DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CA, GR No.

95582,
October 7, 1991, Second Division, Regalado, J.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Theodor M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging to Dangwa
Transportation Co. (petitioner corporation) in a reckless and imprudent manner
2. It ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat.
3. Instead of bring Pedrito immediately to the nearest hospital, Lardizabal, in bad faith and without
regard to the victim first brought his other passengers and cargo to their respective destinations
before bringing the victim to the hospital.
4. Dangwa alleges they had observed extraordinary diligence required in the operation of the
transpo company and the supervision of the employees, and argued they are not “the insurers of
the safety of the public at large.
 Also alleged it was victim’s own carelessness and negligence which gave rise to the subject
incident.
5. Respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat
as a result of vehicular accident.
6. Dangwa prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and an award for damages in their favor by
way of counterclaim.
7. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering the heirs of Pedrito to pay
Php10,000.00
 The trial court held Pedrito negligent for trying to board a moving vehicle, with one hand
holding an umbrella, and without giving the driver or conductor any indication that he
was about to board the bus.
 However, when Pedrito boarded the vehicle, the vehicle’s door was open instead of being
closed, and herein lies the defendant’s lack of diligence.
8. Upon appeal to CA, it reversed the decision, requiring instead the respondents to pay petitioners
indemnity moral damages, and actual and compensatory damages.
 The subject bus was at full stop when Pedrito boarded the same as it was precisely on this
instance where another passenger alighted from the bus.
 The victim did indicate his intentiont to board the bus, according to a witness who
declared that Pedrito was no longer walking and made a sign to board the bus.
 It was when Pedrito was closing his umbrella at the platform of the bus when the bus
made a sudden jerk movement as the driver commenced to accelerate the bus. (Paita,
namatay ra ka pag tiplok og payong. Ugh!)
 It was gross negligence of the driver to prematurely step on the accelerator and in not
waiting for the passenger to first secure his seat, especially so when the platform of the
bus was slippery and wet because of a drizzle.
 He was found two to three meters at the back of the bus, run over by the rear right tires.
9. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S: Which, among the parties, is negligent and liable for the damages claimed?
RULING: The petitioner. We find no reason to disturb the holding of the CA.
A PUBLIC UTILITY BUS, ONCE IT STOPS, IS IN EFFECT MAKING A CONTINIOUS
OFFER TO BUS RIDERS.
 Contention that the driver and the ocnductor had no knowledge that the victim would ride the
bus, since the latter had supposedly not manifested his intention to board the same, does not
merit consideration.
 When the bus is not in motion, there is no necessity for a person who want to ride the same, to
signal his intention to board.
  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 was a breach of such duty.
DUTY OF COMMON CARRIERS
 It is their duty to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers
an opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by the boarding
passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking.
IT IS NOT NEGLIGENCE per se TO ATTEMPT TO BOARD A TRAIN OR STREETCAR
WHICH IS MOVING SLOWLY
 Even assuming, the bus was moving, the act of the victim in boarding cannot be considered
negligent as the bus “just started” and “was still in slow motion” at the point where the victim
had boarded and was on its platform.
 The fact that passengers board and alight from a slowly moving vehicle is a matter of common
experience and both the driver and conductor could not have been unaware of such an ordinary
practice.
BY STEPPING AND STANDING ON THE PLATFORM OF THE BUS, ALREADY
CONSIDERED A PASSENGER
 He is entitled to all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation.
 The duty which the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding
the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE REQUIRED OF COMMON CARRIERS
 From the nature of their business, and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them.
 Common carriers are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all
circumstances.
 Circumstances which the driver and conductor failed to bring the gravely injured victim for
medical treatment is incontrovertible proof of their negligence and callous indifference.
Evidence shows that the bus could have turned at Bunk 56 and thence to the hospital but its
driver 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.
ON ACTIONS BASED ON A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
 It is NOT required that the court make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of
the carrier in order to hold it responsible.
 By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the
passenger to his destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due
regard for all the circumstances.
 Any injury that might be suffered is right away ATTRIBUTABLE to the fault or ngeligence of the
carrier.
 This is an EXCEPTION to the general rule that “negligence must be proved,” and it is therefore
INCUMBENT UPON THE CARRER to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence
(ART 1733, 1755 Civil Code)
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Wherefore, the challenged judgment and resolution of the respondent CA is
hereby AFFIRMED.