8/23/2016

G.R. No. 145804

TodayisTuesday,August23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.145804February6,2003
LIGHTRAILTRANSITAUTHORITY&RODOLFOROMAN,petitioners,
vs.
MARJORIENAVIDAD,HeirsoftheLateNICANORNAVIDAD&PRUDENTSECURITYAGENCY,respondents.
DECISION
VITUG,J.:
ThecasebeforetheCourtisanappealfromthedecisionandresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,promulgatedon27
April2000and10October2000,respectively,inCAG.R.CVNo.60720,entitled"MarjorieNavidadandHeirsofthe
Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al.," which has modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City, exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and
finding Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of
NicanorNavidad.
On14October1993,abouthalfanhourpastsevenoclockintheevening,NicanorNavidad,thendrunk,entered
theEDSALRTstationafterpurchasinga"token"(representingpaymentofthefare).WhileNavidadwasstandingon
theplatformneartheLRTtracks,JunelitoEscartin,thesecurityguardassignedtotheareaapproachedNavidad.A
misunderstandingoranaltercationbetweenthetwoapparentlyensuedthatledtoafistfight.Noevidence,however,
wasadducedtoindicatehowthefightstartedorwho,betweenthetwo,deliveredthefirstbloworhowNavidadlater
fellontheLRTtracks.AttheexactmomentthatNavidadfell,anLRTtrain,operatedbypetitionerRodolfoRoman,
wascomingin.Navidadwasstruckbythemovingtrain,andhewaskilledinstantaneously.
On08December1994,thewidowofNicanor,hereinrespondentMarjorieNavidad,alongwithherchildren,fileda
complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc.
(MetroTransit),andPrudentforthedeathofherhusband.LRTAandRomanfiledacounterclaimagainstNavidad
and a crossclaim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had
exercisedduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionofitssecurityguards.
TheLRTAandRomanpresentedtheirevidencewhilePrudentandEscartin,insteadofpresentingevidence,fileda
demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task. On 11
August1998,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecisionitadjudged:
"WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffsandagainstthedefendantsPrudentSecurity
andJunelitoEscartinorderingthelattertopayjointlyandseverallytheplaintiffsthefollowing:
"a)1)ActualdamagesofP44,830.00
2)CompensatorydamagesofP443,520.00
3)IndemnityforthedeathofNicanorNavidadinthesumofP50,000.00
"b)MoraldamagesofP50,000.00
"c)AttorneysfeesofP20,000
"d)Costsofsuit.
"ThecomplaintagainstdefendantsLRTAandRodolfoRomanaredismissedforlackofmerit.
"ThecompulsorycounterclaimofLRTAandRomanarelikewisedismissed."1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_145804_2003.html

