45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No.

85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

Common Carrier/Petitioner: Bachelor Express driven by

Cresencio Rivera
Passenger: Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut
Claims:

On 1 August 1980, Bus 800, owned by Bachelor

Express, Inc. and driven by Cresencio Rivera, came
from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro City
passing Butuan City.
While at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the bus picked up
a passenger.
About 15 minutes later, a passenger at the rear
portion suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which
caused commotion and panic among the
passengers.
When the bus stopped, passengers Ornominio
Beter and Narcisa Rautraut were found lying
down the road, the former already dead as a
result of head injuries and the latter also
suffering from severe injuries which caused her
death later.

The passenger assailant alighted from the bus and

ran toward the bushes but was killed by the police.
Thereafter, the heirs of Ornomino Beter and Narcisa
Rautraut (Ricardo Beter and Sergia Beter are the
parents of Ornominio while Teofilo Rautraut and
Zotera Rautraut are the parents of Narcisa) filed a
complaint for sum of money against Bachelor
Express, its alleged owner Samson Yasay, and the
driver Rivera. After due trial, the trial court issued an
order dated 8 August 1985 dismissing the complaint.
Upon appeal however, the trial courts decision
was reversed and set aside.
The appellate entered a new judgment finding
Bachelor Express, Yasay, and Rivera jointly and
solidarily liable to pay the Beters and the Rautraut
the amount of P75,000.00 in loss of earnings and support,
moral damages, straight death indemnity and attorneys
fees to the heirs of Ornominio Beter; and the amount of
P45,000.00 for straight death indemnity, moral damages
and attorneys fees to the heirs of Narcisa Rautraut; with
costs against Bachelor Express, et. al.

Hence, the petition for review.

==========================================================================================================================
==================================================================================

Issue: (1) WON

Held: The SC dismissed the petition, and affirmed the decision dated 19 May 1988 and the resolution dated 1 August 1988 of
the Court of Appeals.
==========================================================================================================================
====================================================================================

1. Liability of Bachelor Express, et. al. anchored

on culpa contractual
The liability, if any, of Bachelor Express, Yasay, and
Rivera, is anchored on culpa contractual or breach of
contract of carriage.
2. Article 1732 NCC
Article 1732 of the Civil Code provides that Common
carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting

passengers or goods or both by land, water, or air, for

compensation, offering their services to the public.
3. Article 1733 NCC
Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that Common
carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
and for the safety of the passengers transported by

45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No. 85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

4. Article 1755 NCC
Article 1755. of the Civil Code provides that 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, with a due regard for
all the circumstances.
5. Article 1756 NCC
Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that In case of
death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733
and 1755.
6. Bachelor Express a common carrier, bound to
carry passenger using utmost diligence of very
cautious persons
Bachelor Express, Inc. is a common carrier.
Hence, from the nature of its business and
for reasons of public policy Bachelor Express,
Inc. is bound 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.
7. Bachelor Express presumed to act negligently
for death of passengers
Herein, Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut
were passengers of a bus belonging to Bachelor
Express and, while passengers of the bus, suffered
injuries which caused their death. Consequently,
pursuant to Article 1756 of the Civil Code,
Bachelor Express is presumed to have acted
negligently unless it can prove that it had

observed extraordinary diligence in accordance

with Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code.
8. Article 1174 NCC
Article 1174 of the present Civil Code states that
Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulations, or when the nature
of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were
inevitable.
9. Article 1105 of the old Civil Code is predecessor
of Article 1174 NCC
Article 1174 of the present Civil Code was
substantially copied from Article 1105 of the
old Civil Code which states that
No one shall be liable for events which could not
be foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were
inevitable, with the exception of the cases in
which the law expressly provides otherwise and
those in which the obligation itself imposes
liability.
10. Events defined; Lasam vs. Smith
In the case of Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657
[1924]), the Court defined events which
cannot be foreseen and which, having been
foreseen, are inevitable in the following
manner:
The Spanish authorities regard the
language employed as an effort to define
the term caso fortuito and hold that the
two expressions are synonymous. (Manresa
Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol, vol. 8,

45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No. 85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

pp. 88 et seq.; Scaevola, Codigo Civil, vol.

19, pp. 526 et seq.)
11. Caso fortuito defined; Law II, Title 33, Partida
7
The antecedent to Article 1105 is found in Law II,
Title 33, Partida 7, which defines caso fortuito
as ocasion que acaese por aventura de que
non se puede ante ver. E son estos,
derrivamientos de casas e fuego que enciende a
so ora, e quebrantamiento de navio, fuerca de
ladrones. (An event that takes place by incident
and could not have been foreseen. Examples of
this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire,
shipwreck, violence of robbers. . . .)
12. Caso fortuito defined; Escriche
Escriche defines caso fortuito as an unexpected
event or act of God which could neither be
foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, torrents,
shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning, compulsion,
insurrections,
destruction
of
buildings
by
unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of a
similar nature.
13.
Caso
fortutio
defined,
characterized;
Enciclopedia Juridica Espanola
In discussing and analyzing the term caso fortuito
the Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola says:
In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to
contracts, a caso fortuito presents the following
essential
characteristics:
1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligation, must be independent of the human
will.

2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which

constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it
must be impossible to avoid.
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible
for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner. And
4. the obligor (debtor) must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting
to the creditor.

