G.R. Nos.

74387-90 November 14, 1988

BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY & ARMANDO PETITIONER

PON, petitioners, 
vs. Defendants BLTB and Superlines, together with their drivers
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE HEIRS OF PAZ Pon and Dasco, denied liability by claiming that they exercised
VDA. DE PAMFILO, THE HEIRS OF NORMA NERI, and due care and diligence and shifted the fault, against each other.
BAYLON SALES and NENA VDA. DE ROSALES, respondents. They all interposed counterclaims against the plaintiffs and
crossclaims against each other.
Sibal, Custodia, Santos & Nofuente for petitioners.
LOWER COURT – exonerated Superlines and its driver
Restituto L. Opis for respondents Pamfilos and Rosaleses. Dasco

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for N. Neri and Baylon Sales. After trial on the merits, the lower court exonerated
defendants Superlines and its driver Dasco from liability and
PARAS, J.: attributed sole responsibility to defendants BLTB and its
driver Pon, and ordered them jointly and severally to pay
damages to the plaintiffs.
Before Us is a Petition to Review by Certiorari, the decision 1 of
the respondent appellate court which affirmed with
modification the joint decision of the trial court in four (4) COURT OF APPEALS – affirmed with modifications lower
cases involving similar facts and issues, finding favorably for court
the plaintiffs (private respondents herein), the dispositive
portion of said appellate judgment reading as follows: Defendants BLTB and Armando Pon appealed from the
decision of the lower court to respondent appellate court which
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the affirmed with modification the judgment of the lower court as
death indemnity is raised to P30,000.00 to earlier stated.
each set of the victims' heirs, the rest of the
judgment appealed from is hereby Hence, this petition to review by certiorari of defendant BLTB
affirmed in toto. Costs against the assigning a lone error, to wit:
defendants-appellants.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
SO ORDERED. (p. 20, Rollo) ERRED IN ADJUDGING THAT THE ACTIONS
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE BASED
From the records of the case We have gathered the following ON CULPA CONTRACTUAL. (p. 12, Rollo)
antecedent facts:
PETITIONERS
The collision between Bus No. 1046 of the Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB, for brevity) driven by Armando It is argued by petitioners that if the intention of private
Pon and Bus No. 404 of Superlines Transportation Company respondents were to file an action based on culpa
(Superlines, for brevity) driven by Ruben Dasco took place at contractual  or breach of contract of carriage, they could have
the highway traversing Barangay Isabong, Tayabas, Quezon in done so by merely impleading BLTB and its driver Pon. As it
the afternoon of August 11, 1978, which collision resulted in was in the trial court, private respondents filed an action
the death of Aniceto Rosales, Francisco Pamfilo and Romeo against all the defendants basing their action on culpa
Neri and in several injuries to Nena Rosales (wife of aquiliana or tort.
Anecito) and Baylon Sales, all passengers of the BLTB Bus
No. 1046. Petitioners' contentions deserve no merit. A reading of the
respondent court's decision shows that it anchored petitioners'
The evidence shows that as BLTB Bus No. 1046 was negotiating liability both on culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana, to wit:
the bend of the highway, it tried to overtake a Ford Fiera car
just as Bus No. 404 of Superlines was coming from the opposite Q: WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION
direction. Seeing thus, Armando Pon (driver of the BLTB Bus) RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THREE AND INJURIES TO
made a belated attempt to slacken the speed of his bus and TWO OF THE PASSENGERS OF BLTB DUE TO THE
tried to return to his proper lane. It was an unsuccessful try as NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER OF THE BLTB BUS?
the two (2) buses collided with each other.
A: YES
RESPONDENTS
The proximate cause of the collision
Nena Vda. de Rosales and Baylon Sales and the surviving heirs resulting in the death of three and injuries to
of the deceased Francisco Pamfilo, Aniceto Rosales and Romeo two of the passengers of BLTB was the
Neri instituted separate cases in the Court of First Instance of negligence of the driver of the BLTB bus,
Marinduque against BLTB and Superlines together with their who recklessly operated and drove said bus
respective drivers praying for damages, attorney's fees and by overtaking a Ford Fiera car as he was
litigation expenses plus costs. Criminal cases against the negotiating the ascending bend of the
drivers of the two buses were filed in the Court of First highway (tsn, October 4, 1979, pp. 9-10, 35,
Instance of Quezon. 36, 61; Exhibit 6 Superlines, p. 47) which
was divided into two lanes by a continuous
yellow strip (tsn, October 4, 1979, p. 36).
The driver of the BLTB bus admitted in his
 cross-examination that the continuous Armando Pon is primarily liable (Article
yellow line on the ascending bend of the 2176, Civil Code).<äre||anº•1àw>
highway signifies a no-overtaking zone (tsn,
October 4, 1979, p. 36). It is no surprise then On the other hand the liability of Pon's
that the driver of the Superlines bus was employer, appellant BLTB, is also
exonerated by the lower court. He had a primary, direct and immediate in view of
