Bachelor Express vs CA 188 SCRA 217

F: Bus No. 800 owned by Bachelor Express and driven by Cresencio Rivera was the situs of a stampede which resulted
in the death of passengers Beter and Rautrat. The bus came from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro passing
Butuan City. While in Tabon-Tabon, Butuan, the bus picked up a passenger. A passenger suddenly stabbed a PC
soldier which caused commotion and panic among the passengers. Two passengers jumped out (finding of the TC
which was reversed by the CA) of the bus and were found dead as a result of head injuries. The passenger- assailant
ran away from the bus but was killed by the police. The parents of the dead passengers filed a complaint for a sum
of money against the CC, the owner and the driver.
The CC denied liability and alleged that the driver was able to transport his passengers safely to their
respective places of destination except for the two passengers who jumped off the bus without the knowledge and
consent, much less, the fault of the driver; that the CC exercised due diligence in the choice of its EEs to avoid as
much as possible accidents; that the incident was not a traffic or vehicular accident but was an incident very much
beyond the control of the CC; that the CC was not a party to the incident as it was an act of a third party who is not
in any way connected with the CC and of which they have no control and supervision. The CC argued that the
incident's proximate cause was the act of the passenger who ran amuck and which triggered off the commotion and
panic.
The TC dismissed the complaint. The CA reversed and ordered the CC, the owner and driver solidarily liable to the
heirs of the deceased.

Held : The CC is liable for the death of the passengers.

Bachelor Express as a CC is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. In this case
where passengers suffered injuries which caused their death, under 1756, the CC is presumed to have acted
negligently unless it can prove that it had observed extraordinary diligence. The CC raised the defense of caso
fortuito. Art. 1174 provides that no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen or
which though foreseen were inevitable. In Lasam vs Smith, the SC held that a caso fortuito must have the following
elements: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be independent of the human will; (2)
It must be impossible to foresee the event; (3) The occurrence must be so as to render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation
of the injury resulting to the creditor. The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident
and is within the context of force majeure.

However, in order that a CC may be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that
the accident was caused by force majeure. The CC must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the injuries
resulting from such accident. It must prove that there was no negligence or lack of care and diligence on the part of
the CC.

The TC and the CA had conflicting findings of fact. The SC upheld the findings of the CA-- the driver did
not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion; the bus was speeding from a full stop; the victims fell
from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still running; the conductor panicked and blew
his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus; the bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance
with law. It is therefore clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence
found in the law governing CCs.

The CC's argument that it is not an insurer of its passengers deserves no merit in view of the failure of the
CC to prove that the deaths of the 2 passengers were exclusively due to force majeure and not to the failure of the
CC to observe extra-ordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted by
law.