[79] TEODORO v. NICOLAS - The students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 a.m.

, and that they were

G.R. No. 157917 | August 29, 2012 | Bersamin, J. already running late because of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South
Superhighway,
TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic description of death. - At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction materials
and parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path
SUMMARY: The Pereñases were engaged in the business of transporting students had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen, or other responsible persons
from their respective residences in Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, manning the crossing.
Makati City, and back using a van. They were contracted by the Zarates to transport - The bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the railroad crossing open to
Aaron to and from Don Bosco. One day, the van driver took an alternate route to bring traversing motorists.
the kids to school. The driver drove the van across a railroad track but did not see the
oncoming train. The train blew its horn but the van driver applied the brakes to late. At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No.
The train hit the rear of the van, throwing 9 of its 12 student passengers out of the 302 operated by Jhonny Alano (Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes
van. Aaron landed on the path of the train. He was killed instantly. The Zarates Interchange travelling northbound.
commenced an action for damages against the Perenases, the van driver, and PNR. - As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward
The Perenases interposed the defense that they exercised ordinary diligence in across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large passenger bus.
employing the driver, but the RTC rejected this defense in light of the fact that they - His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he overtook the
were a common carrier. The SC agreed with the RTC. passenger bus on its left side. The train blew its horn to warn motorists of its
approach.
DOCTRINE: The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the - When the train was about 50 meters away from the passenger bus and the
business actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used van, Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train.
in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the - He applied the emergency brakes only when he saw that a collision was
carrier that he has held out to the general public as his business or occupation. imminent.

FACTS: The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by
The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their Alfaro did not.
respective residences in Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City,
and back. [TRIGGER WARNING] The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine
- In their business, the Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van (van), which had the of the 12 students in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the
capacity to transport 14 students at a time, path of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, instantaneously killing
o two of whom would be seated in the front beside the driver, and the him.
others in the rear, with six students on either side. - Alano fled the scene on board the train, and did not wait for the police
o They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van. investigator to arrive.

In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport Aaron to and from Don Zarates commenced this action for damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and
Bosco. Alano

On August 22, 1996, as on previous school days, the van picked Aaron up around 6:00 Defendant Basis of Zarate’s claim
a.m. from the Zarates’ residence. Pereñas breach of the contract of carriage for the safe
- Aaron took his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. transport of Aaron
- The van, with its air-conditioning unit turned on and the stereo playing loudly, PNR quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code.
ultimately carried all the 14 student riders on their way to Don Bosco.

Alfaro took the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the narrow Pereñas defense
path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used by - adduced evidence to show that they had exercised the diligence of a good
Makati-bound vehicles as a short cut into Makati. father of the family in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, by making sure
 that Alfaro had been issued a driver’s license and had not been involved in the Civil Code govern the contract of governed by the provisions on common
any vehicular accident prior to the collision; private carriage carriers of the Civil Code, the Public
- that their own son had taken the van daily; and that Teodoro Pereña had Service Act, and other special laws
sometimes accompanied Alfaro in the van’s trips transporting the students relating to transportation
to school. diligence required of a private carrier is A common carrier is required to observe
- Pereñas cite Phil. National Railways v. Intermediate Appellate Court, only ordinary, that is, the diligence of a extraordinary diligence, and is presumed
o where the Court held the PNR solely liable for the damages caused good father of the family to be at fault or to have acted
to a passenger bus and its passengers when its train hit the rear negligently in case of the loss of the
end of the bus that was then traversing the railroad crossing. effects of passengers, or the death or
injuries to passengers.
PNR defense
- the proximate cause of the collision had been the reckless crossing of the
van whose driver had not first stopped, looked and listened; In relation to common carriers, the Court defined public use in the following terms in
- the narrow path traversed by the van had not been intended to be a railroad United States v. Tan Piaco
crossing for motorists. - "Public use" is the same as "use by the public". The essential feature of the
public use is not confined to privileged individuals but is open to the
RTC in favor of Spouses indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its
- The cooperative gross negligence of the Pereñas and PNR had caused the public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must look not
collision that led to the death of Aaron; only to the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed
- The Perenases’ defense that they exercised the diligence of a good father of mode of doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public
a family is inappropriate because they were a common carrier; benefit is merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of
- The damages awarded to the Zarates were not excessive, but based on the the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be, in general, a
established circumstances. right which the law compels the owner to give to the general public. It is not
enough that the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is
CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, not synonymous with public interest. The true criterion by which to judge the
- but limited the moral damages to ₱ 2,500,000.00; and deleted the attorney’s character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by
fees because the RTC did not state the factual and legal bases permission.