14. Essential element of caso fortuito

Authorities agree that some extraordinary
circumstance independent of the will of the
obligor, or of his employees, is an essential
element of a caso fortuito.
15. Proximate cause of incident; Sudden act of
passenger who stabbed another passenger within
context of force majeure
The running amuck of the passenger was the
proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off
a commotion and panic among the passengers
such that the passengers started running to the
sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling
off the bus by passengers Beter and Rautraut
causing them fatal injuries.
The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed
another passenger in the bus is within the context
of force majeure.
16. Common carrier must prove that it was not
negligent in causing injuries resulting from such
accident
In order that a common carrier may be
absolved from liability in case of force
majeure, it is not enough that the accident was
caused by force majeure.
The common carrier must still prove that it
was not negligent in causing the injuries

45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No. 85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

resulting from such accident. (See Tan Chiong

Sian vs. Inchausti & Co., 22 Phil 152 [1912]).
17. Batangas Laguna vs. IAC; Accident must be
due to natural causes and without human
intervention
The principle in Tan Chiong Sian was reiterated in
a more recent case, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Co.
v. Intermediate Appellate Court (167 SCRA 379
[1988]), wherein the Court ruled that For
their defense of force majeure or act of God
to prosper the accident must be due to
natural causes and exclusively without
human intervention.
18. Bachelor Express negligent
The negligence of the common carrier, through its
employees, consisted of the lack of extraordinary
diligence required of common carriers, in
exercising vigilance and utmost care of the safety
of its passengers, exemplified by the drivers
belated stop and the reckless opening of the doors
of the bus while the same was travelling at an
appreciably fast speed.
At the same time, the common carrier itself
acknowledged, through its administrative officer,
Benjamin
Granada,
that
the
bus
was
commissioned to travel and take on passengers
and the public at large, while equipped with only a
solitary door for a bus its size and loading
capacity, in contravention of rules and regulations
provided for under the Land Transportation and
Traffic Code (RA 4136 as amended.).
Bachelor Express, et. al. have failed to
overcome the presumption of fault and negligence
found in the law governing common carriers.

19. Defense of carrier not insurers of passengers

not given merit due to failure to observe required
diligence
Bachelor Express argument that they are
not insurers of their passengers deserves
no merit in view of their failure to prove that the
deaths of the two passengers were exclusively
due to force majeure and not to their failure to
observe extraordinary diligence in transporting
safely the passengers to their destinations as
warranted by law.
20. Determination of award of damages; Article
1764 in connection with Article 2206 NCC
In
accordance
with
Article
1764
in
conjunction with Article 2206 of the Civil
Code, and established jurisprudence, several
factors may be considered in determining
the award of damages, namely:
1) life expectancy (considering the state of
health of the deceased and the mortality
tables are deemed conclusive) and loss of
earning capacity;
1. pecuniary loss, loss of support and service;
and
2. moral and mental suffering (Alcantara, et el.
v. Surro, et al., 93 Phil. 470).
21. People vs. Daniel; Factors serving as basis for
amount for loss of earning capacity
In the case of People v. Daniel (No. L-66551, April 25,
1985, 136 SCRA 92, at page 104), the High Tribunal,
reiterating the rule in Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals (31 SCRA 511), stated that the amount of
loss of earning capacity is based mainly on two
factors, namely,

45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No. 85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

1. the number of years on the basis of which the

damages shall be computed; and
2. the rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs
should be fixed.

The running amuck of the passenger was the

proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off
a commotion and panic among the passengers
such that the passengers started running to the
sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling
off the bus by passengers Beter and Rautraut
causing them fatal injuries.
The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed
another passenger in the bus is within the context
of force majeure.

22. Formula adopted in Davila vs. PAL

As the formula adopted in the case of Davila v.
Philippine Air Lines, 49 SCRA 497,
at the age of 30 ones normal life expectancy is
33 1/3 years based on the American Expectancy
Table of Mortality (2/3 x 80- 32).
Herein, by taking into account the pace and
nature of the life of a carpenter, it is
reasonable to make allowances for these
circumstances
and
reduce
the
life
expectancy of the deceased Ornominio Beter
to 25 years (People v. Daniel).
To fix the rate of losses it must be noted that
Article 2206 refers to gross earnings less
necessary living expenses of the deceased, in
other words, only net earnings are to be
considered (People v. Daniel, Villa Rey Transit, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals).

23. Award of damages to heirs of Ornomino Beter

It is both just and reasonable, considering
Ornominio Beters social standing and position, to
fix the deductible, living and incidental expenses
at the sum of P400.00 a month, or P4,800.00
annually.

As to his income, considering the irregular nature

of the work of a daily wage carpenter which is
seasonal, it is safe to assume that he shall have
work for 20 days a month at P25.00 a day or
P500.00 a month.
Annually, his income would amount to
P6,000.00 or P150,000.00 for 25 years.

Deducting therefrom his necessary expenses, his

heirs would be entitled to P30,000.00 representing
loss of support and service (P150,000.00 less
P120,000.00).

In addition, his heirs are entitled to P30,000.00 as

straight death indemnity pursuant to Article 2206
(People v. Daniel).

For damages for their moral and mental anguish,

his heirs are entitled to the reasonable sum of
P10,000.00 as an exception to the general rule
against moral damages in case of breach of
contract rule (Artcile 2200, Necesito v. Paras, 104
Phil. 75).

45. Bachelor Express v. CA, supra GR No. 85691 (188 SCRA 216); July 31, 1990; 3

rd

Division- Gutierrez, Jr., J.II.

COMMON CARRIERS

C. Common Carriage of Passengers; (4) Force Majeure

As attorneys fees, Beters heirs are entitled to

P5,000.00. All in all, Ricardo and Sergia Beter as
heirs of their son Ornominio are entitled to an
indemnity of P75,000.00.

24. Award of damages to heirs of Narcisa

Rautraut
In the case of Narcisa Rautraut, her heirs are
entitled to a straight death indemnity of
P30,000.00, to moral damages in the amount of
P10,000.00 and P5,000.00 as attorneys fees, or a
total of P45,000.00 as total indemnity for her
death in the absence of any evidence that she had
visible means of support.