1. lrta vs. navidad

8/9/2019 1. LRTA vs. Navidad

1/3


2/3

t said that +avidad failed to sho that /scartin in denied.

ISSU$-O+ petitioners are liable for the death of +icanor +avidad, 3r.

H$L!-*$TA > liable; $oman > absolved from liability.

e)&)&oer' /o)e)&o-

appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual !ndings of the

trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a seeping

conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a

common carrier as not overcome.

insist that /scartin=s assault upon +avidad, hich caused the latter

to fall on the tracs, as an act of a stranger that could not have

been foreseen or prevented.

appellate court=s conclusion on the e&istence of an employer8

employee relationship beteen $oman and *$TA laced basis

because $oman himself had testi!ed being an employee of 4etro

Transit and not of the *$TA.

Re'oe)' /o)e)&o-

a contract of carriage as deemed created from the moment

+avidad paid the fare at the *$T station and entered the premises of

the latter, entitling +avidad to all the rights and protection under acontractual relation,

appellate court had correctly held *$TA and $oman liable for the

death of +avidad in failing to e&ercise e&traordinary diligence

imposed upon a common carrier.

*a and 5urisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the

nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened ith

the duty of e&ercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of

passengers. The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier

for death of or in5ury to its passengers, provides9

Article 17??. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely

as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost

diligence of very cautious persons, ith a due regard for all the

circumstances.

Article 17?@. n case of death of or in5uries to passengers, common

carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,

unless they prove that they observed e&traordinary diligence as

prescribed in articles 17-- and 17??.

Article 17?". Common carriers are liable for the death of or in5uries to

passengers through the negligence or illful acts of the former=s

employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope

of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they

e&ercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection

and supervision of their employees.

Article 17@-. A common carrier is responsible for in5uries su:ered by a

passenger on account of the illful acts or negligence of other

passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier=s employees through

the e&ercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could haveprevented or stopped the act or omission.


3/3

The la reuires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the

utmost diligence of very cautious persons ith due regard for all

circumstances. 'uch duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its

passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for

so long as the passengers are ithin its premises and here they ought

to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.

The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or

in5ury to passengers (a) through the negligence or ilful acts of its

employees or b) on account of ilful acts or negligence of other

passengers or of strangers if the common carrier=s employees through

the e&ercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or

omission.

n case of such death or in5ury, a carrier is presumed to have been at

fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of in5ury, the passenger is

relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier

or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that

the in5ury is due to an unforeseen event or to force ma5eure.

n the absence of satisfactory e&planation by the carrier on ho the

accident occurred, hich petitioners, according to the appellate court,

have failed to sho, the presumption ould be that it has been at

fault, an e&ception from the general rule that negligence must be

proved.

The foundation of *$TA=s liability is the contract of carriage and its

obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contractby reason of its failure to e&ercise the high diligence reuired of the

common carrier. n the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety

of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its on employees or avail

itself of the services of an outsider or an independent !rm to undertae

the tas. n either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its

responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

'hould %rudent be made lieise liableB f at all, that liability could only

be for tort under the provisions of Article 217@ and related provisions, in

con5unction ith Article 21#0, of the Civil Code. The premise, hoever,

for the employer=s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the

employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be

made liable on the basis of the presumption 5uris tantum that the

employer failed to e&ercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection

and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be

negated by shoing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the

employee, a factual matter that has not been shon.

Absent such a shoing, one might as further, ho then must theliability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent

contractor, on the other hand, be describedB t ould be solidary. A

contractual obligation can be breached by tort and hen the same act or

omission causes the in5ury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the

other in culpa auiliana, Article 21" of the Civil Code can ell apply. n

!ne, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, here tort is

that hich breaches the contract.

'tated di:erently, hen an act hich constitutes a breach of contract

ould have itself constituted the source of a uasi8delictual liability had

no contract e&isted beteen the parties, the contract can be said tohave been breached by tort, thereby alloing the rules on tort to apply.

$egrettably for *$T, as ell as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of

the late +icanor +avidad, this Court is concluded by the factual !nding

of the Court of Appeals that there is nothing to lin (%rudent) to the

death of +icanor (+avidad), for the reason that the negligence of its

employee, /scartin, has not been duly proven & & &. This !nding of the

appellate court is not ithout substantial 5usti!cation in our on revie

of the records of the case.

There being, similarly, no shoing that petitioner $odolfo $oman himself

is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from

liability. +eedless to say, the contractual tie beteen the *$T and

+avidad is not itself a 5uridical relation beteen the latter and $oman;

thus, $oman can be made liable only for his on fault or negligence.

Assailed decision of the appellate court is A$4/ ith 4OCATO+

but only in that (a) the aard of nominal damages is /*/T/ and (b)

petitioner $odolfo $oman is absolved from liability.

1. lrta vs. navidad

Documents