DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO. v.
CA stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order
G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991
Facts:
1. May 13, 1985, Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a
passenger bus belonging to Dangwa Transportation Co.
Inc. (Dangwa)
2. The bus was at full stop between Bunkhouses 53 and
54 when a passenger alighted and Pedrito Cudiamat
tried to board the vehicle
3. Pedro Cudiamat fell from the platform of the bus when
it suddenly accelerated forward
4. Pedro was ran over by the rear right tires of the vehicle
5. Theodore first brought his other passengers and cargo
to their respective destinations before bringing Pedro
to Lepanto Hospital where he expired
6. Private respondents filed a complaint for damages
against Dangwa for the death of Pedro Cudiamat
7. Dangwa claims it observed and continued to observe
the extraordinary diligence required in the operation of
the co. and the supervision of the employees even as
they are not absolute insurers of the public at large
8. RTC: in favour of Dangwa holding Pedrito as negligent
and his negligence was the cause of his death but still
ordered to pay in equity P 10,000 to the heirs of
Pedrito
9. CA: reversed and ordered to pay Pedrito indemnity,
moral damages, actual and compensatory damages
and cost of the suit
Issue: Whether or not Dangwa should be held liable for the
negligence of its driver Theodore
Ruling: YES. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect
making a continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes
the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus
stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing
the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the
same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case was
a breach of such duty.
It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including
common carriers by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus, to
to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and
they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their
conveyances while they are doing so.
Further, even assuming that the bus was moving, the act of
the victim in boarding the same cannot be considered
negligent under the circumstances. As clearly explained in
the testimony of the a witness, the bus had "just started" and
"was still in slow motion" at the point where the victim had
boarded and was on its platform.
The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform
of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is entitled
all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual
relation. Hence, it has been held that the duty which the
carrier passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons
boarding cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the
according to all the circumstances of each case. A common
carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.
By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express
obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely
and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all
the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by
the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or
negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general
rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and
1755 of the Civil Code.
Moreover, the circumstances under which the driver and the
conductor failed to bring the gravely injured victim
immediately to the hospital for medical treatment is a patent
and incontrovertible proof of their negligence. It defies
understanding and can even be stigmatized as callous
indifference. The evidence shows that after the accident the
bus could have forthwith turned at Bunk 56 and thence to the
hospital, but its driver instead opted to first proceed to Bunk
70 to allow a passenger to alight and to deliver a refrigerator,
despite the serious condition of the victim.