G.R. No. 85691 July 31, 1990 BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, !" CRESENCIO RI#ERA, petitioners, vs.

THE HONORABLE CO$RT O% APPEALS &S'()* D'+','o!-, RICARDO BETER, SERGIA BETER, TEO%ILO RA$TRA$T !" .OETERA RA$TRA$T, respondents. Aquino W. Gambe for petitioners. Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. for private respondents.

G$TIERRE., JR., J.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Butuan City dismissing the private respondents' complaint for collection of "a sum of money" and finding the petitioners solidarily lia le for damages in the total amount of !ne "undred Twenty Thousand #esos $#%&','''.''(. The petitioners also )uestion the appellate court's resolution denying a motion for reconsideration. !n August %, %*+', Bus ,o. +'' owned y Bachelor -.press, Inc. and driven y Cresencio Rivera was the situs of a stampede which resulted in the death of passengers !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut. The evidence shows that the us came from /avao City on its way to Cagayan de !ro City passing Butuan City0 that while at Ta on1Ta on, Butuan City, the us pic2ed up a passenger0 that a out fifteen $%3( minutes later, a passenger at the rear portion suddenly sta ed a #C soldier which caused commotion and panic among the passengers0 that when the us stopped, passengers !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut were found lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of head in4uries and the latter also suffering from severe in4uries which caused her death later. The passenger assailant alighted from the us and ran toward the ushes ut was 2illed y the police. Thereafter, the heirs of !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut, private respondents herein $Ricardo Beter and 5ergia Beter are the parents of !rnominio while Teofilo Rautraut and 6oetera 7should e 6otera8 Rautraut are the parents of ,arcisa( filed a complaint for "sum of money" against Bachelor -.press, Inc. its alleged owner 5amson 9asay and the driver Rivera. In their answer, the petitioners denied lia ility for the death of !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut. They alleged that ... the driver was a le to transport his passengers safely to their respective places of destination e.cept !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut who 4umped off the us without the 2nowledge and consent, much less, the fault of the driver and conductor and the defendants in this case0 the defendant corporation had e.ercised due diligence in the choice of its employees to avoid as much as possi le accidents0 the incident on August %, %*+' was not a traffic accident or vehicular accident0 it was an incident or event very much eyond the control of the defendants0 defendants were not parties to the incident complained of as it was an act of a third party who is not in any way connected with the defendants and of which the latter have no control and supervision0 ..." $Rollo, pp. %%&1%%:(.
itc-asl

After due trial, the trial court issued an order dated August +, %*+3 dismissing the complaint.

;pon appeal however, the trial court's decision was reversed and set aside. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals states< ="-R->!R-, the /ecision appealed from is R-?-R5-/ and 5-T A5I/- and a new one entered finding the appellees 4ointly and solidarily lia le to pay the plaintiffs1appellants the following amounts< %( To the heirs of !rnominio Beter, the amount of 5eventy >ive Thousand #esos $#@3,'''.''( in loss of earnings and support, moral damages, straight death indemnity and attorney's fees0 and, &( To the heirs of ,arcisa Rautraut, the amount of >orty >ive Thousand #esos $#A3,'''.''( for straight death indemnity, moral damages and attorney's fees. Costs against appellees. $Rollo, pp. @%1@&( The petitioners now pose the following )uestions =hat was the pro.imate cause of the whole incidentB =hy were the passengers on oard the us panic2ed $sic( and why were they shoving one anotherB =hy did ,arcisa Rautraut and !rnominio Beter 4ump off from the running usB The petitioners opine that answers to these )uestions are material to arrive at "a fair, 4ust and e)uita le 4udgment." $Rollo, p. 3( They claim that the assailed decision is ased on a misapprehension of facts and its conclusion is grounded on speculation, surmises or con4ectures. As regards the pro.imate cause of the death of !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut, the petitioners maintain that it was the act of the passenger who ran amuc2 and sta ed another passenger of the us. They contend that the sta ing incident triggered off the commotion and panic among the passengers who pushed one another and that presumabl out of fear and moved y that human instinct of self1preservation Beter and Rautraut 4umped off the us while the us was still running resulting in their untimely death." $Rollo, p. C( ;nder these circumstances, the petitioners asseverate that they were not negligent in the performance of their duties and that the incident was completely and a solutely attri uta le to a third person, the passenger who ran amuc2, for without his criminal act, Beter and Rautraut could not have een su 4ected to fear and shoc2 which compelled them to 4ump off the running us. They argue that they should not e made lia le for damages arising from acts of third persons over whom they have no control or supervision. >urthermore, the petitioners maintain that the driver of the us, efore, during and after the incident was driving cautiously giving due regard to traffic rules, laws and regulations. The petitioners also argue that they are not insurers of their passengers as ruled y the trial court. The lia ility, if any, of the petitioners is anchored on culpa contractual or reach of contract of carriage. The applica le provisions of law under the ,ew Civil Code are as follows< ART. %@:&. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the usiness of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or oth y land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the pu lic.

