Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Transportation Law Case Digests | Atty.

Norianne Tan | 2016

Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA that immediately before the collision, the bus driver was conversing
G.R. No. 116110. May 15,1996 with a co-employee. All these prove the bus driver's wanton
CASE: disregard for the physical safety of his passengers, which make
A Baliwag bus driven by Santiago rammed into a stalled Baliwag as a common carrier liable for damages under Article 1759
cargo truck that was parked at the shoulder of the nat’l highway of the Civil Code.
with its left rear portion jutted to the outer lane. A kerosene lamp
was placed at the edge of the road to serve as an EWD. Santiago
was driving at a very fast speed and failed to notice the truck and FACTS:
the kerosene lamp. Prior to the collision, the passengers urged him  At about 7:30pm, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, the bus passengers
to slow down but he did not listen and he even carried animated saw a cargo truck owned by A & J Trading (AJT) parked at
conversations with his co-employees while driving. The collision the shoulder of the nat’l highway. Its left rear portion jutted
caused the instant death of Santiago and Escala, and injury to to the outer lane, the shoulder of the road was too narrow
several others, among which were Leticia and her son, Allan. to accommodate the whole truck. A kerosene lamp
W/N Baliwag is liable for the injuries suffered by Leticia and appeared at the edge of the road as a warning device. The
Allan Garcia in the accident truck driver (Recontique) & his helper (Escala) were then
SC: As a common carrier, Baliwag breached its contract of replacing a flat tire.
carriage when it failed to deliver its passengers, Leticia and Allan  Bus driver Santiago was driving at an inordinately fast speed
Garcia to their destination safe and sound. A common carrier is and failed to notice the truck and the kerosene lamp at the
bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and edge of the road. Santiago's passengers urged him to slow
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious down but he ignored them. He even carried animated
person, with due regard for all the circumstances. conversations with his co-employees while driving. When
In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common the danger of collision became imminent, the bus
carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is passengers shouted "Babangga tayo!" Santiago stepped on
injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not the brake, but it was too late. His bus rammed into the
even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of stalled cargo truck causing the instant death of Santiago and
the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be Escala, and injury to several others, among which
overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary were Leticia and Allan Garcia.
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.  Leticia suffered a fracture and was confined for more than a
The records are bereft of any proof to show that Baliwag exercised month; she underwent an operation for partial hip
extraordinary diligence. On the contrary, the evidence prosthesis. Her son Allan broke his leg.
demonstrates its driver's recklessness. Leticia testified that the bus  Spouses Garcia sued Baliwag Transit, Inc., AJT, and
was running at a very high speed despite the drizzle and the Recontique for damages.
darkness of the highway; the driver did not slow down despite their  Baliwag, AJT, and Recontique disclaimed responsibility for
plea; the driver was smelling of liquor. Another passenger testified the mishap.

Rivera, Justine Camille


Transportation Law Case Digests | Atty. Norianne Tan | 2016

o Baliwag alleged that the accident was caused solely extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and
by the fault and negligence of AJT and its driver; 1755 of the Civil Code.
that Recontigue failed to place an EWD at the  The records are bereft of any proof to show that Baliwag
corner of the disabled cargo truck to warn exercised extraordinary diligence. On the contrary, the
oncoming vehicles. evidence demonstrates its driver's recklessness.
o AJT and Recontique alleged that the accident was o Leticia testified that the bus was running at a very
due to the negligence and reckless driving of the high speed despite the drizzle and the darkness of
bus driver. the highway; passengers pleaded for its driver to
 Trial court held that both defendants should be held slow down, but their plea was ignored.
liable— Baliwag for failing to deliver the plaintiff and her o Leticia also revealed that the driver was smelling of
son to their point of destination safely in violation of their liquor. She could smell him as she was seated right
contractual relation while AJT and Recontique for failure to behind the driver.
provide its cargo truck with an EWD in violation of the o Another passenger testified that immediately
Motor Vehicle Law. before the collision, the bus driver was conversing
 CA modified the TC's Decision by absolving AJT from liability with a co-employee.
ISSUE: o All these prove the bus driver's wanton disregard
1. Whether or not Baliwag is liable for the injuries suffered by for the physical safety of his passengers, which
Leticia and Allan Garcia in the accident makes Baliwag as a common carrier liable for
2. Whether or not the amount of damages was proper damages under Article 1759 of the Civil Code:
 “This liability of the common carriers do not
HELD & RATIO: cease upon proof that they exercised all the
1. YES. As a common carrier, Baliwag breached its contract of diligence of a good father of a family in the
carriage when it failed to deliver its passengers, Leticia and selection or supervision of their
Allan Garcia to their destination safe and sound. employees.”
 A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as 2. The award of moral damages is in accord with law. In a
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are
utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard recoverable if the carrier, through its agent, acted
for all the circumstances. In a contract of carriage, it is fraudulently or in bad faith.
presumed that the common carrier was at fault or was  The evidence shows the gross negligence of the bus
negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. Unless the driver which amounted to bad faith. Without doubt,
presumption is rebutted, the court need not even make an Leticia and Allan experienced physical suffering,
express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the mental anguish and serious anxiety by reason of the
common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be accident.
overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised

Rivera, Justine Camille

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi