Transportation Case Digest: Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. V. CA Et Al. (1991) G.R. No.

95582 October 7, 1991

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (Transportation)
Laws Applicable: Art. 1733, Art. 1755

FACTS:
May 13, 1985: Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging to Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. (Dangwa)
The bus was at full stop bet. Bunkhouses 53 and 54 when Pedro alighted
Pedro Cudiamat fell from the platform of the bus when it suddenly accelerated forward
Pedro was ran over by the rear right tires of the vehicle
Theodore first brought his other passengers and cargo to their respective destinations before bringing Pedro to Lepanto Hospital where he expired
Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against Dangwa for the death of Pedro Cudiamat
Dangwa: 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

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
CA: reversed and ordered to pay Pedrito indemnity, moral damages, actual and compensatory damages and cost of the suit

ISSUE: W/N Dangwa should be held liable for the negligence of its driver Theodore

HELD: YES. CA affirmed.

A public utility once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders (EVEN when moving as long as it is still slow in motion)
Duty of the driver: do NOT make acts that would have the effect of increasing peril to a passenger while he is attempting to board the same
Premature acceleration of the bus in this case = breach of duty
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
Duty extends to boarding and alighting
GR: 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
EX: carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Art. 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code
Failure to immediately bring Pedrito to the hospital despite his serious condition = patent and incontrovertible proof of their negligence
Hospital was in Bunk 56
1st proceeded to Bunk 70 to allow a passenger (who later called the family of Pedrito on his own will) to alight and deliver a refrigerator
In tort, actual damages is based on net earnings
LRTA V. Navidad (2003)
G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003
Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (transportation)
Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763

FACTS:
 October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token”.
 While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito Escartin approached him.
 Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight
 Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman
 December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit
Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for the death of her husband.
 LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent
 Prudent: denied liability – averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and surpervision of its security guards
 LRTA and Roman: presented evidence
 Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task
 RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit
 CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage

HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.
 Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the
duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers
 Civil Code:
 Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances
 Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
 Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former’s employees,
although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employees

 Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers
or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or
stopped the act or omission.
 Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault
or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to
force majeure
 Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier
is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage
 GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise
even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
 EX: if employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris
tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees.
 EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee
 Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven
 NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability
 Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and Roman
 Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence
British Airways V. CA (1993)
G.R. No. 92288 February 9, 1993
Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (Transportation)

FACTS:
 February 15, 1981: First International Trading and General Services Co. (First Int'l), a duly licensed domestic recruitment and placement
agency, received a telex message from its principal ROLACO Engineering and Contracting Services (ROLACO) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to
recruit Filipino contract workers in its behalf
 Early March 1981: ROLACO paid British Airways, Inc. (BA) Jeddah branch the airfare tickets for 93 contract workers with specific instruction to
transport the workers to Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981
 As soon as BA received a prepaid ticket advice from its Jeddah branch informed First Int'l.
 Thereafter, First Int'l instructed ADB Travel and Tours. Inc. (its travel agent) to book the 93 workers with BA but it failed
 So First Int'l had to borrow P304,416.00 for the purchase of airline tickets from the other airlines for the 93 workers who must leave immediately
since the visas are valid only for 45 days and the Bureau of Employment Services mandates that contract workers must be sent to the job site
within a period of 30 days
 First week of June, 1981: First Int'l was again informed by BA that it had received a prepaid ticket advice from its Jeddah branch for the
transportation of 27 contract workers.
 Immediately, First Int'l instructed its ADB to book the 27 contract workers with the BA but only 16 seats were confirmed and booked on its June
9, 1981 flight.
 June 9, 1981: only 9 workers were able to board said flight while the remaining 7 workers were rebooked to:
 June 30, 1981 - again cancelled by British without any prior notice to either First Int'l or the workers
 July 4,1981 - (6 + 7 workers) 13 workers were again cancelled and rebooked to July 7, 1981.
 July 6, 1981: First Int'l paid the travel tax of the workers as required by BA but when the receipt of the tax payments was submitted, only 12
seats were confirmed for July 7, 1981 flight
 July 7, 1981: Flight was again cancelled without any prior notice
 12 workers were finally able to leave for Jeddah after First Int'l had bought tickets from the other airlines
 As a result of these incidents, First Int'l sent a letter to BA demanding compensation for the damages it had incurred by the repeated failure to
transport its contract workers despite confirmed bookings and payment of the corresponding travel taxes.
 July 23, 1981: the counsel of First Int'l sent another letter to BA demanding P350,000.00 damages and unrealized profit or income - denied
 August 8, 1981: First Int'l received a telex message from ROLACO cancelling the hiring of the remaining recruited workers due to the delay in
transporting the workers to Jeddah.
 January 27, 1982: First Int'l filed a complaint for damages against First Int'l
 CA Affirmed RTC: BA to pay First Int'l damages, attorneys fees and costs
ISSUE: W/N BA is not liable because there was no contract of carriage as no ticket was ever issued

HELD: Affirmed. MODIFICATION that the award of actual damages be deleted (reimbursed by ROLACO)
 In dealing with the contract of common carriage of passengers for purpose of accuracy, there are two (2) aspects of the same, namely:
 (a) the contract "to carry (at some future time)," which contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected by mere consent - applicable in this
case
 (b) the contract "of carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as a real contract for not until the carrier is actually used
can the carrier be said to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier
 Even if a prepaid ticket advice (PTA) is merely an advice from the sponsors that an airline is authorized to issue a ticket and thus no ticket was
yet issued, the fact remains that the passage had already been paid for by the principal of the appellee, and the appellant had accepted such
payment
 Besides, appellant knew very well that time was of the essence as the prepaid ticket advice had specified the period of compliance therewith,
and with emphasis that it could only be used if the passengers fly on BA
 involvement of the BA in the contract "to carry" was well demonstrated when the it immediately advised First Int'l
 Acts of BA indeed constitute malice and evident bad faith which had caused damage and besmirched the reputation and business image of
First Int'l