary that: Ten minutes after take off, the MNLF announced the hijacking of
(1) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be the aircraft and directed its pilot to fly to Libya. With the pilot
independent of the human will; (2) the event must be either explaining to them of the fuel limitations of the plane, the
unforeseeable or unavoidable; (3) the occurrence must be such hijackers directed the pilot to fly to Sabah. So they landed in
as to tender it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in Zamboanga Airport to refuel.
a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free of
At the Zamboanga Airport, there ensued hostilities between the
participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. The
military and the hijackers. As a result of such faceoff, the wives
absence of any of the requisites mentioned above would
of Gacal and Anislag suffered injuries. Several
prevent the obligor from being excused from liability.
Now, plaintiffs are claiming for damages averring that PAL
Deceased not guilty of contributory negligence, let alone
exercised negligence, finding basis on its breach of contract of
recklessness
carriage. There was a failure to frisk the passengers adequately
Herein, Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly. The intended in order to discover hidden weapons in the bodies of the
targets of the violence were Fortune Express and its employees, hijackers. Despite the prevalence of skyjacking, PAL did not use
not its passengers. The assailant’s motive was to retaliate for a metal detector which is the most effective means of
the loss of life of two Maranaos as a result of the collision discovering potential skyjackers among the passengers.
between Fortune Express’ bus and the jeepney in which the two
PAL invokes the defense of force majeure or caso fortuito.
Maranaos were riding. Mananggolo, the leader of the group
which had hijacked the bus, ordered the passengers to get off Issue: WON PAL can invoke caso fortuito to exculpate itself
the bus as they intended to burn it and its driver. The armed from paying damages to herein plaintiffs? YES
men actually allowed Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from
the bus. What apparently angered them was his attempt to help Held: The existence of force majeure has been established
the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He was playing the exempting respondent PAL from the payment of damages to its
role of the good Samaritan. Certainly, this act cannot be passengers who suffered death or injuries in their persons and
considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness. for loss of their baggages.

GACAL vs. PAL The source of a common carrier’s legal liability is the contract of
G.R. No. L-55300 March 15, 1990 carriage, and by entering into said contract, it binds itself to
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide. There is breach of this obligation if it fails to exert
Facts: Plaintiffs Franklin G. Gacal and his wife, Corazon M. extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of the
Gacal along with three others were then passengers boarding case in exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious
defendant’s BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for a flight to Manila, not person.
The failure to transport petitioners safely from Davao to Manila Issue: Whether or not the nature of the business of a
was due to the skyjacking incident, all members of the MNLF, transportation company requires the assumption of certain risks
without any connection with private respondent, hence, and the stroking of the bus by a bystander resulting in injury to
independent of the will of either the PAL or of its passengers. petitioner-passenger is one such risk from which the common
carrier may not exempt itself from liability?
Under normal circumstances, PAL might have foreseen the
skyjacking incident which could have been avoided had there Held: The Supreme Court held that while the law requires the
been a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe
baggages as authorized by R.A. No. 6235. But the incident in transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of
question occurred during Martial Law where there was a military negligence against them, it does not however, make the carrier
take-over of airport security including the frisking of passengers an insurer of absolute safety of its passengers. A tort,
and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding committed by a stranger which causes an injury to a passenger
domestic and international flights. does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier.
The negligence for which a common carrier is responsible is the
The security checks and measures and surveillance precautions negligent omission by the carrier’s employees to prevent the tort
in all flights, including the inspection of baggages and cargo and from being committed when the same could have been foreseen
frisking of passengers at the Davao Airport were performed and and prevented by them. Further, it is to be noted that when the
rendered solely by military personnel who under appropriate violation of the contract is due to the willful acts of strangers, as
authority had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the same in all in the instant case, the degree of care essential to be exercised
airports in the Philippines. by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is only
that of a good father of the family.
Otherwise stated, these events rendered it impossible for PAL
to perform its obligations in a nominal manner and obviously it Mapa v. CA
cannot be faulted with negligence in the performance of duty October 2, 1992 / Davide, Jr., J.
taken over by the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the
exclusion of the former.
Facts
Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals
180 SCRA 546 • High Peak Mining Exploration Corporation (“High Peak”),
through its duly authorized corporate officers Encarnacion C.
