BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, and CRESENCIO RIVERA, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Sixth Division), RICARDO BETER,
SERGIA BETER, TEOFILO RAUTRAUT and ZOETERA RAUTRAUT, respondents.
G.R. No. 85691 July 31, 1990
Facts:
Bus No. 800 owned by Bachelor Express, Inc. and driven by Cresencio Rivera
was the situs of a stampede which resulted in the death of passengers Ornominio
Beter and Narcisa Rautraut.
The evidence shows that the bus came from Davao City on its way to Cagayan
de Oro City passing Butuan City; that while at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the bus
picked up a passenger; that about fifteen minutes later, a passenger at the rear
portion suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and panic among
the passengers that when the bus stopped, passengers Ornominio Beter and Narcisa
Rautraut were found lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of head
injuries and the latter also suffering from severe injuries which caused her death
later. The passenger assailant alighted from the bus and ran toward the bushes but
was killed by the police. The Private respondent filed a complaint for sum of money
against Bachelor Express, Inc. its alleged owner Samson Yasay and the driver
Rivera.
Petitioners denied liability for the death of Ornominio Beter and Narcisa
Rautraut. They alleged that the driver was able to transport his passengers safely to
their respective places of destination except Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut
who jumped off the bus without the knowledge and consent, much less, the fault of
the driver and conductor and the defendants in this case; the defendant corporation
had exercised due diligence in the choice of its employees to avoid as much as
possible accidents, it was an incident or event very much beyond the control of the
defendants defendants were not parties to the incident complained of as it was an act
of a third party who is not in any way connected with the defendants and of which the
latter have no control and supervision.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for the death of passengers Beter and
Rautraut caused by force majeure or caso fortuito over which the common carrier did
not have any control.
Held:
Yes. The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the
incident as it triggered off a commotion and panic among the passengers such that
the passengers started running to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in the
falling off the bus by passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal injuries. The
sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger in the bus is within the
context of force majeure. However, in order that a common carrier may be absolved
from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused
by force majeure. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in
causing the injuries resulting from such accident. In this case, Bachelor was
negligent.

Considering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals-the bus 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; and the bus was not properly equipped with doors in
accordance with law.

CESAR L. ISAAC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.,

INC., Defendant-Appellee.
[G.R. No. L-9671. August 23, 1957.]
Facts:
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, Camarines Sur. One of the buses which Ammen Transportation was operating is
Bus 31. On 31 May 1951, Cesar L. Isaac boarded said bus as a passenger paying
the required fare from Ligao, Albay bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before
reaching his destination, the bus collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type
coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which Isaacs left arm was
completely severed and the severed portion fell inside the bus. Isaac was rushed to a
hospital in Iriga, Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to save his
life. After 4 days, he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco, Albay, where he
underwent treatment for 3 months. He was moved later to the Orthopedic Hospital
where he was operated on and stayed there for another 2 months. For these
services, he incurred expenses amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which
were paid by Ammen Transporation.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendants for damages alleging that the
collision which resulted in the loss of his left arm was mainly due to the gross
incompetence and recklessness of the driver of the bus operated by defendant.
Defendant set up as 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 the bus driven by its driver and to the contributory negligence of plaintiff himself.
Defendant further claims that the accident which resulted in the injury of plaintiff is
one which defendant could not foresee or, though foreseen, was inevitable. The court
dismissed the complaint.
Issue:
Whether the defendant observed extraordinary diligence or the utmost
diligence of every cautious person, having due regard for all circumstances, in
avoiding the collision which resulted in the injury caused to the plaintiff?
Held:
Yes. principles governing the liability of a common carrier: 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 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; 4) the carrier is not an
insurer against all risks of travel.
Where a carrier's employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that
he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into
account, and he is held to the some degree of care that he would otherwise be
required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must exercise only such
care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and

conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgment the case renders
possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part.
Herein, when Isaac boarded the bus in question, he seated himself on the left
side thereof resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the
window, this being his position in the bus when the collision took place. It is for this
reason that the collision resulted in the severance of said left arm from the body of
appellant thus doing him a great damage. Had he not placed his left arm on the
window sill with a portion thereof protruding outside, perhaps the injury would have
been avoided as is the case with the other passengers. It is to be noted that Isaac
was the only victim of the collision. It is apparent that Isaac is guilty of contributory
negligence
Considering all the circumstances, we are persuaded to conclude that the
driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the
collision
It is true that Isaac's contributory negligence cannot relieve A.L. Ammen of its
liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article
1762, new Civil Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the
position taken by Isaac