ISAAC

 v.  A.L.  Ammen  Trans.  Co.,  Inc.  

A.L.  Ammen  Transportation  Co.,  Inc.  is  a  corporation  engaged  in  the  business  of  
transporting  passengers  by  land  for  compensation  in  the  Bicol  provinces  and  one  of  
the  lines  it  operates  is  the  one  connecting  Legaspi  City,  Albay  with  Naga  City,  
CamSur.      

May  31,  1951  –  plaintiff  boarded  Bus  No.  31  of  defendant  as  a  passenger  paying  the  
required  fare  from  Ligao,  albay  bound  for  Pili,  CamSur,  but  before  reaching  his  
destination,  the  bus  collided  with  a  motor  vehicle  of  the  pick-­‐up  type  coming  from  
the  opposite  direction.    Plaintiff’s  left  arm  was  completely  severed  and  the  severed  
portion  fell  inside  the  bus.      

Plaintiff  was  rushed  to  a  hospital  in  Iriga,  CamSur  where  he  was  givben  blood  
transfusion.    After  four  days,  he  was  transferred  to  another  hospital  in  Tabaco,  Albay  
where  he  underwent  treatment  for  three  months.    He  was  moved  later  to  the  
Orthopedic  Hospital  where  he  was  operated  on  and  stayed  there  for  2  months.  

Plaintiff  alleged  that  the  collision  which  resulted  in  the  loss  of  his  left  arm  was  
manily  due  to  the  gross  incompetence  and  recklessness  of  the  driver  of  the  bus  
operated  by  defendant  and  that  the  defendant  incurred  in  culpa  contractual.      

Defendant  set  up  as  a  special  defense  that  the  injury  suffered  by  plaintiff  was  due  
entirely  to  the  fault  or  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  pick-­‐up  car  which  collided  with  
bus.    He  further  claims  that  the  accident  is  one  which  defendant  could  not  foresee  or,  
though  foreseen,  was  inevitab;e.  

TC  –  collision  occurred  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  pick-­‐up  car  and  not  
to  that  of  the  driver  of  the  bus  it  appearing  that  the  latter  did  everything  he  could  to  
avoid  the  same.      

 
ISSUE:    won  defendant  observed  extraordinary  diligence  

HELD:  

From  Articles  1733,  1755  and  1756  of  the  CC,  we  can  make  the  following  
restatement:\  

1.    The  liability  of  a  carrier  is  contractual  and  arises  upon  breach  of  its  
obligation.    There  is  breach  if  it  fails  to  exert  extraordinary  diligence  according  to  all  
the  circumstances  of  each  case;  

2.   A  carrier  is  obliged  to  carry  its  passenger  with  the  utmost  diligence  of  a  very  
cautious  person,  having  due  regard  for  all  the  circumstances;  

3.   A  carrier  is  presumed  to  be  at  fault  or  to  have  acted  negligently  in  case  of  
death  of,  or  injury  to,  passengers,  it  being  its  duty  to  prove  that  it  exercised  
extraordinary  diligence;  and  

4.   4.    The  carrier  is  not  an  insurer  against  all  risks  of  travel.      

Bus  No.  31,  immediately  prior  to  the  collision,  was  running  at  a  moderate  speed  
because  it  had  just  stopped  at  a  school  zone.    The  pick-­‐up  car  was  at  full  speed  and  
was  running  outside  of  its  proper  lane.    The  driver  of  the  bus,  upon  seeing  the  
manner  in  which  the  pick-­‐up  was  the  running,  swerved  the  bus  to  the  very  extreme  
right  of  the  road  until  its  front  and  rear  wheels  have  rampart  of  the  road.    
Notwithstanding  all  theses  efforts,  the  rear  left  side  of  the  bus  was  hit  by  the  
pick=up  car.      

While  the  position  taken  by  appellant  appeals  more  to  the  sense  of  caution  that  one  
should  observe  in  a  given  situation  to  avoid  an  accident  or  mishap,  such  however  
can  not  always  be  expected  from  one  who  is  placed  suddenly  in  a  predicament  
where  he  is  not  given  enough  time  to  take  the  proper  course  of  action  as  he  should  
under  ordinary  circumstances.    One  who  is  placed  in  such  a  preduicament  cannot  
exercise  such  coolness  or  accuaracy  of  judgment  as  is  required  of  him  under  
ordinary  circumstances  and  he  cannot  therefore  be  expected  to  observe  the  same  
judgment,  care  and  precaution  as  in  the  latter.      

 
Where  failure  to  observe  the  same  degree  of  care  that  as  ordinary  prudent  man  
would  exercise  under  ordinary  circumstances  when  confronted  with  a  sudden  
meregency  was  held  to  be  warranted  and  a  justification  to  exempt  the  carrier  from  
liability.  