ART. %@::. Common carriers, from the nature of their usiness and for reasons of pu lic policy, are ound to o serve e.traordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported y them, according to all the circumstances of each case. ... ... ... ART. %@33. A common carrier is ound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. ART. %@3C. In case of death of or in4uries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have een at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they o served e.traordinary diligence as prescri ed in Articles %@:: and %@33. There is no )uestion that Bachelor -.press, Inc. is a common carrier. "ence, from the nature of its usiness and for reasons of pu lic policy Bachelor -.press, Inc. is ound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. In the case at ar, !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut were passengers of a us elonging to petitioner Bachelor -.press, Inc. and, while passengers of the us, suffered in4uries which caused their death. Conse)uently, pursuant to Article %@3C of the Civil Code, petitioner Bachelor -.press, Inc. is presumed to have acted negligently unless it can prove that it had o served e.traordinary diligence in accordance with Articles %@:: and %@33 of the ,ew Civil Code. Bachelor -.press, Inc. denies lia ility for the death of Beter and Rautraut on its posture that the death of the said passengers was caused y a third person who was eyond its control and supervision. In effect, the petitioner, in order to overcome the presumption of fault or negligence under the law, states that the vehicular incident resulting in the death of passengers Beter and Rautraut was caused y force ma4eure or caso fortuito over which the common carrier did not have any control. Article %%@A of the present Civil Code states< -.cept in cases e.pressly specified y law, or when it is otherwise declared y stipulations, or when the nature of the o ligation re)uires the assumption of ris2, no person shall e responsi le for those events which could not e foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevita le. The a ove1mentioned provision was su stantially copied from Article %%'3 of the old Civil Code which states" ,o one shall e lia le for events which could not e foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were inevita le, with the e.ception of the cases in which the law e.pressly provides otherwise and those in which the o ligation itself imposes lia ility. In the case of !asam v. "mit# $A3 #hil. C3@ 7%*&A8(, we defined "events" which cannot e foreseen and which, having een foreseen, are inevita le in the following manner< ... The 5panish authorities regard the language employed as an effort to define the term 'caso fortuito' and hold that the two e.pressions are