1/5

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 145804

Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its now assailed
decisionexoneratingPrudentfromanyliabilityforthedeathofNicanorNavidadand,instead,holdingtheLRTAand
Romanjointlyandseverallyliablethusly:
"WHEREFORE,theassailedjudgmentisherebyMODIFIED,byexoneratingtheappellantsfromanyliabilityforthe
deathofNicanorNavidad,Jr.Instead,appelleesRodolfoRomanandtheLightRailTransitAuthority(LRTA)areheld
liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffsappellees, the following
amounts:
a)P44,830.00asactualdamages
b)P50,000.00asnominaldamages
c)P50,000.00asmoraldamages
d)P50,000.00asindemnityforthedeathofthedeceasedand
e)P20,000.00asandforattorneysfees."2
Theappellatecourtratiocinatedthatwhilethedeceasedmightnothavethenasyetboardedthetrain,acontractof
carriagetheretoforehadalreadyexistedwhenthevictimenteredtheplacewherepassengersweresupposedtobe
after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor. In exempting Prudent from liability, the court
stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to
show that Escartin inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of
NavidadbyreasonofhishavingbeenhitbythetrainownedandmanagedbytheLRTAandoperatedatthetimeby
Roman.Theappellatecourtfaultedpetitionersfortheirfailuretopresentexpertevidencetoestablishthefactthat
theapplicationofemergencybrakescouldnothavestoppedthetrain.
Theappellatecourtdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationinitsresolutionof10October2000.
Intheirpresentrecourse,petitionersreciteallegederrorsonthepartoftheappellatecourtviz:
"I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS
OFFACTSBYTHETRIALCOURT
"II.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHATPETITIONERSARE
LIABLEFORTHEDEATHOFNICANORNAVIDAD,JR.
"III.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHATRODOLFOROMAN
ISANEMPLOYEEOFLRTA."3
Petitionerswouldcontendthattheappellatecourtignoredtheevidenceandthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtby
holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a
commoncarrierwasnotovercome.PetitionerswouldinsistthatEscartinsassaultuponNavidad,whichcausedthe
lattertofallonthetracks,wasanactofastrangerthatcouldnothavebeenforeseenorprevented.TheLRTAwould
add that the appellate courts conclusion on the existence of an employeremployee relationship between Roman
and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the
LRTA.
Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage was deemed
createdfromthemomentNavidadpaidthefareattheLRTstationandenteredthepremisesofthelatter,entitling
Navidadtoalltherightsandprotectionunderacontractualrelation,andthattheappellatecourthadcorrectlyheld
LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a
commoncarrier.
Lawandjurisprudencedictatethatacommoncarrier,bothfromthenatureofitsbusinessandforreasonsofpublic
policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.4 The Civil
Code,governingtheliabilityofacommoncarrierfordeathoforinjurytoitspassengers,provides:
"Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide,usingtheutmostdiligenceofverycautiouspersons,withadueregardforallthecircumstances.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_145804_2003.html

2/5

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 145804

"Article1756.Incaseofdeathoforinjuriestopassengers,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultor
to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles
1733and1755."
"Article1759.Commoncarriersareliableforthedeathoforinjuriestopassengersthroughthenegligenceorwillful
actsoftheformersemployees,althoughsuchemployeesmayhaveactedbeyondthescopeoftheirauthorityorin
violationoftheordersofthecommoncarriers.
"Thisliabilityofthecommoncarriersdoesnotceaseuponproofthattheyexercisedallthediligenceofagoodfather
ofafamilyintheselectionandsupervisionoftheiremployees."
"Article1763.Acommoncarrierisresponsibleforinjuriessufferedbyapassengeronaccountofthewillfulactsor
negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the
diligenceofagoodfatherofafamilycouldhavepreventedorstoppedtheactoromission."
Thelawrequirescommoncarrierstocarrypassengerssafelyusingtheutmostdiligenceofverycautiouspersons
with due regard for all circumstances.5 Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so
obligatesitnotonlyduringthecourseofthetripbutforsolongasthepassengersarewithinitspremisesandwhere
theyoughttobeinpursuancetothecontractofcarriage.6Thestatutoryprovisionsrenderacommoncarrierliable
fordeathoforinjurytopassengers(a)throughthenegligenceorwilfulactsofitsemployeesorb)onaccountof
wilfulactsornegligenceofotherpassengersorofstrangersifthecommoncarriersemployeesthroughtheexercise
ofduediligencecouldhavepreventedorstoppedtheactoromission.7Incaseofsuchdeathorinjury,acarrieris
presumedtohavebeenatfaultorbeennegligent,and8bysimpleproofofinjury,thepassengerisrelievedofthe
dutytostillestablishthefaultornegligenceofthecarrierorofitsemployeesandtheburdenshiftsuponthecarrier
to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.9 In the absence of satisfactory
explanationbythecarrieronhowtheaccidentoccurred,whichpetitioners,accordingtotheappellatecourt,have
failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,10 an exception from the general rule that
negligencemustbeproved.11
ThefoundationofLRTAsliabilityisthecontractofcarriageanditsobligationtoindemnifythevictimarisesfromthe
breachofthatcontractbyreasonofitsfailuretoexercisethehighdiligencerequiredofthecommoncarrier.Inthe
dischargeofitscommitmenttoensurethesafetyofpassengers,acarriermaychoosetohireitsownemployeesor
availitselfoftheservicesofanoutsideroranindependentfirmtoundertakethetask.Ineithercase,thecommon
carrierisnotrelievedofitsresponsibilitiesunderthecontractofcarriage.
ShouldPrudentbemadelikewiseliable?Ifatall,thatliabilitycouldonlybefortortundertheprovisionsofArticle
217612andrelatedprovisions,inconjunctionwithArticle2180,13oftheCivilCode.Thepremise,however,forthe
employersliabilityisnegligenceorfaultonthepartoftheemployee.Oncesuchfaultisestablished,theemployer
can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimipatrisfamiliesintheselectionandsupervisionofitsemployees.Theliabilityisprimaryandcanonlybe
negatedbyshowingduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheemployee,afactualmatterthathasnot
beenshown.Absentsuchashowing,onemightaskfurther,howthenmusttheliabilityofthecommoncarrier,onthe
one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual
obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa
contractualandtheotherinculpaaquiliana,Article219414oftheCivilCodecanwellapply.15Infine,aliabilityfor
tortmayariseevenunderacontract,wheretortisthatwhichbreachesthecontract.16Stateddifferently,whenan
actwhichconstitutesabreachofcontractwouldhaveitselfconstitutedthesourceofaquasidelictualliabilityhadno
contractexistedbetweentheparties,thecontractcanbesaidtohavebeenbreachedbytort,therebyallowingthe
rulesontorttoapply.17
Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is
concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that "there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of
Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x."
Thisfindingoftheappellatecourtisnotwithoutsubstantialjustificationinourownreviewoftherecordsofthecase.
Therebeing,similarly,noshowingthatpetitionerRodolfoRomanhimselfisguiltyofanyculpableactoromission,he
mustalsobeabsolvedfromliability.Needlesstosay,thecontractualtiebetweentheLRTandNavidadisnotitselfa
juridical relation between the latter and Roman thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or
negligence.
The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized,andnotforthepurposeofindemnifyingtheplaintiffforanylosssufferedbyhim.18Itisanestablished
rulethatnominaldamagescannotcoexistwithcompensatorydamages.19
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_145804_2003.html