Where  a  carrier’s  employee  is  confronted  with  a  sudden  emergency,  the  fact  that  he  
is  obliged  to  act  quickly  and  without  chance  for  deliberation  must  be  taken  into  
account,  and  ihe  is  not  held  to  the  same  degree  of  care  that  the  would  otherwise  be  
required  to  exercise  in  the  ansence  of  such  emergency  but  must  exercise  only  such  
casre  as  any  other  prudent  person  wouldexercise.      

The  driver  of  the  bus  has  done  what  a  prudent  man  could  have  done  to  avoid  the  
collision.      

When  appellant  boarded  the  bus,  he  seated  himself  on  the  left  side  thereof,  resting  
his  left  arm  on  the  window  sill  but  with  his  left  elbow  outside  thw  indow,  this  being  
his  position  in  the  bus  when  the  collision  took  place.    The  appellant  is  guilty  of  
contributory  negligence.    It  is  to  be  noted  that  appellant  was  the  only  victim  of  the  
collision.  

PNR  v.  CA  

September  10,  1972  –  at  about  9pm,  Winfredo  Tupang,  husband  of  plaintiff  Rosario  
Tupang  boarded  Train  NBo.  516  of  PNR  at  Libmanan,  CamSur,  as  a  paying  passenger  
bound  for  Manila.    Due  to  some  mechanical  defect,  the  train  stopped  at  Sipocot,  
CamSur,  for  repairs,  taking  some  2  hrs  before  th  train  could  resume  its  trip  to  
Manila.    Upon  passing  Iyam  Bridge  at  Lucena  Quezon,  Winifredo  Tupang  fell  off  the  
train  resulting  in  his  death.    The  train  did  not  stop  despite  the  alarm  raised  iby  the  
other  passengers  that  somebody  feel  from  the  train.    The  train  conductor,  Perfecto  
Abrazado,  called  the  station  agent  at  Candelaria  Quezon,  and  requested  for  
verification  of  the  information.    Police  authorites  of  Lucena  were  dispatched  to  the  
Iyam  Bridge  where  they  found  the  lifeless  body  of  Winifredo  Tupang.      

Rosario  filed  a  complaint  at  then  CFI  of  Rizal.    CFI  held  petitioner  PNR  liable  for  
damages  for  breach  of  contract  of  carriage.    CA  sustained  the  holding  of  the  TC  
  

PNR  raised  for  the  1st  time,  as  a  defense,  the  doctrine  of  state  imnnituy  from  suit.    It  
alleged  that  it  is  a  mere  agency  of  the  Phil  Govt.    without  distinct  or  separate  
personality  of  itw  own  and  that  its  funds  are  governmental  in  character.  

HELD:  

Under  RA  3156,  Sec.  4,  the  PNR  has  all  the  powers,  the  characteristics  and  attributes  
of  a  corporation  under  the  Corporation  Law.    There  can  no  be  question  then  that  the  
PNR  may  sue  or  be  sued  and  may  be  subjected  to  court  processes  just  like  any  other  
corporation.    When  the  government  enters  into  commercial  business,  it  abandons  its  
sovereign  capacity  and  is  to  be  treated  like  any  other  corporation.    In  fine,  petitioner  
PNR  cannot  legally  set  up  the  doctrine  of  non-­‐suability  as  a  bar  to  the  plaintiff’s  suit  
for  damages.  

Petitioner  does  not  deny,  that  the  train  boarded  by  the  deceased  Winifredo  Tupang  
was  so  overcrowded  that  the  had  and  many  other  passengers  had  no  choice  but  to  
sit  on  the  open  platforms  between  the  coaches  of  the  train.    It  is  likewise  undisputed  
that  the  train  did  not  even  slow  down  when  it  approached  the  Iyam  Bridge  which  
was  under  repair  at  the  time.    Neither  did  the  train  stop,  despite  the  alarm  raised  by  
other  passengers  that  a  person  had  fallen  off  the  train  at  Iyam  Bridge.  

The  petitioner  failed  to  overthrow  the  presumption  of  negligence  with  clear  and  
convincing  evidence.    But  while  petitioner  failed  to  exercise  extraordinary  diligence  
as  required  by  law,  it  appears  that  the  deceased  was  chargeable  with  contributory  
negligence.    Since  he  opted  to  sit  on  the  open  platform  between  the  coaches  of  the  
train,  eh  should  have  held  tightly  and  tenaciously  on  the  upright  metal  bar  found  at  
the  side  of  said  platform  to  avod  falling  off  from  the  speeding  train.      

Such  contributory  negligence,  while  not  exempting  the  PNR  from  liability,  
nevertheless  justified  the  deletion  of  the  amount  adjudicated  as  moral  damages.