Tittel and Juergen Tittel (“the signatories”), borrowed various
Facts: On September 16, 1971, Jose Pilapil boarded sums of money from the private respondent Land Bank of the
defendant’s bus bearing No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga City at Philippines (“LBP”).
about 6:00PM. Upon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the
Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, on the way to Naga City • The loans are evidenced by three promissory notes
City, an unidentified man ( a bystander) hurled a stone at the left executed on different dates, signed by the said signatories.
side of the bus, which apparently hit petitioner above his left
eye. He was then immediately brought by private respondent’s • High Peak failed to pay the said loans.
personnel to the provincial hospital in Naga City.
• LBP sent demand letters to High Peak, which ignored the
same, prompting LBP to take legal action.
• LBP first filed a complaint for the recovery of the first o CA affirmed, finding that the substituted service of
note, intitially suing only High Peak. The complaint was later summons pursuant to Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
amended to implead as additional defendants petitioner Tomas was properly effected. MR was also denied.
Mapa (“Mapa”), in his personal capacity and as Chairman of
High Peak's Board of Directors, and the signatories to the • In Civil Case 2:
promissory notes. (“Civil Case 1”)
o Defendants were also declared in default for failiure to file
• As to the second and third notes, a separate complaint an answer.
for recovery of sum of money was filed by LBP against High
o TC thereafter declared defendats jointly and severally
Peak, Mapa (in his personal capacity and as Chairman of High
liable on the notes.
Peak's Board of Directors) and the signatories. (“Civil Case 2”)
o Mapa filed a Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Judgment,
• The complaints for both civil cases allege that the
also assailing the validity of service of summons upon him.
defendants could be served with summons at the Second Floor,
First Midland Condominium Bldg., Gamboa St., Legaspi Village o TC set aside the decision, ruling that jurisdiction was not
Makati, Metro Manila. acquired over both Mapa petitioner and High Peak. The court
held that there is no showing that efforts were exerted by the
• The sheriff’s return of service of summons for both civil
sheriff to serve the summons personally upon the petitioner and
cases state that defendants were served copies of summons on
instead immediately resorted to substituted service. LBP’s MR
the same day, thru Susan Dela Torre (“Dela Torre”), “a person
was denied.
of suitable age and discretion working therein [First Midland
Condominium], who claims to be the person authorized to o LBP went to CA on certiori. CA granted the petition and
received processess (sic) of this nature and who acknowledged set aside the TC decision. Mapa’s MR was denied.
the receipt thereof.”
• In Civil Case 1:
Issues/Held:
o TC declared defendants in default for failure to file an
answer and allowed LBP to present evidence es parte. 1. WON there was valid service of summons upon Mapa.
NO.
o Thereafer, TC rendered a decision in Civil Case 1,
against the defendants, finding them jointly and severally liable Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires
for the amound adjudged personal service of summons which is accomplished "by
handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
o Mapa filed a Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Judgment refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him." However, if
assailing the vailidity of the service of summons as to him. personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time,
substituted service, as provided for in Section 8 of the
o TC denied this motion as well as the MR.
abovementioned Rule 14, may suffice.
This provision is a reproduction of Section 8, Rule 7 of the 1940
Rules of Court except that the word "promptly" was changed to
"within a reasonable time". "Within a reasonable time" the said returns, that Susan is "authorized to receive processess
contemplates a period of time longer than that demarcated by (sic) of this nature." Until rebutted by competent evidence, the
the word "prompt", and presupposes that a prior attempt at returns would have to stand in the meantime for they enjoy the
personal service, within a justifiable time frame as would be presumption of regularity. Susan O. dela Torre may thus be
necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the deemed an agent of High Peak for purposes of the aforesaid
court, had failed. Section 13 of Rule 14. It is then logical to presume that she
delivered the copies of the summonses and complaints to the
In this case, the returns do not show that prior attempts at corporation, considering especially the fact that she was
personal service were made by the Sheriff and that such working in the office of the said corporation as indicated in the
attempts had failed, prompting the latter to resort to substituted complaints. This latter presumption has not likewise been
service. rebutted. Accordingly, even if Dela Torre may not strictly be
considered as the proper agent for purposes of the aforecited
Nevertheless, the absence in the sheriff's return of a statement
Section 13, there was, nonetheless, substantial compliance
about the impossibility of personal service does not conclusively
therewith.
prove that the service is invalid. Proof of prior attempts at
personal service may be submitted by the plaintiff during the China Airlines vs. Chiok
hearing of any incident assailing the validity of the substituted G.R. No. 152122. July 30, 2003
service. Unfortunately in this case, the LBP failed to present to
prove that substituted service of summons was indeed effected
in strict compliance with Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Facts: Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines a passenger
Court. ticket for air transportation covering Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-
Manila. The said ticket was exclusively endorsable to PAL.