valid reason to presuppose that no one the fact that the death of or injuries to its
would overtake in such a dangerous passengers was through the negligence of
situation. These facts show that patient its employee (Marahan v. Mendoza, 24
imprudence of the BLTB driver. SCRA 888, 894), and such liability does not
cease even upon proof that BLTB had
It is well settled that a driver abandoning his exercised all the diligence of a good
proper lane for the purpose of overtaking father of a family in the selection and
another vehicle in ordinary situation has the supervision of its employees (Article
duty to see that the road is clear and not to 1759, Civil Code).
proceed if he can not do so in safety (People
v. Enriquez, 40 O.G. No. 5, 984). The common carrier's liability for the death
of or injuries to its passengers is based on its
... Before attempting to pass the vehicle contractual obligation to carry its
ahead, the rear driver must see that the road passengers safely to their destination. That
is clear and if there is no sufficient room for obligation is so serious that the Civil Code
a safe passage, or the driver ahead does not requires "utmost diligence of very cautious
turn out so as to afford opportunity to pass, person (Article 1755, Civil Code). They are
or if, after attempting to pass, the driver of presumed to have been at fault or to have
the overtaking vehicle finds that he cannot acted negligently unless they prove that they
make the passage in safety, the latter must have observed extraordinary diligence"
slacken his speed so as to avoid the danger (Article 1756, Civil Code).
of a collision, even bringing his car to a stop
if necessary. (3-4 Huddy Encyclopedia of In the present case, the appellants have
Automobile Law, Sec. 212, p. 195). failed to prove extraordinary diligence.
Indeed, this legal presumption was
The above rule becomes more particularly confirmed by the fact that the bus driver
applicable in this case when the overtaking of BLTB was negligent. It must follow that
took place on an ascending curved highway both the driver and the owner must
divided into two lanes by a continuous answer for injuries or death to its
yellow line. Appellant Pon should have passengers.
remembered that:
The liability of BLTB is also solidarily
When a motor vehicle is approaching or with its driver (Viluan v. Court of Appeals,
rounding a curve there is special necessity 16 SCRA 742, 747) even though the
for keeping to the right side of the road and liability of the driver springs from quasi
the driver has not the right to drive on the delict while that of the bus company from
left hand side relying upon having time to contract. (pp. 17-19, Rollo)
turn to the right if a car is approaching from
the opposite direction comes into view. (42 Conclusively therefore in consideration of the foregoing
C.J. 42 906). findings of the respondent appellate court it is settled that the
proximate cause of the collision resulting in the death of three
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is and injuries to two of the passengers of BLTB was the sole
presumed that a person driving a motor negligence of the driver of the BLTB Bus, who recklessly
vehicle has been negligent if at the time operated and drove said bus in a lane where overtaking is not
of the mishap, he was violating any traffic allowed by Traffic Rules and Regulations. Such negligence and
regulation. (Art. 2165, Civil Code). recklessness is binding against petitioner BLTB, more so
when We consider the fact that in an action based on a
In failing to observe these simple contract of carriage, the court need not make an express
precautions, BLTB's driver undoubtedly finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in
failed to act with the diligence demanded order to hold it responsible for the payment of the
by the circumstances. damages sought by the passenger. By the contract of
carriage, the carrier BLTB assumed the express obligation
to transport the passengers to their destination safely and
We now come to the subject of liability of to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for
the appellants. all the circumstances, and any injury that might be
suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the
Q: IS THE DRIVER PON’S NEGLIGENCE BINDING AGAINST fault or negligence of the carrier (Art. 1756, New Civil Code).
ITS EMPLOYER BLTB?
Q: IS THE ASSERTION OF THE “FORCE MAJEURE” DEFENSE
A: YES, its liability is solidary with the driver. It failed to BY THE COMMON CARRIER MERITORIOUS?
prove extraordinary diligence.
A: NO
For his own negligence in recklessly driving
the truck owned by his employer, appellant
Petitioners also contend that "a common carrier is not an
absolute insurer against all risks of travel and are not liable for
acts or accidents which cannot be foreseen or inevitable and that
responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of its passenger
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code is not
susceptible of a precise and definite formulation." (p. 13, Rollo)

Petitioners' contention holds no water because they had

totally failed to point out any factual basis for their defense
of force majeure in the light of the undisputed fact that the
cause of the collision was the sole
negligence and recklessness of petitioner Armando Pon.
For the defense of force majeure or act of God to prosper
the accident must be due to natural causes and exclusively
without human intervention.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is

hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.