synonymous. $Danresa Comentarios al Codigo Civil -spaEol, vol. +, pp. ++ et se).0 5caevola, Codigo Civil, vol. %*, pp. 3&C et se).( The antecedent to Article %%'3 is found in Faw II, Title ::, #artida @, which defines caso fortuito as 'occasion )ue acaese por aventura de )ue non se puede ante ver. - son estos, derrivamientos de casas e fuego )ue enciende a so ora, e )ue rantamiento de navio, fuerca de ladrones' $An event that ta2es place y incident and could not have een foreseen. -.amples of this are destruction of houses, une.pected fire, shipwrec2, violence of ro ers ...( -scriche defines caso fortuito as an une.pected event or act of God which could neither e foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, torrents, shipwrec2s, conflagrations, lightning, compulsion, insurrections, destruction of uildings y unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of a similar nature. In discussing and analyHing the term caso fortuito the -nciclopedia Iuridica -spaEola says< 'In a legal sense and, conse)uently, also in relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics< $%( The cause of the unforeseen and une.pected occurrence, or of the failure of the de tor to comply with his o ligation, must e independent of the human will. $&( It must e impossi le to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can e foreseen, it must e impossi le to avoid. $:( The occurrence must e such as to render it impossi le for the de tor to fulfill his o ligation in a normal manner. And $A( the o ligor $de tor( must e free from any participation in the aggravation of the in4ury resulting to the creditor. $3( -nciclopedia Iuridica -spaEola, :'*( As will e seen, these authorities agree that some e.traordinary circumstance independent of the will of the o ligor or of his employees, is an essential element of a caso fortuito. ... The running amuc2 of the passenger was the pro.imate cause of the incident as it triggered off a commotion and panic among the passengers such that the passengers started running to the sole e.it shoving each other resulting in the falling off the us y passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal in4uries. The sudden act of the passenger who sta ed another passenger in the us is within the conte.t of force ma$eure. "owever, in order that a common carrier may e a solved from lia ility in case of force ma$eure, it is not enough that the accident was caused y force ma$eure. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the in4uries resulting from such accident. Thus, as early as %*%&, we ruled< >rom all the foregoing, it is concluded that the defendant is not lia le for the loss and damage of the goods shipped on the lorcha #ilar y the Chinaman, !ng Bien 5ip, inasmuch as such loss and damage were the result of a fortuitous event or force ma4eure, and t#ere %as no ne&li&ence or lac' of care and dili&ence on t#e part of t#e defendant compan or its a&ents. $Tan Chiong 5ian v. Inchausti J Co., && #hil. %3& 7%*%&80 -mphasis supplied(. This principle was reiterated in a more recent case, (atan&as !a&una Ta abas Co. v. )ntermediate Appellate Court $%C@ 5CRA :@* 7%*++8(, wherein we ruled<

... 7>8or their defense of force ma4eure or act of God to prosper the accident must e due to natural causes and e*clusivel %it#out #uman intervention. $-mphasis supplied( Therefore, the ne.t )uestion to e determined is whether or not the petitioner's common carrier o served e.traordinary diligence to safeguard the lives of its passengers. In this regard the trial court and the appellate court arrived at conflicting factual findings. The trial court found the following facts< The parties presented conflicting evidence as to how the two deceased ,arcisa Rautruat and !rnominio Beter met their deaths. "owever, from the evidence adduced y the plaintiffs, the Court could not see why the two deceased could have fallen off the us when their own witnesses testified that when the commotion ensued inside the us, the passengers pushed and shoved each other towards the door apparently in order to get off from the us through the door. But the passengers also could not pass through the door ecause according to the evidence the door was loc2ed. !n the other hand, the Court is inclined to give credence to the evidence adduced y the defendants that when the commotion ensued inside the us, the two deceased panic2ed and, in state of shoc2 and fear, they 4umped off from the us y passing through the window. It is the prevailing rule and settled 4urisprudence that transportation companies are not insurers of their passengers. The evidence on record does not show that defendants' personnel were negligent in their duties. The defendants' personnel have every right to accept passengers a sent any manifestation of violence or drun2enness. If and when such passengers harm other passengers without the 2nowledge of the transportation company's personnel, the latter should not e faulted. $Rollo, pp. AC1A@( A thorough e.amination of the records, however, show that there are material facts ignored y the trial court which were discussed y the appellate court to arrive at a different conclusion. These circumstances show that the petitioner common carrier was negligent in the provision of safety precautions so that its passengers may e transported safely to their destinations. The appellate court states< A critical eye must e accorded the lower court's conclusions of fact in its tersely written ratio decidendi. The lower court concluded that the door of the us was closed0 secondly, the passengers, specifically the two deceased, 4umped out of the window. The lower court therefore concluded that the defendant common carrier is not lia le for the death of the said passengers which it implicitly attri uted to the unforeseen acts of the unidentified passenger who went amuc2. There is nothing in the record to support the conclusion that the solitary door of the us was loc2ed as to prevent the passengers from passing through. Feonila Cullano, testifying for the defense, clearly stated that the conductor opened the door when the passengers were shouting that the us stop while they were in a state of panic. 5ergia Beter categorically