3/5

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 145804

WHEREFORE,theassaileddecisionoftheappellatecourtisAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONbutonlyinthat(a)
theawardofnominaldamagesisDELETEDand(b)petitionerRodolfoRomanisabsolvedfromliability.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),YnaresSantiago,CarpioandAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,p.16.
2Rollo,pp.4647.
3Rollo,pp.1819.
4Aradavs.CourtofAppeals,210SCRA624.
5PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,226SCRA423.
6DangwaTransportationCo.,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,202SCRA575.
7Article1763,CivilCode.
8Gatchalianvs.Delim,203SCRA126Yobidovs.CourtofAppeals,281SCRA1Landinginvs.Pangasinan

TransportationCo.,33SCRA284.
9Mercadovs.Lira,3SCRA124.
10Article1756,CivilCode.
11Vda.DeAbetovs.Phil.AirLines,Inc.,30July1982.
12 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is

obligedtopayforthedamagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractualrelation
betweentheparties,iscalledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.
13Art.2180.TheobligationimposedbyArticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforonesownactsoromissions,

butalsoforthoseofpersonsforwhomoneisresponsible.
Thefatherand,incaseofhisdeathorincapacity,themother,areresponsibleforthedamagescaused
bytheminorchildrenwholiveintheircompany.
Guardiansareliablefordamagescausedbytheminorsorincapacitatedpersonswhoareundertheir
authorityandliveintheircompany.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasionoftheirfunctions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
withinthescopeoftheirassignedtasks,eventhoughtheformerarenotengagedinanybusinessor
industry.
TheStateisresponsibleinlikemannerwhenitactsthroughaspecialagent,butnotwhenthedamage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is
providedinarticle2176shallbeapplicable.
Lastly,teachersorheadsofestablishmentsofartsandtradesshallbeliablefordamagescausedby
theirpupilsandstudentsorapprentices,solongastheyremainintheircustody.
Theresponsibilitytreatedofinthisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonshereinmentionedprovethat
theyobservedallthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventdamage.
14Art.2194.Theresponsibilityoftwoormorepersonswhoareliableforaquasidelictissolidary.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_145804_2003.html

4/5