ISSUE/RATIO: De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,

[1] Whether the Perenas, as school bus operators, were common carriers [YES] - Article 1732 of the Civil Code avoided any distinction between a person or an
enterprise offering transportation on a regular or an isolated basis; and has
A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport or convey goods or not distinguished a carrier offering his services to the general public, that is,
persons from one place to another, gratuitously or for hire. the general community or population, from one offering his services only to
a narrow segment of the general population.
Private carrier Common Carrier
The concept of a common carrier embodied in Article 1732 of the Civil Code
one who, without making the activity a a person, corporation, firm or coincides neatly with the notion of public service under the Public Service Act,
vocation, or without holding himself or association engaged in the business of - PSA supplements the law on common carriers found in the Civil Code.
itself out to the public as ready to act carrying or transporting passengers or
for all who may desire his or its goods or both, by land, water, or air, for Public service, according to Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act,
services, undertakes, by special compensation, offering such services to includes:
agreement in a particular instance only, the public
to transport goods or persons from one x x x every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or
place to another either gratuitously or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited
for hire. clientèle, whether permanent or occasional, and done for the general
The provisions on ordinary contracts of Contracts of common carriage are business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction
 railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or - The presumption of negligence, being a presumption of law, laid the burden
without fixed route and whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier of evidence on their shoulders to establish that they had not been negligent.
service of any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, - It was the law no less that required them to prove their observance of
ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or extraordinary diligence in seeing to the safe and secure carriage of the
freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, passengers to their destination.
irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power, water supply and power - Until they did so in a credible manner, they stood to be held legally
petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems, responsible for the death of Aaron and thus to be held liable for all the
wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services. x x natural consequences of such death.
x.
The common carrier’s standard of care and vigilance as to the safety of the
Other examples of common carriers due to the broad characterization in the Public passengers is defined by law.
Service Act - Given the nature of the business and for reasons of public policy, the
- the Court has considered as common carriers pipeline operators, custom common carrier is bound "to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
brokers and warehousemen, and barge operators even if they had limited over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
clientèle. according to all the circumstances of each case."
- Article 1755 of the Civil Code specifies that the common carrier should
The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business "carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all
activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier
the circumstances."
that he has held out to the general public as his business or occupation.
- If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business
To successfully fend off liability in an action upon the death or injury to a passenger,
or occupation engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general public,
the common carrier must prove his or its observance of that extraordinary diligence;
the individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a common,
otherwise, the legal presumption that he or it was at fault or acted negligently would
carrier.
stand.
- The question must be determined by the character of the business actually
carried on by the carrier, not by any secret intention or mental reservation it
Pereñas’ defense was that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the family
may entertain or assert when charged with the duties and obligations that in the selection and supervision of Alfaro is inappropriate in an action for breach of
the law imposes. contract of carriage.
- the Pereñas operated as a common carrier;
Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier o their standard of care was extraordinary diligence, not the ordinary
because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the
diligence of a good father of a family.
students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service
and for a fee. - According to Article 1759 of the Civil Code, their liability as a common carrier
- Applying these considerations to the case before us, there is no question did not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good
that the Pereñas as the operators of a school bus service were: (a) engaged father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual
The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might
occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by
have acted beyond the scope of his authority or even in violation of the orders of the
the method by which the business was conducted; and (c) transporting
common carrier.
students for a fee.
The records showed their driver’s actual negligence.
- There was a showing that their driver traversed the railroad tracks at a point
[2] Whether the Perenas we liable [YES] at which the PNR did not permit motorists going into the Makati area to
cross the railroad tracks.
The Pereñas, acting as a common carrier, were already presumed to be negligent at - Although that point had been used by motorists as a shortcut into the Makati
the time of the accident because death had occurred to their passenger.
area, that fact alone did not excuse their driver into taking that route.
 - with his familiarity with that shortcut, their driver was fully aware of the risks the PNR did not ensure the safety of others through the placing of crossbars, signal
to his passengers but he still disregarded the risks. lights, warning signs, and other permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or
o Compounding his lack of care was that loud music was playing pedestrians from crossing there.
inside the air-conditioned van at the time of the accident.
o The loudness most probably reduced his ability to hear the warning the fact that a crossing guard had been assigned to man that point from 7 a.m. to 5
horns of the oncoming train to allow him to correctly appreciate the p.m. was a good indicium that the PNR was aware of the risks to others as well as the
lurking dangers on the railroad tracks. need to control the vehicular and other traffic there.
- Also, he sought to overtake a passenger bus on the left side as both vehicles
traversed the railroad tracks. [4] Whether Parenas and PNR are jointly and severally liable [YES]
o In so doing, he lost his view of the train that was then coming from
the opposite side of the passenger bus, leading him to miscalculate They had been impleaded in the same complaint as defendants against whom the
his chances of beating the bus in their race, and of getting clear of Zarates had the right to relief, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect
the train. to or arising out of the accident, and questions of fact and of law were common as to
o As a result, the bus avoided a collision with the train but the van got the Zarates.
slammed at its rear, causing the fatality.
- He violated a specific traffic regulation on right of way, by virtue of which he The Pereñas and the PNR were joint tortfeasors.
was immediately presumed to be negligent. - Although the basis of the right to relief of the Zarates (i.e., breach of contract
o he did not slow down or go to a full stop before traversing the of carriage) against the Pereñas was distinct from the basis of the Zarates’
railroad tracks despite knowing that his slackening of speed and right to relief against the PNR (i.e., quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil
going to a full stop were in observance of the right of way at Code), they nonetheless could be held jointly and severally liable by virtue of
railroad tracks as defined by the traffic laws and regulations. their respective negligence combining to cause the death of Aaron.