stated that she actually saw her son fall from the us as the door was forced open y the force of the onrushing passengers. #edro Collango, on the other hand, testified that he shut the door after the last passenger had oarded the us. But he had )uite conveniently neglected to say that when the passengers had panic2ed, he himself panic2ed and had gone to open the door. #ortions of the testimony of Feonila Cullano, )uoted elow, are illuminating< ... ... ... K =hen you said the conductor opened the door, the door at the front or rear portion of the usB A >ront door. K And these two persons whom you said alighted, where did they pass, the fron$t( door or rear doorB A >ront door. ... ... ... $Tsn., p. A, Aug. +, %*+A( ... ... ... K =hat happened after there was a commotion at the rear portion of the usB A =hen the commotion occurred, I stood up and I noticed that there was a passenger who was sounded $sic(. The conductor panic2ed ecause the passengers were shouting 'stop, stop'. The conductor opened the us.' $Tsn. p. :, August +, %*+A(. Accordingly, there is no reason to elieve that the deceased passengers 4umped from the window when it was entirely possi le for them to have alighted through the door. The lower court's reliance on the testimony of #edro Collango, as the conductor and employee of the common carrier, is un4ustified, in the light of the clear testimony of Feonila Cullano as the sole uninterested eyewitness of the entire episode. Instead we find #edro Collango's testimony to e infused y ias and fraught with inconsistencies, if not nota ly unrelia le for lac2 of veracity. !n direct e.amination, he testified< ... ... ... K 5o what happened to the passengers inside your usB A 5ome of the passengers 4umped out of the window. C!;RT<

K =hile the us was in motionB A 9es, your "onor, ut the speed was slow ecause we have 4ust pic2ed up a passenger. Atty. Gam e< K 9ou said that at the time of the incident the us was running slow ecause you have 4ust pic2ed up a passenger. Can you estimate what was your speed at that timeB Atty. Calo< ,o asis, your "onor, he is neither a driver nor a conductor. C!;RT< Fet the witness answer. -stimate only, the conductor e.perienced. =itness< ,ot less than :' to A' miles. C!;RT< Lilometers or milesB A Diles. Atty. Gam e< K That is only your estimate y your e.perienceB A 9es, sir, estimate. $Tsn., pp. A13, !ct. %@, %*+:(. At such speed of not less than :' to A' miles ..., or a out A+ to C3 2ilometers per hour, the speed of the us could scarcely e considered slow considering that according to Collango himself, the us had 4ust come from a full stop after pic2ing a passenger $Tsn, p. A, )d.( and that the us was still on its second or third gear $Tsn., p. %&, )d.(. In the light of the foregoing, the negligence of the common carrier, through its employees, consisted of the lac2 of e.traordinary diligence re)uired of common carriers, in e.ercising vigilance and utmost care of the safety of its passengers, e.emplified y the driver's elated stop and the rec2less opening of the doors of the us while the same was travelling at an apprecia ly fast speed. At the same time, the common carrier itself ac2nowledged, through its administrative officer, Ben4amin Granada, that the us was commissioned to travel and ta2e on passengers and the pu lic at large, while e)uipped with only a solitary door for a us its siHe and loading capacity, in contravention of rules and regulations provided