Thus, there was neither a valid personal nor substituted service
of summons effected on the petitioner in both Civil Cases.
Before Chiok his trip, the trips covered by the ticket were pre-
scheduled and confirmed by the former. When petitioner arrived
2. WON there was valid service of summons upon High in Taipei, he went to CAL to confirm his Hong Kong- Manila trip
Peak. YES. on board PAL. The CAL office attached a yellow sticker
indicating the status was OK.
Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that “”if the
defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the When Chiok reached Hong Kong, he then went to PAL office to
Philippines or a partnership duly registered, services may be confirm his flight back to Manila. The PAL also confirmed the
made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or status of his ticket and attached a ticket indicating a status OK.
any of its directors.” The rule is meant to bring home to the Chiok proceeded to Hong Kong airport for his trip to Manila.
corporation notice of the filing of the action. However, upon reaching the PAL counter, he was told that the
flight to Manila was cancelled due to typhoon. He was informed
In his separate motions to dismiss, while petitioner categorically
that all confirmed flight ticket holders of PAL were automatically
admits that this Susan O. dela Torre is an employee of the
booked for the next flight the following day.
corporation, he does not disclose her specific duties and
responsibilities. He does not even deny the statement, made in
The next day, Chiok was not able to board the plane because country applies to all international transportation of persons,
his name did not appear on the computer as passenger for the baggage or goods performed by an airline gratuitously or for
said flight to Manila. hire. Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides: An action
for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the
Issue: Whether or not CAL is liable for damages? territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the
court of the domicile of the carrier of his principal place of
Held: The contract of air transportation between the petitioner
business or where he has a place of business through which the
and respondent, with the former endorsing PAL the segment of
contract has been made, or before the court at the place of
Chiok’s journey. Such contract of carriage has been treated in
destination.
this jurisprudence as a single operation pursuant to Warsaw
Convention, to which the Philippines is a party. The contract of carriage between the private respondent and
Singapore Airlines although performed by different carriers
In the instant case, PAL as the carrying agent of CAL, the latter
under a series of airline tickets, including that issued by
cannot evade liability to respondent, Chiok, even though it may
petitioner, constitutes a single operation. Members of the IATA
have been only a ticket issuer for Hong Kong- Manila sector.
are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they
American Airlines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 116044- act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to
45, March 9, 2000 contracted passengers to boost ticket sales worldwide at the
same time provides passengers easy access to airlines which
FACTS: Private Respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines are otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the world. Thus,
in Manila conjunction tickets for Manila-Singapore-Athens- when the petitioner accepted the unused portion of the
Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-New York. In conjunction tickets, entered it in the IATA clearing house and
Geneva, private respondent decided to go straight to New York undertook to transport the private respondent over the route
and in the absence of a direct flight in his conjunction ticket for a covered by the unused portion of the conjunction tickets, it
one-way from Geneva-New York from the petitioner airline. tacitly recognized its commitment under the IATA pool
Petitioner issued its own ticket to the private respondent in arrangement to act as agent of the principal contracting airlines,
Geneva and claimed the value of the unused portion of the Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip the petitioner
conjunction ticket from the IATA 2 clearing house in Geneva. In agreed to undertake. As thus, the petitioner thereby assumed
1989, petitioner filed an action for damages before the RTC of the obligation to take the place of the carrier originally
Cebu for the alleged mental anguish and embarrassment he designated in the original conjunction ticket.
suffered from at the Geneva airport when petitioner’s security
officers prevented him from boarding the plane, detained him for The third option of the plaintiff under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw
about an hour and allowed him to board the place only after all Convention e.g., to sue in the place of business of the carrier
the other passengers have boarded. where the contract was made , is Manila, and Philippine courts
are clothed with jurisdiction to try this case. While the case is
ISSUE: Does RTC of Cebu have jurisdiction to take cognizance filed in Cebu and not in Manila the issue of venue is no longer
of the action for damages filed by private respondent against an issue as the petitioner is deemed to have waived it when it
petitioner in view of Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention? presented evidence before the trial court.
HELD: Yes. The Warsaw Convention to which the Philippines is
a party and which has the force and effect of the law in this