the Pereñas’ driver was entirely negligent when he traversed the railroad tracks at a
point not allowed for a motorist’s crossing despite being fully aware of the grave Other issues
harm to be thereby caused to his passengers; and when he disregarded the foresight
of harm to his passengers by overtaking the bus on the left side as to leave himself WON indemnity for loss of Aaron’s earning capacity was proper – YES
blind to the approach of the oncoming train that he knew was on the opposite side of
the bus. lower courts took into consideration that Aaron, while only a high school
student, had been enrolled in one of the reputable schools in the Philippines
Phil. National Railways v. Intermediate Appellate Court inapplicable and that he had been a normal and able-bodied child prior to his death. The
- the circumstances of that case and this one share no similarities. basis for the computation of Aaron’s earning capacity was not what he
- In Philippine National Railways v. Intermediate Appellate Court, no evidence would have become or what he would have wanted to be if not for his
of contributory negligence was adduced against the owner of the bus. untimely death, but the minimum wage in effect at the time of his death.
Instead, it was the owner of the bus who proved the exercise of Moreover, the RTC’s computation of Aaron’s life expectancy rate was not
extraordinary diligence by preponderant evidence. reckoned from his age of 15 years at the time of his death, but on 21 years,
- the records are replete with the showing of negligence on the part of both his age when he would have graduated from college.
the Pereñas and the PNR. WON damages were excessive – NO
- Another distinction is that the passenger bus in Philippine National Railways
v. Intermediate Appellate Court was traversing the dedicated railroad The moral damages of ₱ 2,500,000.00 were really just and reasonable under
crossing when it was hit by the train, but the Pereñas’ school van traversed the established circumstances of this case because they were intended by
the railroad tracks at a point not intended for that purpose. the law to assuage the Zarates’ deep mental anguish over their son’s
unexpected and violent death, and their moral shock over the senseless
accident. That amount would not be too much, considering that it would help
[3] Whether PNR was guilty of negligence [YES] the Zarates obtain the means, diversions or amusements that would
alleviate their suffering for the loss of their child. At any rate, reducing the
 amount as excessive might prove to be an injustice, given the passage of a
long time from when their mental anguish was inflicted on them on August
22, 1996.

the ₱ 1,000,000.00 allowed as exemplary damages, we should not reduce

the amount if only to render effective the desired example for the public
good. As a common carrier, the Pereñas needed to be vigorously reminded
to observe their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent a similarly
senseless accident from happening again. Only by an award of exemplary
damages in that amount would suffice to instill in them and others similarly
situated like them the ever-present need for greater and constant vigilance in
the conduct of a business imbued with public interest.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRM the decision
promulgated on November 13, 2002; and ORDER the petitioners to pay the costs of
suit.

SO ORDERED.

Damages awarded by RTC

(1) (for) the death of Aaron- Php50,000.00;

(2) Actual damages in the amount of Php100,000.00;

(3) For the loss of earning capacity- Php2,109,071.00;

(4) Moral damages in the amount of Php4,000,000.00;

(5) Exemplary damages in the amount of Php1,000,000.00;

(6) Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php200,000.00; and

(7) Cost of suit.