for under the Fand Transportation and Traffic Code $RA A%:C as amended.( $Rollo, pp. &:1&C( Considering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals1the us driver did not immediately stop the us at the height of the commotion0 the us was speeding from a full stop0 the victims fell from the us door when it was opened or gave way while the us was still running0 the conductor panic2ed and lew his whistle after people had already fallen off the us0 and the us was not properly e)uipped with doors in accordance with law1it is clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing common carriers. The petitioners' argument that the petitioners "are not insurers of their passengers" deserves no merit in view of the failure of the petitioners to prove that the deaths of the two passengers were e.clusively due to force ma$eureand not to the failure of the petitioners to o serve e.traordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted y law. $5ee Batangas Faguna Taya as Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,supra(. The petitioners also contend that the private respondents failed to show to the court that they are the parents of !rnominio Beter and ,arcisa Rautraut respectively and therefore have no legal personality to sue the petitioners. This argument deserves scant consideration. =e find this argument a elated attempt on the part of the petitioners to avoid lia ility for the deaths of Beter and Rautraut. The private respondents were Identified as the parents of the victims y witnesses during the trial and the trial court recogniHed them as such. The trial court dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the petitioners were not negligent. >inally, the amount of damages awarded to the heirs of Beter and Rautraut y the appellate court is supported y the evidence. The appellate court stated< !rnominio Beter was :& years of age at the time of his death, single, in good health and rendering support and service to his mother. As far as ,arcisa Rautraut is concerned, the only evidence adduced is to the effect that at her death, she was &: years of age, in good health and without visi le means of support. In accordance with Art. %@CA in con4unction with Art. &&'C of the Civil Code, and esta lished 4urisprudence, several factors may e considered in determining the award of damages, namely< %( life e.pectancy $considering the state of health of the deceased and the mortality ta les are deemed conclusive( and loss of earning capacity0 $&( pecuniary loss, loss of support and service0 and $:( moral and mental suffering $Alcantara, et al. v. 5urro, et al., *: #hil. A@'(. In the case of +eople v. ,aniel $,o. F1CC33%, April &3, %*+3, %:C 5CRA *&, at page %'A(, the "igh Tri unal, reiterating the rule in -illa .e Transit, )nc. v. Court of Appeals $:% 5CRA 3%%(, stated that the amount of loss of earring capacity is ased mainly on two factors, namely, $%( the num er of years on the asis of which the damages shall e computed0 and $&( the rate at which the losses sustained y the heirs should e fi.ed. As the formula adopted in the case of ,avila v. +#ilippine Air !ines, A* 5CRA A*@, at the age of :' one's normal life e.pectancy is ::1%M: years ased on the American -.pectancy Ta le of Dortality $&M: . +'1:&(. By ta2ing into account the pace and nature of the life of a carpenter, it is
itc-asl

reasona le to ma2e allowances for these circumstances and reduce the life e.pectancy of the deceased !rnominio Beter to &3 years $#eople v. /aniel, supra(. To fi. the rate of losses it must e noted that Art. &&'C refers to gross earnings less necessary living e.penses of the deceased, in other words, only net earnings are to e considered $#eople v. /aniel, supra0 ?illa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,supra(. Applying the foregoing rules with respect to !rnominio Beter, it is oth 4ust and reasona le, considering his social standing and position, to fi. the deducti le, living and incidental e.penses at the sum of >our "undred #esos $#A''.''( a month, or >our Thousand -ight "undred #esos $#A,+''.''( annually. As to his income, considering the irregular nature of the wor2 of a daily wage carpenter which is seasonal, it is safe to assume that he shall have wor2 for twenty $&'( days a month at Twenty >ive #esos $#%3','''.''( for twenty five years. /educting therefrom his necessary e.penses, his heirs would e entitled to Thirty Thousand #esos $#:','''.''( representing loss of support and service $#%3','''.'' less #%&','''.''(. In addition, his heirs are entitled to Thirty Thousand #esos $#:','''.''( as straight death indemnity pursuant to Article &&'C $#eople v. /aniel, supra(. >or damages for their moral and mental anguish, his heirs are entitled to the reasona le sum of #%','''.'' as an e.ception to the general rule against moral damages in case of reach of contract rule Art. &&'' $,ecesito v. #aras, %'A #hil. @3(. As attorney's fees, Beter's heirs are entitled to #3,'''.''. All in all, the plaintiff1appellants Ricardo and 5ergia Beter as heirs of their son !rnominio are entitled to an indemnity of 5eventy >ive Thousand #esos $#@3,'''.''(. In the case of ,arcisa Rautraut, her heirs are entitled to a straight death indemnity of Thirty Thousand #esos $#:','''.''(, to moral damages in the amount of Ten Thousand #esos $#%','''.''( and >ive Thousand #esos $#3,'''.''( as attorney's fees, or a total of >orty >ive Thousand #esos $#A3,'''.''( as total indemnity for her death in the a sence of any evidence that she had visi le means of support. $Rollo, pp. :'1:%( ="-R->!R-, the instant petition is /I5DI55-/. The )uestioned decision dated Day %*, %*++ and the resolution dated August %, %*++ of the Court of Appeals are A>>IRD-/. 5! !R/-R-/.