Torts-PNR Vs CA & Amores

G.R. No.
157658 October 15, 2007

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and VIRGILIO J. BORJA, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), CORAZON C. AMORES, MA. EMILIE A. MOJICA,
CECILE C. SISON, DINO C. AMORES, LARISA C. AMORES, ARMAND JINO C. AMORES
and JOHN C. AMORES, Respondents.
Facts:
In the early afternoon of April 27, 1992, Jose Amores was traversing the railroad tracks in
Kahilum street, Pandacan, Manila. Before crossing the railroad track, he stopped for a while
then proceeded accordingly. Unfortunately, just as Amores was crossing the intersection, a
PNR train turned up and collided with the car. After the impact, the car was dragged 10 meters
beyond the center crossing. Amores died as a consequence thereof.
At the time of the mishap, there was neither a signal nor a crossing bar in the intersection to
warn the motorists of the incoming train. Aside from the railroad track, the only visible sign was
a defective standard sign board “ STOP, LOOK and LISTEN. No whistle blow from the train was
likewise heard before it finally bumped the car of Amores.
The heirs of Amores filed a complaint for damages against PNR and Virgilio Borja, PNR’s
locomotive driver at the time of the incident. In the complaint, they averred that the train’s
speedometer was defective and that the negligence of PNR and Borja was the proximate cause
of the mishap for their failure to take proper precautions to prevent injury.
In their answer, PNR denied the allegations, stating that the train was railroad worthy and
without any defect. According to them, the proximate cause of Amores’ death was his own
carelessness and negligence, and his wanton disregard for traffic rules and regulations in
crossing tracks and trying to beat the approaching train.
The RTC ruled in favor of PNR and BORJA. The CA reversed the RTC decision. CA awarded
the cost of damage and moral damages in favor of the heirs of Amores.
Issue:
W/N the appellate court was correct in ascribing negligence on the part of PNR and Borja.
Ruling:
THE APPELLATE COURT WAS CORRECT IN ASCRIBING NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF
PNR AND BORJA.
As the action is predicated on negligence, the relevant provision is Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code, which states that:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions
of this chapter.
Negligence has been defined as “the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.”
We hold that the petitioners were negligent when the collision took place. The transcript of
stenographic notes reveals that the train was running at a fast speed because notwithstanding
the application of the ordinary and emergency brakes, the train still dragged the car some
distance away from the point of impact. Evidence likewise unveils the inadequate precautions
taken by petitioner PNR to forewarn the public of the impending danger. Aside from not having
any crossing bar, no flagman or guard to man the intersection at all times was posted on the
day of the incident. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated "Stop,
Look and Listen" signage because of many years of neglect, is needed to give notice to the
public. It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal
devices in working order. Failure to do so would be an indication of negligence.
It is true that one driving an automobile must use his faculties of seeing and hearing when
nearing a railroad crossing. However, the obligation to bring to a full stop vehicles moving in
public highways before traversing any “through street” only accrues from the time the said
“through street” or crossing is so designated and sign-posted. From the records, it can be
inferred that Amores exercised all the necessary precautions required of him to avoid injury to
himself and others. The witnesses’ testimonies showed that Amores slackened his speed, made
a full stop, and then proceeded to cross the tracks when he saw that there was no impending
danger to his life. Under these circumstances, we are convinced that Amores did everything,
with absolute care and caution, to avoid the collision.
In view of the foregoing, We will now discuss the liability of petitioner PNR. Article 2180 of the
New Civil Code discusses the liability of the employer once negligence or fault on the part of the
employee has been established. The employer is actually liable on the assumption of juris
tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been
demonstrated. Even the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory employees cannot be
incidentally invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.

Torts-PNR Vs CA & Amores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts-PNR Vs CA & Amores

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts-PNR Vs CA & Amores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

157658 October 15, 2007

You might also like